Game: Senator

Thread: Manipulating the senate to preserve what's mine.

daw65 — 2008-04-20T18:50:09+00:00

Once we finished Factory Fun we thought maybe no one else was coming. Jim went to his game cabinet, and brought out Senator.

Senator is a card game, with players using their cards to bid on agenda tokens. The bids go around the table until everyone but one passes, at which point the last player in pays his cards and takes the agenda, or until someone plays an assassin card, which kills all the cards used in the round and the agenda as well. Agendas are vulnerable to other agendas unless and until a player winds a consul by auction, which allows the player to move their won agendas to safety. I'll refer you to the reviews of this game for more thorough rules explanations.

Alice started quickly, winning a bid for a Taxes agenda, and then quickly choosing a consul to move it to safety. She next chose an Imperial agenda, which when won is immediately safe, but after everyone bid something on it, she assassinated it. She then promptly chose another Imperial agenda, and bid five for it, but after Dave and Jim both passed, Carrie assassinated that one, leaving Alice pretty much done for the rest of the round. Carrie then chose a Commerce agenda, and Dave and Jim, who had been both sitting quietly for most of the round, began a bidding war that Jim eventually won for 10. But that left Dave with a lot of cards and not much resistance, and he earned himself two agendas before the round ended, including a Taxes agenda, complete with the Veto. Actually, he won three, but had to give the last one to someone else, since it would have ended up destroying the ones he already had. He ended up giving it to Alice.

In the second around Hannibal was the global effect, which meant that all bids were spent, whether winning or losing the auction. As a result, the bids were pretty sparse. Jim was active early, taking a Public Works agenda for just 3. He then tried to get a consul, and Dave bid for it as well, but then Alice assassinated it. Jim did eventually get a third agenda, but at that point the carnage began. The only agendas left were damaging for everyone. Dave had his Veto, but the others were all vulnerable. Alice won an agenda and gave it to Jim, destroying two of Jim's three already won. Carrie, in turn, won an agenda and gave it to Alice, destroying the one that Dave had given her the previous round.

By the end of the second round, Dave had a lead, with four agendas (all unsafe), to Carrie's two, with Jim and Alice with one apiece. So the third round should have targetted Dave. Dave began by putting forward agendas that wouldn't harm his currently owned agendas. Also, they were War agendas, which, when won, would destroy one other agenda not yet voted on. He then put up a Public Works agenda, and bid all ten of his number cards for it, to keep it from anyone else. The next agenda he assassinated. That left one last agenda, which Dave couldn't win, but it wasn't enough for anyone else to win, and Dave's Veto would keep anyone else from nuking any of his currently held agendas. It was over, and Dave came away with the victory.

I'm not sure how or why what happened in that last round was allowed to happen, but I suddenly found myself with a nice plan to save my work It was a matter of getting rid of as many agendas as possible (so no one could surpass my four) and getting rid of the dangerous ones (so no one could nuke my four). When Carrie and Alice passed, I was able to make it happen. Whew!

Image

Capoeirista — 2008-02-22T09:03:54+00:00

Misprinted advert from inside Through The Desert box, FFG edition. Senator is not a "battle of monstrous combatants".

Image

fabricefab — 2008-01-28T17:43:57+00:00

Senator in the box

Thread: Re: User Review

Peter Pariseau — 2007-11-23T22:07:05+00:00

gschloesser wrote:
BeyondMonopoly (#73840),

Hmmm ... three reviews of Senator on the Geek, and all are positive. Maybe it is just me (and my group), but we were all very disappointed with the game. I'll use the same reply I used for the other reviews:

I'll use my same reply as I did for another review of Senator:

Our group's experience with Senator was significantly different than yours. In fact, it was poor ... VERY poor. Players simply did not have enough cards to compete in the auctions. As you mentioned, every player is armed with an assassin, which, when played, ends the current auction and forces ALL cards played to that auction to be discarded. This means that up to five times in each round, an auction can be killed, usually resulting in the loss of numerous cards. Since each player only has a very small amount of cards to begin with, the effects of the assassin are often catastrophic.

Further, the special event cards skewered the game further. Being forced to play two cards to begin an auction, or being forced to ONLY play two cards, were severe hindrances on the employment of strategy and really hurt the game play.

These factors combined to have the effect of too few meaningful auctions and options. We were all VERY disappointed with the game, and I cannot recommend it.

Does this complaint really need to be posted after Every - Single - Favorable - Review? Why not just submit it as your own review of the game?

Image

Daddys_Home — 2007-10-13T06:40:50+00:00

Unpunched agenda tokens (no desired Imperial agendas)

Image

Daddys_Home — 2007-10-13T06:29:08+00:00

Unpunched scroll markers and veto token

Image

Daddys_Home — 2007-10-13T06:25:25+00:00

Unpunched agenda tokens and 2 consul tokens

Thread: A contentious senate

daw65 — 2007-09-30T06:26:47+00:00

Once Jim and Helen finished their game of Carcassonne: The Castle, Helen and I were able to join them for a game. Jim had just recently gotten a new game, so he went to his game cabinet, and pulled out Senator.

In the first round the assassin came out quickly, as Alice played hers to kill the agenda. She then followed that by nominating, and winning, an Imperial agenda, whose special power is that it is immediately safe (no consul staff needed). Since it was a valuable token, she chose to put a second one up for bid, but Helen decided to assassinate that. Jim next put a War agenda up, and eventually Dave assassinated that. Jim earned a Taxes agenda, and Dave won a War agenda, nuking the remaining 1s in players' hands. One last agenda was put up for bid, but only Helen and Jim had cards left. Helen bid her last card, and Jim assassinated it, which ended the round.

Second round began with Dave earning a Trade agenda, which allowed him to claim a second agenda. He ended up giving the trade agenda to Helen, because it opposed his War agenda, but the second one he claimed was an Imperial agenda, which he immediately moved to safety. He nominated a Taxes agenda, and Alice and Jim went to battle over it. Alice spent 7 in cards, and Jim 8, before it was assassinated. The assassination hurt both of them, taking lots of their cards. Dave also lost a couple, giving Helen a little freedom to pursue agendas with little competition. She earned two Rebellion agendas, in both cases discarding Trade agendas in the process. The last agenda of the round was again assassinated. After her big round, Helen had the lead at this point, with three agendas (though none safe), while Dave had two (one safe), Alice one (safe), and Jim one (unsafe).

The assassins were active in the third and final round. A War agenda was advanced first, but after Helen and Jim both committed some cards, Helen assassinated the vote. Next up was a Taxes agenda, which Jim hoped to win because he thought it was the least valuable one on the docket at the time. Alice had other plans, though, and a massive bidding war between the two began, which ultimately ended when Alice assassinated the vote. By this point, Alice and Jim were both out of cards. Alice then put up a War agenda for bid. Helen didn't want to get it, because it would wipe out all of her tiles since it opposed all of them. So she was forced to pay all of her cards, and she still wasn't able to win, because Dave had enough still to cover her bid. He won it, and gave the agenda to Helen, which wiped out her score. At this point, Dave was the only one left with bidding cards left. He was able to pull in four additional agendas: Public Works (which let him take back a card he had already played), Public Works (again), Consul staff (to protect those he had already claimed), and then Trade (which let him claim an additional Imperial agenda. The round ended, and the game ended, and when we tallied up the scores, Dave finished with a commanding victory, with 6 agendas to Alice's 2, Jim's 1, and Helen's 0.

Well, that was an interesting game. Obviously the assassins are very powerful cards, though they do come with a price, since usually you're losing some cards as well in the process. It really seemed like the best tactic was to lay low as much as possible, because it was pretty easy to mess with another player (just ask Helen), and your likelihood of getting an agenda token improved as your opponents' hand of cards grew smaller.

After doing a little reading, though, I've found a rule we misplayed during the game. The War agenda's special power allows its buyer to declare a card value, and each other play discards one card of that value, not all cards of that value. That'll limit its strength some, though it remains a powerful tile. I do think it ended up being used incorrectly at least once in the game, though I don't recall its exact impact on the game.

Image

ArtEmiSa64 — 2007-08-05T20:35:06+00:00

Promotional Card included in Citadels

Thread: Re: User Review

LordBobbio — 2007-03-15T06:04:00+00:00

TomVasel wrote:
I look forward to each Silver Line release from Fantasy Flight, regardless of theme. Yet some themes get me more interested than others, and Senator (Fantasy Flight Games, 2004 - Eric Lang) had me intrigued. The Roman Senate fascinates me, and I hoped for some thematic play when trying the game out. The pieces looked good, and the rules, when I first read them, seemed bloodthirsty and thematic.

