Game: Goldbräu

Thread: Re: some suggested rule changes

DSHStratRat2 — 2008-08-21T11:15:02+00:00

telphick wrote:
My wife Jacqui got snotted in her last game by having to buy 3 face-down cards at $8 each which were useless as the bum was in a garden of size 1. Putting her about $20 behind the rest of the pack.

We later found out that you don't have to buy, but it got us thinking of what you could do to mitigate the problem of paying $8 and being the third to choose a share, and here were a couple of her suggestions, and I thought I would throw them out for interest and/or comments.

1. Try replacing the bought shares, so there is always 2 showing.

2. show one less share than players, so for 4 players, there are three face up shares

3. the first person to choose the share pays the $8, and the second pays $5, and the third pays $2. (actually this feels too strong, maybe the first 2 pay $8 and the rest $5, or the first pays $8 and the rest pay $5.)

4. the face-down card is cheaper than the face-up cards, buy a small step.

I think any of these variants would change the game a great deal, far too much for most players. And since you've already admitted that you were screwing up the rule by forcing people to buy shares, I'd strongly recommend playing the rules correctly as written a few times before you start tinkering. Many really good games take more than one play to get the rules down right (Power Grid, Die Macher, any 18xx game, etc).

This is our second game where the share buying has gone very unfairly, and it seems to be the dominant action (you can't do the swap bosses or expand the beergarden actions unless you have majority shares, so you have to buy shares, there is no other road to victory).

Whoops, this could be another rule you've been playing wrong. You don't have to own a majority of shares in a business in order to replace its boss. Owning a majority of shares is only required to defend your boss when someone else tries to replace him.

Thread: Re: Lack of choices in end-game?

Osirus — 2008-07-28T17:25:51+00:00

I realize this is thread necromancy, but I wanted to chime in that I've had the same dull card-only end-game experience three out of the four times I've played. (The fourth time we were trying a two-player variant, with the result that there were still fences to expand and useful boss moves to make.)

Image

desmodus — 2008-06-16T18:05:06+00:00

A few of my favorites

Image

DrGrayrock — 2008-03-14T21:16:02+00:00

Brazilian version of Drunken Guy and Pretty Gal Cards

Image

DrGrayrock — 2008-03-14T21:15:05+00:00

Brazilian version of Pubs Cards

Image

DrGrayrock — 2008-03-14T21:14:35+00:00

Brazilian version of Beer Brand Cards

Image

DrGrayrock — 2008-03-14T21:06:11+00:00

My brazilian board using real beer brands and real pubs

Image

WatchmanX2000 — 2008-03-08T20:27:45+00:00

Game underway.

Thread: Goldbrau - [session report]

ackmondual — 2008-02-08T09:01:41+00:00

4p game. Lasted 90min. 5-10m to teach us basics. Quite a few questions along the way

me (green), followed by...
yel
red
and blu

Week #1
-yel demonstrated several incidents of hostility towards me. He moved in on my buildings by putting a stock or two on them, and then replaced one of them with his own boss.
-blu also worked his way into a couple of my breweries with his stocks
-did alot space upgrade to my Deer garden. A 2-for-1 space upgrade let me snag one of those umbrella spaces for double $$
-however, one of my card purchases was for $8
-got 'bossed out' at all but one of my gardens at week 1's end. It didn't look good, but being a Eurogame, I knew better. Curiousity was in the air as well
-yel also got lucky with mostly $2 purchases and some $5 card purchases

Week #2
-Very relieved the week ended when it did. I had about $4 by the time week 1 ended. Having $30+ to work with let me get back into the card buying game.
-got 'muscled out' of the Deer garden via stocks
-yel got 'muscled out' of one of the buildings
-yel also wan't as lucky this time with the cards. He had at least 2 incidents where he had to pay $8. Nice since he REALLY saved alot of $$ the last week.
-HOwever, red, me, and blu often clashed each other with actions. Usually, at least 2 of us would clash, disappointed that we would NOT reap "the only person to play that action" double rewards
-moved the Drunk token back to the Crow garden. Dunno if that was really worth the $5, but I felt I had to do something
-first time I actually switched the brewery tokens for the gardens. It was Building one with a White/Gray banner
-much garden space expansion between all the other players
-When I bought cards, they were all face up. Didn't account that unless you're first to buy (in other words, that token is on you or to the right of you), those face up cards could be gone and sometimes were, which forced me to take my chance at the draw of the deck. I ended up putting stock in buildings that I had no interest in, but it did spread my presence around on the board. Especially nice when payment would be given at week's end