Bloodthirsty seems too mild of a word for this game. Between blatant attacks on other players, assassin cards, and chaotic special cards - final scores are very low, and the game leaves one with an unsatisfied feeling. I wouldn’t mind all this backstabbing and aggressiveness so much, but the game seems to end before it really begins. The event cards themselves make the game less fun to play; and while we laughed a lot when we played, no one wanted to play it again.

Each player takes seven influence cards in their color (numbered 1,1,2,2,2,5, and assassin). Players keep the cards in their hand and place a large scroll marker in front of them. A pile of “agenda” tokens are shuffled, and a number of them are placed in the middle of the table (determined by number of players) - forming the agendas “on the docket”. Two consul tokens and a veto token are placed next to the docket, and a pile of event cards is shuffled and placed in the middle of the table. The first of three turns is ready to begin. One player is chosen to go first (the last to have seen a movie about ancient Rome, which always seems to be Gladiator, for some reason).

To start each turn, the top event card is turned over, causing some sort of event that will effect the round. The start player then chooses either an agenda or a consul token for “debate” (auction). The player then either plays one or more of their influence cards or “withdraws” from the debate (passes). When playing cards, players must either play a total number higher than the previous bid, or play an assassin card. If an assassin card is played, all influence cards played by ALL players are discarded, and the agenda is discarded (if the consul is up for grabs, then it is flipped over to show that it can no longer be voted on this round.) If no assassin is played, then the last player left in the debate, with all other players having withdrawn, is the winner. The winner places their influence cards behind their scroll (discarding them), while all other players get their cards back. The winner takes the agenda and places it either in front of their scroll marker or an opponent’s scroll marker. Before doing this, however, they have the option of using the scroll’s special power. Each scroll is one of six types, each with a special ability:
- War: This agenda allows the winning player to name a card number (or Assassin). All other players must discard one card of this type if possible.
- Trade: This agenda allows a player to pick one agenda from the docket and immediately claim it (except Imperial agendas).
- Taxes: This agenda allows the player to take the veto token from either the middle of the table or the player who currently has it. The player may use the veto token to refuse an agenda given to them by another player on future turns.
- Rebellion: This agenda allows a player to discard one of the current agendas on the docket or flip a consul to their “discarded” side.
- Public Works: This agenda allows a player to return a discarded number card to their hand.
- Imperial: This agenda is immediately placed BEHIND a player’s scroll.

Each agenda is “opposed” to two of the other agendas (the Imperial agenda is opposed to nothing). If a player gets two or more agendas that oppose each other (given to them by another player), they discard all of the opposing agendas. When a player wins a consul, they move all the agendas in front of their scroll to behind their scroll. These agendas are now “safe” and do not cause conflicts any longer.

Each event card causes a unique effect on the game turn: Either
- add three more agendas to the docket, or
- all players, even losers, discard played influence cards, or
- consuls cannot be bid on this round, or
- all Imperial agendas are discarded from the docket, or
- players cannot play more than two influence cards per debate, or
- players MUST play two cards for their initial bid in a debate.

After all the agendas in a docket are depleted, or all players have used their cards, the round ends. The docket is filled back up with agendas, and players get their cards back. The next round then begins, and three rounds are played, after which the game ends. The player with the most agendas (whether safe or not) is the winner - with ties broken by the player with the most Imperial agendas.

Some comments on the game...

1.) Components: The game has sterling components, as Fantasy Flight’s games just keep on getting better and better. The agendas are shaped like scrolls and have an icon on them showing what type they are, as well as two small icons to show the agendas they are opposed to. The artwork on the cards and box are very thematic, and the large scroll tokens, while not tremendously necessary, are overdone to the point where they are the game’s best feature. Everything fits very well into the typical Fantasy Flight generic insert in the small box, but the game just looks good.

2.) Rules: I will state that this game has some of the best rulebooks I’ve seen from Fantasy Flight, and maybe any company. The rulebook (five pages each in seven languages) was very clear and made the game very understandable. With pictures and an illustrated example, it was very easy to jump in and start playing. It’s fairly simple to teach and learn, and everyone I taught the game to understood it with ease.

3.) Assassins: The assassins are a neat concept, as players are always cautious about bidding their best cards. But in practice the game just becomes a bloody affair. Considering that each player will play their assassin on a different turn means that three to five of the auctions will end with many deaths. This means that players won’t win too many auctions, as they lose many of their cards. Assassins can be a painful blow, and there’s not much you can do to stop them (make idle threats, I guess); so while they are fun to play, they’re not so much fun to receive - especially as your cards will probably be assassinated six to twelve times a game.

4.) Dwindling auctions: Since assassins knock out one third of the auctions that means that the remaining auctions must be important. But considering that the trade and rebellion agendas basically remove two agendas each from the docket, the actual debates that are won are few indeed. Actually, I have yet to see a consul debate won by anyone. It’s so important to get your agendas to the “safe” zone and so important that no one else does, that an assassin is pretty much played every time.

5.) Imperial agendas: I thought that these agendas were so much more important than all the other agendas. Since they are always “safe”, don’t conflict with other agendas, and break ties, they are huge, hot commodities. Everyone wants one - and for good reason - in one game I played, Imperial agendas were the only ones to be scored by game’s end - all the others had been canceled out. It’s just too easy to hurt other people. If someone has won two or more agendas, it’s a given that someone - ANYONE - is going to give them the agenda that causes them to discard all their agendas. And there’s precious little the player can do to stop them, as their cards are extremely limited.

6.) “King making”: I’m not a big fan of “king making” in games, and Senator really promotes such a thing. Players often find themselves in this position by games end. Who should they give the agenda to that they’ve won on the last turn? Should they take it themselves, when they have no chance of winning? Or should they give it to another player - but who? Then the player they give it to complains that they’ve just thrown the game to the other player (which they have), and it just leaves a raw knot in my stomach.

7.) Event Cards: Even with the problems I’ve outlined above, I still would find the game slightly playable. But the event cards really tanked the game for me. Three of them made the game even more unfun (discarding all played cards, playing only two cards per debate, must play two cards per debate) - as they made an extremely tight bidding game even tighter. If I play the game again (and I might - I really like the theme!), I refuse to play with these cards, as all they do is bog the game down. If you get the game, I recommend discarding the event cards, they add nothing but a set of strict, annoying rules to the game.

8.) Fun Factor: Somehow, we managed to find fun in the game. Maybe it was just pathetic laughter, as we watched agenda after agenda go to the discard heap. Were there really THAT many assassins in ancient Rome? And did assassins wipe out the entire Senate!? But still, we managed to get in the mood when playing, and that helped the experience (which was rather quick) go even faster.

I can’t really recommend Senate, even to those who like bloodthirsty, “stab your neighbor in the back” type games. It just doesn’t have enough payoff. Hand management is so tight, and auctions occur too infrequently (too many have assassins end them), that a round is over before it gets started. When a final score is “2” to “1” to “1” to “0”, you know that the game hinges on too few decisions. Add in the event cards, and the game becomes a raving mess. I really, really, really have enjoyed recent Fantasy Flight offerings; they are great games with tremendous components and fabulous rules. This one simply has the good components.

Tom Vasel
“Real men play board games.”

Funny, Tom, that with recent events, I found a review by you were you are less than positive, and again, I agree with you! Over before it starts... kinda what Scarab Lords feels like to me.

Thread: Senator with the Debate Card Variant

mpetty31 — 2006-07-19T22:43:22+00:00

Kendra, Paul and I played this today in the food court at the mall.

I used to own this game and Paul and I played it a lot with our friend Russ. I didn't like how it came down to kingmaking every time we played, so I created the Debate Card Variant that I posted here at the 'Geek. Paul loved the game that way so much I gave him my copy. So, now I only get to play when I catch up with Paul.

The Debate Cards add uncertainty, which really amounts to some chaos. It's a wild, fun ride, though, in my opinion. If nothing else, it speeds the game up.

Paul took off with a strong lead of one completed agenda and one uncompleted agenda. Kendra and I each had one uncomplete agenda. Round one and two ended fairly quickly, but not so fast as to keep the Assassins in hand. In fact, with three players it's just too tempting to kill things when you're the third to bid!

The third round was a brainburner. We were cautiously choosing agendas each debate and there was a lot of tension. Due to one of the Debate Cards that we turned up, Paul decided his best play was to drop his whole hand down to get the agenda. It was a gamble because if the round didn't end in time, I could surpass him in points. (For those unfamiliar with the Debate Card Variant, the round can end when five hourglasses turn up on the Debate Cards.) Well, luckily for me all the double hourglasses had been removed from play in the first two rounds. Paul didn't pay that much attention. Things lasted just enough for me to nab a Trade agenda, take a safe point and still pass the Trade agenda over and wipe out his two uncompleted agendas. I won by a point.

Thread: Re: Victory Points Winning Condition

Insomne — 2006-06-11T08:52:52+00:00

Yesterday we had a very fun game of Senator. We played it to 6 Victory points instead of the 8 I suggested. The game ended in round 4. Playing to 6 victory points makes tha game run faster without loosing its tesion.

Image

Oersted — 2006-06-09T20:18:36+00:00

Caesar, help me!

Image

Oersted — 2006-06-09T19:14:04+00:00

Will that be enough to become emperor?

Thread: Re: Victory Points Winning Condition

LordBobbio — 2006-03-12T05:25:48+00:00

If I ever get anyone to play this with me again, I'll try this.

Image

Storm King Zero — 2006-03-03T03:50:29+00:00

Event Cards and Card back

Image

Storm King Zero — 2006-03-03T03:37:51+00:00

Brown Card Set (same all four colors)

Thread: Re: Debate Cards Variant

Insomne — 2006-01-16T08:53:48+00:00

I'll sure will give your variant a try it sounds very intresting.
Thanks.
My group also really likes the escence of Senator. The first two rounds are a lot of fun but the third one is very disapointing.

I have posted a new winning condition ,for us this has changed our view of the game and in my opinion has eliminated the king making problem. The player who gets 8 victory points wins the game ( Imediatly!!).
http://www.boardgamegeek.com/thread/72446

But I would also like to get some feed back on other players so if you have tried out my new winning condition please let me know if it worked for your group.

Thanks

Thread: Debate Cards Variant

mpetty31 — 2006-01-15T20:16:58+00:00

I uploaded the rules and graphic of the cards for the Debate Cards Variant. I figured I'd add a little in the way of explanation on the cards.

My friends and I tried hard to enjoy this game. We usually had a lot of fun with it 2/3 of the game. At the end, it always turned into a kingmaker situation. Since all information is open, this is not surprising. So, the first motivation for this deck of cards was to provide an uncertain ending.

Along with that, I also added a number of cards that alter the rules in different ways. Now, before each debate, the top Debate card is revealed and it changes the rules for that debate only.

We've enjoyed the game a lot more since we've been using these. I'm putting them here to see if anyone else enjoys them or if they have more interesting suggestions for cards. At the very least, I hope the variant gives some players an excuse to get a few more plays out of a game they purchased but have given up on.

-Mike Petty

Thread: Re: Fixing "Senator"

mpetty31 — 2006-01-01T18:14:08+00:00

I have one group of friends who really wanted to like this game and we tried it a lot over the past year. As far as I can see, this game has problems because all information is open. Once everyone had learned the rules, every time we played we liked the game for the first two rounds, then the third round turned sour.

With all information open, it's too easy to see what you have to do to not let the leading player win. You make the best move you can to stop the leader, then the next player does, and so on. Eventually there's a point where it's clear a particular player will not be able to win. It turns into kingmaking every time. This is typical for a multiplayer game with open information.

Last summer I tried to fix this by adding a little uncertainty. I made up a set of about 20 debate cards. Like events that affect a whole round, these cards are revealed for each debate, changing the rules in some way. For example, "Guards" restricts the play of assassins for a round and "Unexpected Events" changes the current event card. To directly address the kingmaking issue, several cards have one or two hour glasses on them. In addition to the conditions in the rules for ending the rounds, when five hour glasses come up, the round ends.

Players who want to control every aspect will say all I've done is add chaos, so I can't say I've improved the game in a way everyone will enjoy. Now, instead of a losing player determining who will win, the third round almost always ends due to an hour glass being revealed. The second place player groans, but I personally prefer playing the odds of an uexpected ending over having to keep playing when I know I can't win. In our group, I can definitely say these cards have increased how much fun we have with the game.

I planned on uploading these cards here, but I still see it as a work in progress and I'm not 100% happy with a couple of them. I also just gave my copy of the game away to a friend who loved playing, so this will seriously slow me up on testing out the latest version. If anyone's interested in trying them out, just write me and I'll gladly send you the graphic.

-Mike

Thread: Re: Fixing "Senator"

Insomne — 2006-01-01T13:43:07+00:00

I like the game alot, but for me the problem lies with the victory condition. (Ending the game on the end of the third round gives) In most of the games i've played the winner was desided by the action or non action of a loosing player.

I have fixed this problem by changing the victory condition. It is a very simple change and it eliminates the King Making Problem. The politics, negotiations, and backstabbing rally get a new meaning with this change.

THE FIRST PLAYER TO GET 8 VICTORY POINTS AT THE END OF HIS OR ANYONES ELSES TURN WINS THE GAME.

Incomplete agendas= 1 point
Completed Agendas= 2 points

Imperial agendas are used in case of a tie.

With this variant the game can go beyond the third round but in my experience no more the 5 rounds are played.

In the games i've played using this rule, the players tend to make aliances against the wining player. So the negotiation and deals to be able to keep yourself at the front are very important. When somebody gets to many agendas the others work together to eliminate his agendas. And usally giving an advantage to the player with less agendas. This way the game tends to be very balanced until the end with all the players having a good oportunity to win.
For me it has changed my opinion of the game and it eliminates the King Making Problem.
The player wins because of his own effort and strategy and not because sombody elses actions.

I hope you enjoy this idea and it puts Senator again on your table.

Thread: Re: Victory Points Winning Condition

Insomne — 2006-01-01T12:55:58+00:00

I have been testing the victory condition for the game and this is what has worked the best. In my opinion it eliminates the King making Problem quite nicely and gives the game a new directión.

WINNING CONDITION:
First Player to get 8 Victory points wins after he finishes his turn or another players turn.

Incomplete agendas= 1 point
Completed Agendas= 2 points

Imperial agendas are used in case of a tie.

Using this rule you will play 4 or up to 5 rounds but not more.

Please try this simple rule out it really gives the game a new perspective.

Thread: Re: Fixing "Senator"

mads b. — 2005-10-03T08:31:21+00:00

Thank you for the link. Concerning the event cards I think it's specifically the two mentioned because they will lead to fewer completed agendas and thus to a more even score and more kingmaking.

mads

Thread: Re: Fixing "Senator"

kuhrusty — 2005-10-03T08:26:51+00:00

mads b. wrote:
I've tried this game three times and the last time we played without the event cards.

Huh, I liked the event cards, because they really changed the way you needed to play each round. (And we had a good laugh in our second game when one guy really needed to complete his agendas, and Imperator came up. "What does that mean?" "Let's see... hey, that means Brad just got boned!" Ha, ha, ha.)

mads b. wrote:
If nobody bids, then what? Is the agenda discarded? Does the last in the row win it? And if you play with event cards and have to play at least two, does your turn end when you have only one card left?

http://www.boardgamegeek.com/thread/35241

Thread: Re: Fixing "Senator"

mads b. — 2005-10-03T07:46:28+00:00

I've tried this game three times and the last time we played without the event cards. I think they tend to spoil the debate a bit, especially Hannibal (everybody discard their influence, not just the winner) and the one that says "play at least two cards the first time".

Furthermore I think there are several unsolved questions in the game. If nobody bids, then what? Is the agenda discarded? Does the last in the row win it? And if you play with event cards and have to play at least two, does your turn end when you have only one card left?

mads

Thread: Re: Fixing "Senator"

kentreuber — 2005-10-02T15:54:48+00:00

No, we didn't have a lot of deal making. Part of the problem may have been that we drew the event cards "no consuls" and "no imperials" in both games, which meant that there were fewer opportunities to complete agendas. In both games, only one player was able to complete agendas.

Thread: Re: Fixing "Senator"

kuhrusty — 2005-10-01T23:20:23+00:00

Well, I've only played Senator a couple of times (3-player), but I liked it, I want to play again, and it didn't seem broken to me. (Of course, I could change my mind with more plays, or with different players; also, my definition of "broken" may not match yours. At the end of our first game, one player was in the position of having to choose which of the other two players won, but we'd had a lot of fun getting to that point, and it was clear who'd done well and who hadn't, so that didn't really bother us.)

The main reason I don't think the Assassin is too powerful is that you only have one, and as soon as you actually use it, you're no longer able to threaten to use it. Another reason is the War agenda: if you win that, and make everyone else discard their Assassins, then you're the only one who has one, which is a pretty good position. But if someone else is going to win it, you don't want to use your Assassin to stop them, because that means you don't have yours, and everyone else has theirs, which just has the effect of helping the guys who got to keep their Assassins.

As far as why your group didn't enjoy the game: when you played, did you tend to have a lot of deal-making & teaming up to knock someone else down? We did, and that may have been what made the game fun. (Like, "I won't bid on this if you award the agenda to him" or "if you don't bid on this, I'll choose that agenda next," etc.)