Week #3
-even more garden expansion between the other players this week
-again, several of my card purchases were for $8
-final decision was either to add extra stock into random buildings or expand the garden space. The latter would've been nice since no1 else went for that, but the stock also paid off, as it did get me extra $$. To this day, I'm not sure if the stock was the better tradeoff.

]]>
Sometime midgame

Finaly score
me: 63 (had 51 before final payout)
red: 50
yel: 40
blu: 54

Me and blu were new to this game. I was somewhat surpised that blue came in 2nd, and I in such a commanding lead. I suppose that truly IS a eurogame. Even experts lose to newcomers. Given how hectic things got with decisin making and how it didn't seem like I knew what I was doing at least 40% of the time, I still came out ahead anyways. Definately a game one must try multiple times to soak in more of the finer details. Like Settlers Of Catan, it would've been a great game even if I lost badly.

Image

ackmondual — 2008-02-04T16:23:07+00:00

4p game with 2 beginners. Started off messy-looking, but turned out to be a spectucular mess of planning and plotting

Thread: Re: Questions regarding becoming boss and defending it

JeffyJeff — 2008-01-30T17:24:13+00:00

DSHStratRat2 wrote:
Question: Does the blocked player still get to place the cube for the card he just played? Or does blocking his takeover attempt cost him that card?
I don't remember anything in the rules saying the share would not be placed. In fact the only real reason I saw to attempt to name yourself boss when you would be obviously blocked is to get that share in there.

Thread: Re: Questions regarding becoming boss and defending it

DSHStratRat2 — 2008-01-30T10:58:21+00:00

Game Knight wrote:

You are always allowed to attempt to appoint a boss somewhere, even if it will most likely be blocked, and blocking is not automatic. So the player with the absolute majority whose boss is being removed has to indicate he is blocking/attempting to block the appointment.

I'm having trouble with this concept. For instance, you say that blocking "is not automatic," but all the majority-holding player has to do is simply SAY he's blocking your attempt to appoint a new boss?

Okay, that's not technically "automatic" blocking, but it's pretty darned close! You can attempt to appoint a new boss even though you're outnumbered in cubes 3-1 by the current boss of the beer garden? And the current boss can simply declare that you're blocked...and you are! I guess I don't quite see the strategic point to all this. It's a little hard to imagine ever giving up the boss position in any building where all you have to do to keep it is say "I think I'll block you!"

Related Scenario: Okay, I name a new boss, simultaneously playing a card to increase my holdings in that particular beer garden. But you still have the majority and declare that you're blocking my takeover attempt. Although the game's rules clearly state that "the blocked player may try again," other questions are raised.

Question: Does the blocked player still get to place the cube for the card he just played? Or does blocking his takeover attempt cost him that card? I assume it's the former, but I wanted to make sure before springing this cool-looking game on my friends.

Thread: Re: full business whit share markers

steveoliverc — 2007-12-31T22:33:26+00:00

Yep.

Thread: full business whit share markers

aetjiazer — 2007-12-31T15:16:02+00:00

From rulebook: as soon as all 6 shares have been acquired in a business, the single share markers are removed from the business and returned to their owners.

What if there is no single share marker? Is the business rest of the game full whitout changes?

Image

dan4th — 2007-12-18T01:25:10+00:00

The drunk lowers the sales at the beergarden

Image

ArtEmiSa64 — 2007-12-10T22:57:31+00:00

unpunched game components

Thread: Re: Beer Tycoon

Plush — 2007-11-19T09:53:27+00:00

Crockerdile wrote:
Nice review! I've had this game for nearly 2 years, and for the life of me cannot get my gamer friends to play. Could it be the fact that I'm the only one of us that drinks beer (at least openly...who knows what they do in the "closet"). I mean I've spilled more beer in my life than all of my gaming friends combined, have ever imbibed.