(But again, that's only based on two plays, a few months apart, with people I really enjoy gaming with. I found the game really clever, and "hard," and was able to identify specific mistakes I'd made which caused me to lose, ha ha.)

Thread: Fixing "Senator"

kentreuber — 2005-10-01T14:07:13+00:00

It seems to me that Senator is in need of some tweeking. In my opinion, the crux of the problem is the Assassin card. It seems all to easy to spoil things and be a "kingmaker". Does anyone have any ideas on fixing things? My feeling is that there's a good game in there somewhere, but right now, my group isn't interested in playing it anymore.

1) First, does anyone have a different opinion on the problem?

2) Has anyone tried Senator without the Assassin cards?

3) Is there a way to limit the Assassin cards? One thing that I was considering was that Assassins cards don't end the debate, but rather just cause all players to discard the last influence card they played. The debate would continue, and the player with the highest influence total remaining is considered the value to beat. Other ideas are the Assassin card killing off each player's highest or second highest influence card.

Any other suggestions?

Thread: First time playing

Mosse — 2005-09-22T12:38:37+00:00

Senator Session Report

My kid brother Jens had purchased this game, and played it with his friends a few times. He described it as back-stabbing and blood-thirsty. What more can you wish for? So this evening he came over with good friend Johan, and he brought his copy of Senators.

He explained the rules to us (a talent he just isn't very good at) and although neither Johan nor me were in complete understanding, we set off for a trial game. We bargained for agendas, and assassinated each other one by one. After the game, which ended about 2-1-0 or so, we discussed our impressions. Nice idea, but somehow it just didn't work.

I asked to see the rules... We had played wrong. I read through the rulebook, and explained how we had played wrong, and how we should have played, and after a quick break we set up for a new game.

It all started to make more sense playing correctly. The decisions had more weight and the game was more enjoyable. It simply worked. After three rounds (didn't last more than say, twenty minutes?) we tallied the score. Jens and I were tied with 3 agendas (Jens scoring the third as the last debate of the game) and Johan was left out of the victory dance with two.

Verdict:
I like the game. Or, I'd like to like the game. But somehow there's not enough happening. The first though that occured to me after the games was that the assassin-cards are way too powerful. Or too many. How about "an assassin can only be played once per round"? Just as an idea... That would make you concider a bit more about when to use it... Might work... Might not... But as it is now, I think too many agendas (and with them too many cards) are thrown away...

Rating: 6 (...will play sporadically...)

Thread: Re: Senator, you have the floor

kuhrusty — 2005-08-29T05:29:40+00:00

angelotti wrote:
Mike also insisted on a no-table-talk rule

Weird! I've only played this on a couple of occasions, but both times I felt that table talk & deal-making was a big part of the game. ("I'll pass if you award that to him," etc.)

angelotti wrote:
In the end I fear there was a bit of a king maker problem as I was actively pushing the game around without hopes of winning. Not that that alone was a problem, because it was fun and I think within the spirit of the game.

Yeah, that's happened to me too, but the game is short enough, and it was enough fun getting to that point, that it didn't really bother me much.

Thread: Senator, you have the floor

angelotti — 2005-08-28T17:09:25+00:00

My third game of the day at ROBA.

Mike and Russ, friends of mine through the game design thing, pulled me and two other gentlemen into a game of Senator. We had a quick rules explanation and we were all off to a start. Only Mike and Russ had played it before, but reportedly without actually following the rules correctly. This time, they vowed, they would actually follow the rules. Mike also insisted on a no-table-talk rule, one that was immediately broken by him in the second turn.

It took me a couple of turns to get the hang of the game. It has a bidding feel of High Society, one of my other well liked games, so I quickly picked it up. I was able to get an agenda relatively quickly on the first round but didn’t move it behind my scroll until the second round. In the second round, I picked up an imperial giving me a poor 2 safe points. By this time, Russ had 3 and the other fellas were all tied or further back. This sort of made Russ a target. I think I set him up a couple of times forcing him to have to bid and win, only to give the point away to someone else (hehehe).

The third round I did better managing my influence, but not well enough. I still lost most of the bidding and didn’t manage to acquire any more agendas.

Overall, I enjoyed the game. I felt the politics going, as there were a lot to decide on and often whether to help yourself or mess with your opponent. In the end I fear there was a bit of a king maker problem as I was actively pushing the game around without hopes of winning. Not that that alone was a problem, because it was fun and I think within the spirit of the game.

Thread: Victory Points Winning Condition

Insomne — 2005-07-20T13:49:01+00:00

I like Sanator very much but I think it is very frustrating that at the end of the game most of the times the fate of the winner is at the hand of a player who doesn’t have a chance to win. Or the fact that in the third round you can predict very easily who is going to win. So I suggest the following variant.
The winner of the game is the player or players that at the end of any turn have 8 victory points.
Incomplete agendas= 1 point
Completed Agendas= 2 points
Imperial Agendas = 3 points

The game ends the moment the victory condition is met and not on the third round.

You can play with the number of victory points to make the game longer or shorter if you like.

Please let me know how this variant works for you and if it makes the game more enjoyable

Jorge

Thread: User Review

TomVasel — 2005-04-12T12:25:20+00:00

I look forward to each Silver Line release from Fantasy Flight, regardless of theme. Yet some themes get me more interested than others, and Senator (Fantasy Flight Games, 2004 - Eric Lang) had me intrigued. The Roman Senate fascinates me, and I hoped for some thematic play when trying the game out. The pieces looked good, and the rules, when I first read them, seemed bloodthirsty and thematic.

Bloodthirsty seems too mild of a word for this game. Between blatant attacks on other players, assassin cards, and chaotic special cards - final scores are very low, and the game leaves one with an unsatisfied feeling. I wouldn’t mind all this backstabbing and aggressiveness so much, but the game seems to end before it really begins. The event cards themselves make the game less fun to play; and while we laughed a lot when we played, no one wanted to play it again.

Each player takes seven influence cards in their color (numbered 1,1,2,2,2,5, and assassin). Players keep the cards in their hand and place a large scroll marker in front of them. A pile of “agenda” tokens are shuffled, and a number of them are placed in the middle of the table (determined by number of players) - forming the agendas “on the docket”. Two consul tokens and a veto token are placed next to the docket, and a pile of event cards is shuffled and placed in the middle of the table. The first of three turns is ready to begin. One player is chosen to go first (the last to have seen a movie about ancient Rome, which always seems to be Gladiator, for some reason).

To start each turn, the top event card is turned over, causing some sort of event that will effect the round. The start player then chooses either an agenda or a consul token for “debate” (auction). The player then either plays one or more of their influence cards or “withdraws” from the debate (passes). When playing cards, players must either play a total number higher than the previous bid, or play an assassin card. If an assassin card is played, all influence cards played by ALL players are discarded, and the agenda is discarded (if the consul is up for grabs, then it is flipped over to show that it can no longer be voted on this round.) If no assassin is played, then the last player left in the debate, with all other players having withdrawn, is the winner. The winner places their influence cards behind their scroll (discarding them), while all other players get their cards back. The winner takes the agenda and places it either in front of their scroll marker or an opponent’s scroll marker. Before doing this, however, they have the option of using the scroll’s special power. Each scroll is one of six types, each with a special ability:
- War: This agenda allows the winning player to name a card number (or Assassin). All other players must discard one card of this type if possible.
- Trade: This agenda allows a player to pick one agenda from the docket and immediately claim it (except Imperial agendas).
- Taxes: This agenda allows the player to take the veto token from either the middle of the table or the player who currently has it. The player may use the veto token to refuse an agenda given to them by another player on future turns.
- Rebellion: This agenda allows a player to discard one of the current agendas on the docket or flip a consul to their “discarded” side.
- Public Works: This agenda allows a player to return a discarded number card to their hand.
- Imperial: This agenda is immediately placed BEHIND a player’s scroll.

Each agenda is “opposed” to two of the other agendas (the Imperial agenda is opposed to nothing). If a player gets two or more agendas that oppose each other (given to them by another player), they discard all of the opposing agendas. When a player wins a consul, they move all the agendas in front of their scroll to behind their scroll. These agendas are now “safe” and do not cause conflicts any longer.

Each event card causes a unique effect on the game turn: Either
- add three more agendas to the docket, or
- all players, even losers, discard played influence cards, or
- consuls cannot be bid on this round, or
- all Imperial agendas are discarded from the docket, or
- players cannot play more than two influence cards per debate, or
- players MUST play two cards for their initial bid in a debate.

After all the agendas in a docket are depleted, or all players have used their cards, the round ends. The docket is filled back up with agendas, and players get their cards back. The next round then begins, and three rounds are played, after which the game ends. The player with the most agendas (whether safe or not) is the winner - with ties broken by the player with the most Imperial agendas.

Some comments on the game...

1.) Components: The game has sterling components, as Fantasy Flight’s games just keep on getting better and better. The agendas are shaped like scrolls and have an icon on them showing what type they are, as well as two small icons to show the agendas they are opposed to. The artwork on the cards and box are very thematic, and the large scroll tokens, while not tremendously necessary, are overdone to the point where they are the game’s best feature. Everything fits very well into the typical Fantasy Flight generic insert in the small box, but the game just looks good.

2.) Rules: I will state that this game has some of the best rulebooks I’ve seen from Fantasy Flight, and maybe any company. The rulebook (five pages each in seven languages) was very clear and made the game very understandable. With pictures and an illustrated example, it was very easy to jump in and start playing. It’s fairly simple to teach and learn, and everyone I taught the game to understood it with ease.

3.) Assassins: The assassins are a neat concept, as players are always cautious about bidding their best cards. But in practice the game just becomes a bloody affair. Considering that each player will play their assassin on a different turn means that three to five of the auctions will end with many deaths. This means that players won’t win too many auctions, as they lose many of their cards. Assassins can be a painful blow, and there’s not much you can do to stop them (make idle threats, I guess); so while they are fun to play, they’re not so much fun to receive - especially as your cards will probably be assassinated six to twelve times a game.

4.) Dwindling auctions: Since assassins knock out one third of the auctions that means that the remaining auctions must be important. But considering that the trade and rebellion agendas basically remove two agendas each from the docket, the actual debates that are won are few indeed. Actually, I have yet to see a consul debate won by anyone. It’s so important to get your agendas to the “safe” zone and so important that no one else does, that an assassin is pretty much played every time.

5.) Imperial agendas: I thought that these agendas were so much more important than all the other agendas. Since they are always “safe”, don’t conflict with other agendas, and break ties, they are huge, hot commodities. Everyone wants one - and for good reason - in one game I played, Imperial agendas were the only ones to be scored by game’s end - all the others had been canceled out. It’s just too easy to hurt other people. If someone has won two or more agendas, it’s a given that someone - ANYONE - is going to give them the agenda that causes them to discard all their agendas. And there’s precious little the player can do to stop them, as their cards are extremely limited.

6.) “King making”: I’m not a big fan of “king making” in games, and Senator really promotes such a thing. Players often find themselves in this position by games end. Who should they give the agenda to that they’ve won on the last turn? Should they take it themselves, when they have no chance of winning? Or should they give it to another player - but who? Then the player they give it to complains that they’ve just thrown the game to the other player (which they have), and it just leaves a raw knot in my stomach.

7.) Event Cards: Even with the problems I’ve outlined above, I still would find the game slightly playable. But the event cards really tanked the game for me. Three of them made the game even more unfun (discarding all played cards, playing only two cards per debate, must play two cards per debate) - as they made an extremely tight bidding game even tighter. If I play the game again (and I might - I really like the theme!), I refuse to play with these cards, as all they do is bog the game down. If you get the game, I recommend discarding the event cards, they add nothing but a set of strict, annoying rules to the game.

8.) Fun Factor: Somehow, we managed to find fun in the game. Maybe it was just pathetic laughter, as we watched agenda after agenda go to the discard heap. Were there really THAT many assassins in ancient Rome? And did assassins wipe out the entire Senate!? But still, we managed to get in the mood when playing, and that helped the experience (which was rather quick) go even faster.

I can’t really recommend Senate, even to those who like bloodthirsty, “stab your neighbor in the back” type games. It just doesn’t have enough payoff. Hand management is so tight, and auctions occur too infrequently (too many have assassins end them), that a round is over before it gets started. When a final score is “2” to “1” to “1” to “0”, you know that the game hinges on too few decisions. Add in the event cards, and the game becomes a raving mess. I really, really, really have enjoyed recent Fantasy Flight offerings; they are great games with tremendous components and fabulous rules. This one simply has the good components.

Tom Vasel
“Real men play board games.”

Thread: Re:Early Impression

SwedeLad — 2005-02-17T23:40:38+00:00

gschloesser (#83712),
Excellent review. I also highly anticipated this game when I first read about it several months ago. I have not bought it or played it yet, and it has now lost its place in my list of gaming must-haves due to such negative reviews. Just too many other more deserving games to play.

Thread: Re:Rule clarification - Players unable / unwilling to bid

sdiberar — 2005-02-08T02:31:36+00:00

TeeWee (#83539),

You have the key to resolving your questions, right there in your second paragraph: The last player remaining in a debate wins the agenda. The winning player does not have to have played any Influence cards, and indeed may not even hold any in hand. By a strict reading of the rules, players who do not bid (by choice, or due to insufficient Influence cards) are merely forced to withdraw from a debate when it is their turn. It seems a little strange, but it does resolve all your questions.

Just for completeness' sake, you would resolve all the remaining agendas as if no one bids (which is in fact the case). In other words, the player to the right of the person who selects the agenda will win it (since each other player cannot bid and must withdraw before them.) Then that player selects an agenda, and his right neighbor wins it. And so on and so far ad nauseum...

Thread: Re:Early Impression

Game Geek — 2005-02-08T02:18:51+00:00

gschloesser (#83712),
Great review Greg but the designer is Eric Lang. You probably just mixed up Kevin Wilson and Eric Lang. If those guys ever did team up on a game it would be pretty cool.

The event card is my favorite element in Senator and wish they added even more variety. Without their added "spice" the game would be rather boring and monotonous IMO.

To each his own I guess.

Thread: Early Impression & Overview

gschloesser — 2005-02-07T21:49:59+00:00

I’ve been rather satisfied with the Fantasy Flight line of small box games. Cave Troll, Kingdoms, King’s Gate and Drakon are all games I enjoy. When I heard news of Senator, I was immediately intrigued. Billed as “A game of politics and corruption in ancient Rome”, the game tweaked many of my “hot” buttons. I had visions of intense negotiations over various agendas and perils facing Rome, where skillful deal-making, maneuvering, and even back-stabbing would prevail. Boy, was I wrong.

Senator, by Kevin Lang, is really a bidding game, with players placing cards in attempts to win agenda tokens. The card play is similar to that found in many games, including Reiner Knizia’s High Society. Sadly, the presence of assassins and event cards, coupled with the fact that players simply have too few cards, translate into a game that is sorely lacking in strategic options and fun.

Each player receives an identical deck of 7 cards with values of 1, 2 and 5, and including one assassin card. 30 agenda tokens are mixed, and from 7 – 11, depending upon the number of players, are placed “on the docket” and up for auction each round. In addition, two ‘Consul” tokens may be available. Finally, one of the six event cards, which will modify the voting procedures or other aspects of the ensuing round, is revealed each round.

After moving the appropriate number of agendas to the docket, the game enters the misnamed “Debate” phase. I say “misnamed” since there really isn’t any debate that occurs. Rather, this is where players bid cards for the right to gain control of an agenda.
The active player selects one of the agendas and then plays one or more cards in an attempt to win the auction. Each player then has the opportunity to play cards with a sufficient total to exceed the highest bid or pass. Ultimately, the player who plays the highest total value of cards wins the agenda, which is placed in front of his scroll marker.
The winner discards his cards, while the remaining players retrieve their cards for subsequent auctions.

An auction can also be abruptly terminated by the playing of an assassin card. This forces all players to discard their played cards, which can be devastating. Since each player only possesses seven cards, the unexpected loss of even one or two cards can severely limit a player’s options on further auctions. Since each player possesses an assassin card, there is a strong possibility that numerous auctions will be suddenly terminated each round. The accumulated number of cards lost in this manner will likely be significant. The end effect is that a player truly only can compete in a few auctions per round, which is unsatisfying.

When an agenda is won, the player may either keep it or give it to an opponent. Why give it away after a hard-fought auction? Well, each agenda has a special power that can be utilized by its winner. These powers include retrieving a previously played card, acquiring a second agenda, forcing opponents to discard cards, etc. So why not keep them all, since ultimately the player with the most completed agendas will win the game? You see, there’s another twist. Each agenda has two other agenda types that oppose it. If a player possesses an agenda and later acquires another agenda which opposes it, he must discard BOTH of those agendas. Talk about brutal! Thus, a player may wish to win an agenda at an auction and give it to an opponent, forcing that player to lose one or more of his previously acquired agendas. Nasty, but a clever mechanism as it keeps all players interested in most auctions. Players will be keen to win auction even for agendas that would harm them, so as to avoid having that agenda forced upon them.