Geeze I wish this was on SpielByWeb.

Well, one problem with the game is one I failed to mention; it's only for three to four players. Mostly when we've played this we've had to make teams, because we've had more than four players.
I think you should try to get this on your table, 'cause you don't have to like beer (shame shame ) to love this game...

Thread: Re: Beer Tycoon

Plush — 2007-11-19T09:48:01+00:00

Regarding the paper money, you (like many gamers) obviously prefer poker chips, and they probably work very well. But I must say that we haven't had a problem with the paper money in our games, so I wouldn't want readers to get the impression that the pay-out calculations are too hard without chips.

Well it's true that I have personal issues with paper money and prefer pokerchips every time and you're right about the pay-out calculations; it isn't too complicated, but it still a lot easier with pokerchips and as I said; we drink beer while playing this game, so the calculating at the end of the game becomes quite difficult at the end of the game

But yes, I prefer the pokerchips but the game itself isn't any less worth if you play with the paper money.
And thank you for the kind words.

Thread: Re: Beer Tycoon

Palpatine — 2007-11-19T01:42:14+00:00

Nice review! I'll have to take this game out and play it again. I enjoyed it the first time.!

Thread: Re: Beer Tycoon

Crockerdile — 2007-11-19T00:11:57+00:00

Nice review! I've had this game for nearly 2 years, and for the life of me cannot get my gamer friends to play. Could it be the fact that I'm the only one of us that drinks beer (at least openly...who knows what they do in the "closet"). I mean I've spilled more beer in my life than all of my gaming friends combined, have ever imbibed.

Geeze I wish this was on SpielByWeb.

Thread: Re: Beer Tycoon

asgelb — 2007-11-18T21:39:49+00:00

Btw. we usually play with a houserule concerning beer;
Everytime we play this game we buy four different kinds of beer to drink while playing. Then we decide which brewery makes which of our 'real' beers. The only way a player can enjoy a beer of a certain kind is by being the boss in the corresponding brewery - this makes the game more "heated up" since the players will go more aggressivly for some of the breweries...

Thats cool, i like that idea. When we play Axis and Allies, I go and buy beers from the specific countries in the game. You can only enjoy a beer from you or your allies country. Its fun to see your buddy sippin on his Sopporo while your chuggin your Boddington's as he invades your factory in India!

Thread: Re: Beer Tycoon

Eldard — 2007-11-18T19:33:42+00:00

Excellent review, Jens. Goldbrau is also one of my favorite games.

Regarding the paper money, you (like many gamers) obviously prefer poker chips, and they probably work very well. But I must say that we haven't had a problem with the paper money in our games, so I wouldn't want readers to get the impression that the pay-out calculations are too hard without chips.

Thanks for the very thorough review.

Thread: Beer Tycoon

Plush — 2007-11-18T09:22:09+00:00

Goldbräu is a different kind of financial boardgame which at first hand draws in gamers because of its' theme; beer! The players are trying to make the most profit out of the popular beerfestival in Germany, Seehausen am See, by buying shares in breweries and beertents at the festival square.

]]>

THE BOARD
The board is lavishly illustrated yet simple and practical. You get a good overview very quickly and it works for all purposes in the game. In the middle of the board there's the festival square which conveniently is divided into squares. There are three kinds of squares on the festival square; normal tables (worth 4 thalers), tables with parasols (worth 8 thalers) and 'forrest' which is impossible to build on.
Around the festival square there are six beertents and at the outskirts, in the corners of the board, there are four breweries.

OTHER COMPONENTS
The game is mostly card driven, so the deck of cards is the main component. Each player recieves, at the beginning of the game, three actioncards which are used over and over again through the game - these cards are used to determine what your action will be for the turn. Then there's a big deck of cards which includes sharecards for the breweries and beertents, the pretty waitress-cards and the drunken bum-cards (which also have one marker of each).
Each beertent has a fenced area of control on the festival square and standard wooden sticks are used to mark where the fences are. Every brewery has tree chits with that brewery's symbol on - these are used to mark which beertents the appropriate brewery is supplying. The papermoney (thalers) is the only components which I always exchange; for pokerchips, because it makes payday much more easier (more about that later). Then you have your usual wooden cubes in four different colours (one colour for each player) that represent shares, every colour/player has six pawns which represent 'bosses', there's a round disc that is the first player-marker and one that's the 'payday'-marker. The components are of good standard quality. One thing that I would like to point out about the components, just one more time, is the illustrations; this is a really beautiful, though subtle, game!

]]>

THE BEGINNING OF THE GAME
At the beginning of the game each player recieves 25 thaler and 16 (4 player game) or 18 (three player game) sharemarkers (those wooden cubes). They also take eight sharecards from the drawdeck and the six boss-pawns in their respective colour.
Before the first round begins, each player will use six of their sharecards to place sharemarkers on beertents and/or breweries (I'll explain how this works in detail soon). The two cards left over are kept in hand and are not shown to the other players. After this, the 'pretty waitress'-cards and the 'drunken bum'-cards are shuffled into the drawdeck with the sharecards. Now every player, in clockwise order places one boss onto any brewery or beerstand that does not already have a boss, until everybody has placed two of their bosses onto the board. The delievery-tokens (showing which brewery supplies which beertent) are then distributed at random to the beertents.

GAMEPLAY
The game is played in rounds with each one representing a day of the week. Every seventh day, Sunday, is payday and the players recieve their profits. After three weeks (21 rounds) the game ends and the player with the most money wins the game. One player takes the 'first player'-disc and the player opposite that player takes the 'payday'-disc. The top two cards from the drawdeck are placed face-up beside the board at the beginning of each round.
Each player then chooses one of his/her actioncards and places it face-down on the table and all players turn them face-up simultaneously. The three possible actions each turn are;

1) Expand the fenced area at one beertent. The player that chooses this action can expand the fenced area at one of the beertents where he/she has a boss. If only one player chooses this action during this turn then he/she can expand one area two spaces or two areas one space. If multiple players have chosen this action then all players that have chosen the action can expand one area one space as long as they have a boss in the corresponding beertent.

2) Place a boss/change contract. These are actually two seperate actions which, again, depends on how many players choose to take this action. If only one player chooses this action the he/she can do both actions, while if multiply players have chosen then only one action is chosen for each player.
Place a boss. The player may place one of his/her bossfigure on any empty brewery/beertent or can try to replace another players boss with his/her own in one brewery/beertent. A player has to have the majority of shares in the brewery/beertent where he decides to replace another players boss with his own. Also, when the player announces which he will try to take over, both players, the present boss and the new boss, can play cards from their hands to 'quickbuy' shares trying to get the majority.
Change contract. The player may change the supplier (brewery) for one of the beertents as long as that player has a boss in the beetent and the brewery that gets the new contract.

3) Buy a sharecard. The player may buy one of the two face-up cards or then the top card from the drawdeck. If the player opts to buy a face-up card then it must be used immediately. If the player buys a card from the drawdeck then he can decide if he wants to use it right away or keep on hand. Exception; if the card drawn is a special card (pretty waitress/drunken bum) then it has to be played immediately. When a players plays a special card then he may move the pretty waitress or the drunken bum (depends on which card it is) 1-2 beertents clockwise or counter-clockwise.
If the player is the only one to buy a share-card then it costs two thalers, if there are two players buying then it costs four thalers and if there's three to four players buying shares then it's eight thalers per player.

Other rules:
When the sixth share of any brewery/beertent is placed on the board, then all the players that have only one share in that place will have to remove them. There is only six shares up for graps for each brewery/beertent.
The cards that player have in hand can be played at any time and shares are put on the board according to the card.

]]>

PAYDAY
As said, every seventh day which is Sunday will be payday. The day when some players rejoice in their newfound riches and some say bad words because their broke. Before the payday begins all players have the opportunity to play as many cards from hand as they wish. The paying of profits works as follows:

1) You count the profits for each beertent; for every normal table inside the beertents fences the beertent recieves four thalers. For every table with a parasol inside the fenced area the beertent recieves eight thalers. Also; the beertent that has the pretty waitress recieves a twenty thaler bonus and the beertent with the drunken bum loses twelve thalers (note: a beertent can never make a negative profit).