I need to add an addendum to the above process. As mentioned, when a player acquires an agenda, it goes IN FRONT of his scroll marker. In this position, it is still vulnerable in the manner described above. An agenda can only be made safe and placed BEHIND one’s scroll marker by the acquisition of a “consul” token, which is put up for auction just like an agenda, or by winning an “imperial” agenda, which is automatically completed and safe. This makes the “debates” for an Imperial agenda, and especially a Consul, heated and VERY susceptible to the play of an assassin card.

A round ends when all players have either sued all of their cards, or there are no further agendas remaining in the docket. Players retrieve their spent cards, and the docket is re-filled for the second and final round. The game ends at the completion of the second round, at which point the player with the most agendas, completed and incomplete, is victorious. The tie-breaker goes in favor of the player with the most imperial agendas.

The game SOUNDS good. From reading the rules, I felt the auctions would be tense, and the decisions as to which auctions in which to compete and which cards to play to be tough. A bit of my anticipation was fulfilled, as these were important decisions. However, for the most part, the anticipation yielded much disappointment. There were numerous reasons:

1) Too few cards. As mentioned, players begin each round with only seven cards. It will generally take 2 or more cards to win one auction. In a perfect world, that means a player could, at most, win 2 or 3 auctions. That would be a perfect world without assassins.

2) Assassins. I’ve already outlined the perils of these dastardly cards. Their mere presence causes players to hesitate committing many cards to auctions, which truthfully bogs-down the game. The ability to cause an entire hand of cards to be discarded is devastating and has a traumatic effect on the game.

3) Event cards. These can have a greater ‘skewer’ effect than a kebob. The intent is obviously to add variety to the auctions, but the result is far-too-often distasteful. A few examples:

a. Hannibal: This causes the cards of ALL players to be discarded after an auction. Talk about inhibiting the bidding for that round!
b. Ludi Gladiatorum: Players can only play 2 cards per debate. Again, this ultimate effect is to severely limit the choices a player has during each auction.

The sad truth is that the event cards reduce the options a player has during a round, and actually hindered my enjoyment of the game. My advice: get rid of ‘em.

For a game that sounded so promising, Senator failed spectacularly. It was truly disappointing. My intent is to try it again, but with SO many other games begging for table-time, I just don’t know if I’ll ever get back to it. Sadly, this one quickly went to the bottom of the Fantasy Flight small-box line of games.

Thread: Session Report

Norbert Chan — 2005-02-07T14:30:47+00:00

Players: Trevor Brooks, Don Smith, Jean Jodoin and Norbert

The First Orgy:

Up for bid were 4 swords, 2 taxes, 1 public works, 1 rebellion, 1 trade. The random bugger event card was that the two consul tokens were not available for bid. Jean won the first tax for 6, Trevor won the trade agenda for 5 and took the extra public works. Don won the second tax (and veto) for 2. Knowing that our 5's were vulnerable, Don and I bid them for the next agenda, but Trevor used his assassin card to wipe those cards out. I used an assassin to kill a 2 of Trevor's and a 4 of Don's. Don then used his assassin, Jean paid 2 for a sword and Jean used his assassin to close out the bidding. Entering the second great period of Rome, Jean and Trevor had 2 agendas in front of them, Don had one and I had none.

The second coming of Julius Ceasar:

Up for bid were 2 consul, 2 trade, 1 rebellion, 2 public works, 2 swords, the random event card stipulated that imperial agendas could not be bid on.
Jean put the consul token up for bid (as he had 2 agendas in front) and Trevor used an assasin. I won a trade agenda for 8, and took another using that ability. A public works was put up and Jean used his assassin. The next consul was put up and Don used his assassin. Next, Don won a public works and I won a sword which I give to Trevor to reduce his agendas to one. Entering the final apocolyptic Senate chambers, Trevor had 1 agenda, I had 2, Jean had 2 and Don had 1.

The third time where everyone is shouting "Die Swine!"

Up for bid were 2 imperial, 4 swords, 2 public works and a trade. Random event card was only two cards could be played in a bid.
I put my 5 and 2 up for a trade, won it and took a public works with it. In retrospect, this was a huge mistake, since it put three barrels in front of me, and now I would become a huge target. Jean won a consul for 4, and put 2 agendas behind him. I had to use my assassin to ruin a sword auction; however, it was obvious I could not defend all the swords coming up for bid. Jean won the next sword bid with 5, gave it to me, and putting me over a literal barrel, wiping out my three trade agendas. Don won an imperial with 5, and later would sneak another imperial agenda behind him. Trevor got the last public works, used it to pull back a 5 and won the last bid (I think it was a sword), giving him 3 agendas. Don also had three agendas, so we had to go to the tiebreak. Apparently the tiebreaker is the person with the most imperial agendas, Don had 2, giving him the victory!

Scores: Don 3, Trevor 3, Jean 2, Norbert 1.

Well, it is a very unstable game. It looks like the game involves trying to pull a quick one over your opponents, but most times, everyone saves their assasin card for the consul bidding, though in the third round in this game, Jean did win a consul for 2 points, but he wasn't the perceived leader at the time. I would play again, but everyone else didn't like it. Trevor said that even though he tied for the win he would give it a rating of 3 out of 10. I guess it is just to easy to mess with other people's items they have acquired. It is a light bidding game, and I would play again, but it certainly wouldn't be at the top of the request list.

What did I learn from this session report? There are two asses in "assassin".

Thread: Rule clarification - Players unable / unwilling to bid

TeeWee — 2005-02-07T09:12:02+00:00

Hi,

Last night we had our first game of Senator and the following questions about the game popped up during play:

What happens when nobody wants to bid on a chosen agenda? Does the last player automatically win the agenda (because all previous players have withdrawn from the debate)? If so, are the players who don't have any influence cards left still in the running?

Furthermore, a round ends when nobody has any influence cards left to play. What happens when the event card that states that the first bid must be made with at least two influence cards is in play and all players have just 1 card left?

Thread: Re:How does this game play?

Armadi — 2005-02-03T16:58:40+00:00

Karlsen (#72926),

Well I've played (and own) both Ra and Illuminati and like both. Hmm... after researching this game I decided that it didn't look that good (To clarify, didn't look that good considering all of the great bidding games out there). I may need to reconsider. Thanks.

Thread: Re:User Review

gschloesser — 2005-01-27T19:22:41+00:00

BeyondMonopoly (#73840),

Hmmm ... three reviews of Senator on the Geek, and all are positive. Maybe it is just me (and my group), but we were all very disappointed with the game. I'll use the same reply I used for the other reviews:

I'll use my same reply as I did for another review of Senator:

Our group's experience with Senator was significantly different than yours. In fact, it was poor ... VERY poor. Players simply did not have enough cards to compete in the auctions. As you mentioned, every player is armed with an assassin, which, when played, ends the current auction and forces ALL cards played to that auction to be discarded. This means that up to five times in each round, an auction can be killed, usually resulting in the loss of numerous cards. Since each player only has a very small amount of cards to begin with, the effects of the assassin are often catastrophic.

Further, the special event cards skewered the game further. Being forced to play two cards to begin an auction, or being forced to ONLY play two cards, were severe hindrances on the employment of strategy and really hurt the game play.

These factors combined to have the effect of too few meaningful auctions and options. We were all VERY disappointed with the game, and I cannot recommend it.

Thread: Re:User Review

gschloesser — 2005-01-27T19:20:17+00:00

Kingdaddy (#75326),

I'll use my same reply as I did for another review of Senator:

Our group's experience with Senator was significantly different than yours. In fact, it was poor ... VERY poor. Players simply did not have enough cards to compete in the auctions. As you mentioned, every player is armed with an assassin, which, when played, ends the current auction and forces ALL cards played to that auction to be discarded. This means that up to five times in each round, an auction can be killed, usually resulting in the loss of numerous cards. Since each player only has a very small amount of cards to begin with, the effects of the assassin are often catastrophic.

Further, the special event cards skewered the game further. Being forced to play two cards to begin an auction, or being forced to ONLY play two cards, were severe hindrances on the employment of strategy and really hurt the game play.

These factors combined to have the effect of too few meaningful auctions and options. We were all VERY disappointed with the game, and I cannot recommend it.

Thread: Re:User Review

gschloesser — 2005-01-27T19:20:08+00:00

Thread: Re:User Review

gschloesser — 2005-01-27T19:18:46+00:00

toulouse (#75313),

Our group's experience with Senator was significantly different than yours. In fact, it was poor ... VERY poor. Players simply did not have enough cards to compete in the auctions. As you mentioned, every player is armed with an assassin, which, when played, ends the current auction and forces ALL cards played to that auction to be discarded. This means that up to five times in each round, an auction can be killed, usually resulting in the loss of numerous cards. Since each player only has a very small amount of cards to begin with, the effects of the assassin are often catastrophic.

Further, the special event cards skewered the game further. Being forced to play two cards to begin an auction, or being forced to ONLY play two cards, were severe hindrances on the employment of strategy and really hurt the game play.

These factors combined to have the effect of too few meaningful auctions and options. We were all VERY disappointed with the game, and I cannot recommend it.

Thread: Re:Serious

Whirlinghurly — 2005-01-25T20:55:06+00:00

casterlyrock (#78454),

Question for you.. Do you believe that politics are a part of Tigris and Euphrates? I do and I think its a part of this game is also. If someone is always messing with your strategy or always harming you you're bound to retaliate when thats about all you can do(IE you have 2 points in E&T and you know everyone else is at 6).People always wanna feel like their moves are effective. I was in a 4 player game of E&T and right off the bat there were 2 people putting the squeeze on me. Throughout the game one of the guys didn't even bother with me but the other 2 consistently attacked me and annoyed me the whole game, for once I didn't have any position to attack so I was always trying to build. At the end there were 10 tiles left in the bag and I knew the guy who hadnt bothered me was ahead so I took all the tiles and the game ended. It was effective and I may have lost, but I was way out of the running. I had a choice and I chose to let the nice guy win. Was it fair? I think so. I didn't break any rules of the game. Some people have this sense of honor to let the other people play the game or a code to Win or Die. Well I couldn't win and I knew I was dying so why not die with my two favorite people on the game board. I went in with the idea to win, but it wasn't possible this game. My code is you live by the sword, You Die by the sword. it happens.

Senator I think is like that also, but more so. I've only played it once though so I'm still learning. There was some kingmaking at the end of the game I played in and the guy that won did the least damage to the two who could affect the game. so they had him win...

This is just one mans opinion...

Thread: Re:Serious

Luthien — 2005-01-24T22:46:47+00:00

casterlyrock (#78454),

Caroline, I think you may have taken my comments a bit far and read some things in my comments I did not say. I was only speaking from the current game point of view and the actions taken by players in that game and the possible kingmaking situation as a result at the end.

Once we extend this issue to "meta-gaming" then it takes on a whole new meaning. If there are individuals that don't like one another and constantly play against each other or people that "retaliate" as you stated then the kingmaking situation is a serious issue in any board game. That's why you should choose carefully who you play with! The only good retaliation is the win at the end of the game. So, yes, I agree with you you shouldn't retaliate just to retaliate.

I have a saying in my group that some people "Play to lose". I always "Play to win".

Oh, and by the way, love the name! I'm on the second book right now (Clash of Kings). I can't put the puppy down and am late to work these days because of it!

Alan

Thread: Re:Event cards reshuffeld?

casterlyrock — 2005-01-21T01:34:41+00:00

ScrewTape (#77927),
I leave it on the table.

Thread: Re:Serious

casterlyrock — 2005-01-19T01:16:42+00:00

mlvanbie (#78227),

Well, I think the situation you mentioned does not exist in our group. Because when i talk about prize, there is a price as well. Remember, we were a store. We will charge for example 1 dollar for entry to win a booster. So, if you think you are not gonna win, or just to retaliate somebody, I think this person will not join. In other words, all players in this game just has one goal: to win.

To make it to the extreme, US$1000, and the winner get all the money on the table. It is the situation to win or die! Players are all serious now. And no any single move will just for retaliate. No single moves are irrational. All serious strategies.

Thread: Re:Serious

mlvanbie — 2005-01-18T04:23:34+00:00

casterlyrock (#77918),

Even in your group, there would be reason to agree with Luthien. The throne is not lost or won with a single battle, but a long succession of them. In your group, I should want to win as many prizes as I can over time (as should everyone else). If someone makes it impossible for me to win a game then I can retaliate by doing my utmost to prevent them from winning the game. Once people observe this pattern (a valid strategy for everyone in the group) they will realize that they have to spread out harm over many players, although they can reasonably attack players who will not be able to counter-attack (don't let yourself be in this position!) and those that are in direct opposition and must be aggressively attacked to win. Unfortunately, this can carry on to subsequent games, which is only appropriate if the behaviour was extreme.

See also http://www.boardgamegeek.com/article/48065
but consider Tom Vasel's theory about nice guys finishing last (from his GeekSpeek interview).

Thread: Event cards reshuffeld?

ScrewTape — 2005-01-17T03:03:26+00:00

Do reshuffle the event card into the deck after the round is over or do you leave it on the table and draw a new event card during the setup phase?

Thread: Re:Serious

casterlyrock — 2005-01-17T01:44:32+00:00

Luthien (#77616),
Disagree!
Retaliation is never an option for strategy in any game. In other words, whenever opponent play against you, you can just put that in your heart, but don't you ever think about retaliate. Otherwise, both of A and B will be suffer when player C wins the game.

Let me quote from "the Game of Throne" : To play the game of throne, you can only win or die...

OK, please let me elaborate a little bit. Once upon a time, I own my hobby game center. I saw many many game played in-store and found that some kids/adults like or dislike somebody. Whenever they have a chance to play together, these people will lost their mind and just play against each other or play in favor to each other. This is absolutely not a fair game. When you want to beat somebody, or just let somebody win is not the aim of the game. Everybody should respect the game objective. Remeber: TO WIN OR DIE! So, as a result, we play with a prize to the winner. Everytime, there will be a little prize e.g. Coke, ccg booster, starter, or even the board game itself. By doing so, we filter all those non-serious game player and make every game a very exciting and serious one.

At last, my play group learn that, you can only win, or lose. It will be unfair to crown anybody just because he or she made a strategy against you this time, last time, or last year. Remember, we are only human, we have emotion. A is your wife, B owes you $1000, C is a jerk, D is whatever.....

I think I make my point here.

Thread: Re:Serious

Luthien — 2005-01-15T15:27:12+00:00

Isn't kingmaking sometimes part of strategy gaming? Let's see:

Player A screwed player B by assassinating his taxes agenda.

Player A then screws player B again by assassinating his Public Works agenda.

Somehow Player B (and not able to compete for the win) in the last round can determine the game between Player A and Player C (Players D and E being out of the win as well). So, player B chooses player C because player A kept screwing player B over.

That's part of strategy board gaming. There are consequences to your actions. I see nothing wrong with this. Player A should have thought about the long term potential consequences of his/her actions.

And that my friends is exactly how people screw themselves out of a game (where the game has a potential kingmaking issue) and then complain that it's a kingmaking game because 1 player can determine the winner.

I would disagree stating that it was merely a consequence of that players actions and maybe... just maybe... play a better game next time.

Thread: Re:User Review

sdiberar — 2005-01-08T16:36:48+00:00

Kingdaddy wrote:
Fortunately, you can complete agendas either by winning the consulate (for which you bid like any agenda), or automatically at the end of the round.

I don't think this is quite correct. Can you point out where in the rules it says your agendas are completed automatically at the end of a round?

There's definitely room for a meta-game of wheeling and dealing, exchanging promises about what you will or might do on behalf of another player if she supports you in the current bid.

I am disappointed that players do not seem to be inclined to use, you know, actual politics when playing this game. Seems to me it will be hard to get anywhere without some kinds of coalition building or negotiations.

Thread: User Review

toulouse — 2005-01-06T16:05:01+00:00

Intro & Background
Take control of the Senate in ancient Rome with “Senator: A Game of Politics and Corruption in Ancient Rome,” published by Fantasy Flight in their Silver Line series of games. In this bidding game by Eric Lang (A Game of Thrones CCG, Frenzy), players take the role of senators out to win support of the populace by showing how they support critical agendas, while at the same time ensuring that their fellow senators end up with none or conflicting agendas.

Summary
Senator is strictly about bidding and winning the most agendas, with a secondary emphasis on making various kinds of mischief for your opponents. The winner will be the senator who ends up with the most agendas at the end of three rounds of auctions (referred to in the game as “debates.”)

Mechanics
A standard auction mechanic is enhanced by various special powers of the winning agenda’s, such as the ability to remove an upcoming agenda from the pool of future agendas. A nice secondary twist is the ability of the winner of any agenda to give the agenda to an opponent instead of keeping it for themselves – this proves useful because many agendas conflict with others, wiping both off the board, and out of the receiving senator’s docket, preventing him or her from scoring. The final twist is that each player has an Assassin card to play each round, which effectively removes the agenda currently up for big, as well as sucking away any bids currently placed for that agenda.

Optimal number of players
The box reads 3-5 players, and 5 is definitely the sweet spot for the game, as it keeps the auctioning high priced with the threat of the Assassin always looming over each bid.

Game Length
First games for four players should take about 45 minutes including rules clarifications. Successive games should run closer to 30 minutes, adding or subtracting 10 minutes with 5 or 3 players, respectively.

Heaviness Scale (1= Lightweight, 10=Heavy)
The bidding is fairly straightforward, but the endgame portion of each round results in some potential paralysis by each bidder as they work out all the “if I do this, you’ll do that, etc.” options before placing a bid.

If you like X…
If you enjoy bidding games (Modern Art), you’ll probably enjoy Senator. Your biggest choices are always whether to bid or not, and if you do, how much. Knowing that anyone can kill the current debate (and therefore everyone’s current bid) as well as the agenda that’s being bid for adds some additional tension and nastiness to the game.

Abstractness Scale (1: Totally Abstract, 10=Richly Thematic)
The Assassin card fits with the Roman senator theme very nicely, but the agenda special powers and influence cards (which you use to bid) are very much tacked on to the bidding mechanic.

Box, Board, Bits, Bargain
Senator comes in a small box which contains 35 influence cards, 6 event cards, 30 agendas, 2 consul tokens, 1 veto token and 5 scroll markers. The cards are standard stock with nice hand-painted artwork and large, easily-read numbers. The agendas, tokens, and scroll markers are heavy cardboard that should stand up to repeated play easily – the thickness of the agendas and tokens makes picking them up and turning them over a very simple affair. There is no gameboard or scoring track, as a typical game isn’t ever going to go over single digits for the winning player. The MSRP is $19.95, but online retailers have the game available for about $16.

Rules & Gameplay
The game takes place over three rounds. Each player places a scroll in front of them at the beginning of the game. At the beginning of each round, each player is given 7 influence cards: two 1’s, three 2’s, one 5, and one Assassin. A number of agendas (determined by the number of people playing) is placed into the center, and one of the Event cards is turned over (each has unique effect on that round, such as removing the consul tokens or requiring each player to play 2 cards for their initial bid).

The first player chooses an agenda and places an initial bid (or passes). Bidding continues clockwise until everyone but one player has passed, or if someone plays the Assassin card. The agenda is awarded to the winner, who places their bid influence cards in a discard pile, uses the special power of the agenda (for instance, the War agenda, which allows the victor to demand all opponents remove a specific influence cards from their hands), and either places the agenda in front of their scroll or in front of an opponent’s scroll. The winning player chooses a new agenda, and the process repeats until all agendas have been depleted from the center, or all players are out of influence cards.

Won agendas are placed in front of each player’s scroll, leaving them open to being removed by an opponent playing a conflicting agenda on them. Winning a consul token (which can be selected instead of an agenda for bidding) allows the winner to move their agendas to safety behind the scroll, where they are guaranteed to score.

The Veto token is taken by the player who most recently won the Taxes agenda, and prevents one agenda from being given to them.

The game ends after the third round of bidding on agendas. The player with the most agendas in front of and behind their scroll wins – ties are broken by the Imperial agendas (the player who has the most of these wins a tie).

Strategy
Much of the strategy is really about how to judiciously spend your influence cards. Even if you don’t win a bid, there’s a decent chance that the cards might be zapped by someone’s Assassin card, hurting your chances for future bids. Use of the Assassin card tends to occur when there are a lot of folks still bidding, and the bidding gets up to around 5 or 6 (each player’s pool for the entire round is 13). Losing your 5 influence card to an Assassin is particularly painful.

Agendas end up disappearing much faster than you initially expect, because two of the six agendas give the winner the ability to either discard an upcoming agenda (Rebellion agenda) or choose an additional one for themselves or an opponent (Trade agenda). Having a lot of unspent influence at the end of a round is much worse than running out while there are a few left.

Rating
I’ve rated this game a 7 on BGG using the “Good game, usually willing to play” descriptor. The game has a serious endgame problem in my opinion, as lots of analysis takes place for the final few bids, slowing down the game and often turning it into a kingmaking exercise for players who aren’t in contention for the lead. The assassin card makes the game quite tense, but also slows down the bidding process, because instead of just figuring out what the value of the current agenda is, you have to try to figure out if you’ll get knifed, and lose your bid with nothing to show. That said, it's more enjoyable than not, and if you skew towards bidding and auction games, Senator is probably something you'll enjoy.

Thread: User Review

Kingdaddy — 2005-01-06T16:05:01+00:00

First of all, I should make one thing clear: Senator is not, as many people mistakenly thought, "Republic of Rome Lite." While that may be disappointing to fans of that game, Senator is a good title on its own merits. It's not as much a serious simulation of a particular time in Roman history, as it is a bidding game with cutthroat elements reminiscent of late Republican politics.

Each player represents a faction, out to control as many different agendas before the Roman senate as possible. Each agenda--public works, war, rebellion, taxation, etc.--has its own advantages and disadvantages. Trade, for example, lets you grab another available agenda, but it's also not compatible with a lot of other agendas in the game. War lets you force everyone to discard a specified card--but, chances are, nobody's going to let you win this agenda.

Once you win an agenda, it sits in the "unfinished agenda" zone, above the cardboard scroll that acts as the minimalist game board. It's vulnerable there, since another player might win an incompatible agenda and then give it to you rather than himself. Poof! The new agenda, plus any unfinished agendas you hold that are incompatible with it, are discarded. Fortunately, you can complete agendas either by winning the consulate (for which you bid like any agenda), or automatically at the end of the round.

The heart of the game, though, is the bidding itself. Pick an agenda, or one of the biddable positions (censor or consul), and put down a card. You have a limited set with which to bid (a couple of 1s, a couple of 2s, a 5...), so beating the last bid requires some significant commitment on your part. Everyone also holds an Assassin card, which ends the bidding immediately. If you win, you discard for the rest of the round any bid cards you played, while other players return their cards to their hands. The assassin, however, forces everyone to discard any bid cards played. Ouch!

As you might guess, this is not a game for the faint-hearted. It plays quickly, in part because of its simplicity, and in part because the bidding can end suddenly and nastily. We saw some problems being in the position of the second person to bid, who infrequently won the current auction. It's also tough to build much of a game-long strategy, since you're reacting to the situation of the moment (Do I want him to win that agenda? What would it cost me to stop him?). It's only three rounds long, so you can easily finish a game in an hour or less.

Random events each round (Hannibal invades, Spartacus leads a slave revolt, gladiatorial games, etc.) change the bidding rules that round, adding another dimension of spice. For example, if everyone, not just the winner of an auction, has to discard, the stakes get even higher.

As I said, not a game for the faint-hearted. The "screwage" factor is fairly high, but everybody has to stick in the dagger to nearly everyone at some point in the game. Don't get me wrong, we're not talking about Diplomacy-level screwage. Senator is just not as polite an auction game as, say, Fist of Dragonstones or Princes of Florence. There's definitely room for a meta-game of wheeling and dealing, exchanging promises about what you will or might do on behalf of another player if she supports you in the current bid.

In short, plenty of fun, particularly if you want a game with the flavor of Roman politics, without necessarily the level of simulation that Republic of Rome provides.

Thread: Re:Serious

sdiberar — 2005-01-06T06:08:42+00:00

casterlyrock (#75006),

If you really don't like the Assassins, just win a War agenda and discard everybody's but yours Of course, they'll probably just assassinate the War agenda, but at least that's one down...

Thread: Re:Serious

casterlyrock — 2005-01-05T02:50:54+00:00

sdiberar (#74719),
Hope so. I really want to give another chance to it.

But before that, are there too much Assassins compared to the Consuls? Or should those "Asses" be "one use only" thing?

Thread: Re:Serious

sdiberar — 2005-01-04T11:12:25+00:00

Nope, it's just you

Seriously, though, the problem is you all let someone get 2 Imperial points on the first turn! The first couple games of Senator are likely to have weird outcomes as players are not quite sure what the mechanics are capable of. As players become familiar with how the game is put together, there will be more room for backroom deals, logrolling, and treachery. This is a hardcore political game, after all.

Thread: Re:Serious

Karlsen — 2005-01-04T04:45:23+00:00

casterlyrock (#74641),

On the last round you may be able to survive without the consul. They key seems to be not bidding in the earlier auctions so you actually have some cards left after the other assassin cards have come out. Of course if everyone else is ganging up on you there is nothing you can do - you are doomed.

Thread: Re:Serious

casterlyrock — 2005-01-04T01:43:53+00:00

Talking about getting just one point for myself is really hard. Because whenevern you pick the "consul", you must die at last, remember, there is 4 assassin out there, but just 2 consuls.