2) Half of a beertents profits go to the supplier (the brewery).

3) The profits from each beertent and brewery is divided amongst the shareholders in proportion. If the profit can't be evenly divided between the shareholders then the boss takes the leftover profits after dividing.

ex. A beertent has a profit of 14 thalers. Red has two shares, Blue has two shares and Green has one share. The boss is Red's. You divide the profit with five ( = five shares ). As this is impossible, you divide as closly as you can while giving the leftovers to the boss -> Red gets 8 thalers (2 shares x 2 thalers + 4 for the boss), Blue gets 4 thalers (2 shares x 2 thalers) and Green gets 2 thalers for his one share.

END OF GAME
After three weeks and the third payday the game is over. The player with the most money wins the game!

]]>

COMMENTS AND OPINIONS
Let's go straight ahead with the two bad things in the game, which actually become bad when they are combined. I've always hated papermoney and this game is no exception, it's actually worse since the other bad thing is the complexity of paying the profits. These two factors combined causes a big headache for me. But, there's a solution. There's a way to completely erase this problem from the game; pokerchips. The pokerchips isn't just a great way to get rid of horrible paper money, but they also fasten the payday-calculating immensly! You just sort in to stacks and deal and sort and after a couple of round you won't even notice that there is any calculating. You see, the problem is that the payday-system is really great and it works fine and by using pokerchips you actually take away the only backside from that one mechanic. I would never, I repeat, never, play this game without pokerchips!
The biggest thumbs up for Goldbräu is that it's so different from any other finansegame I ever played and it really feels like you're a businessman buying stocks and changing bosses and trying to earn the most cash by doing as little work as possible. Yes, it's really abstract, but I would never call the theme pasted on, becuase it fits so well and seemlessly.
The actioncards are a simple yet elegant way of moving the game forward. There's hardly any downtime and you really have to try to read your opponents, because you want those bonuses for being the only one doing that one action. This also means that it's not always a good thing to go diving for that one sharecard face-up on the table that is worth so much (could be a share in a brewery that supplies three profitable beertents), because you can almost be sure that everyone else will... or are they thinking the way you are?
This is one of the first games I bought and has been one of my all time favourites since. I must admit that I bought it purely for the theme and I had no idea of what the game was really about. But I'm so happy I did because this is one of those games that I can say is almost made just for me.

Btw. we usually play with a houserule concerning beer;
Everytime we play this game we buy four different kinds of beer to drink while playing. Then we decide which brewery makes which of our 'real' beers. The only way a player can enjoy a beer of a certain kind is by being the boss in the corresponding brewery - this makes the game more "heated up" since the players will go more aggressivly for some of the breweries...

So that's it; Goldbräu. One of my favourite games. I'm sorry for all the grammatical and spelling errors and the fact that this is really chaotic - it all makes sense in my head. Cheers!

Thread: Re: doubts

TheCat — 2007-11-17T15:35:18+00:00

qzhdad wrote:
You can play from your hand during a boss action when you are attempting to make yourself boss of an establishment or when you are the defending boss. In either case, you are allowed to play one card.

I don't believe there is a limitation of one card during this action.

Thread: Re: doubts

qzhdad — 2007-11-07T14:06:44+00:00

These form your hand to start.
During the game when you purchase stock, you can choose one of the face up cards or take the top of the draw pile. If you choose the random draw and it's not a drunken bum or a pretty waitress, you can either use it immediately or save it in your hand.

You can play from your hand during a boss action when you are attempting to make yourself boss of an establishment or when you are the defending boss. In either case, you are allowed to play one card.

Before each week's payout, you may also play any or all of your cards from your hand.

Each time you play a card, you get to put one of your ownership cubes on that appropriate business.

Thread: doubts

Martianamongthecorn — 2007-11-07T13:58:56+00:00

I've got some a doubt: after the set-up, I have two cards (six before the placement) in my hand, what can I do with them? Discard? Or not?

Thread: Re: GoldBrau - Interesting Theme, But Needs Some Work...

ezradenney — 2007-09-19T17:19:36+00:00

There can be an advantage to expanding early, though. Last night, we played a game where I was (through pure luck) dealt a very powerful starting position, with sole control of the beer garden that had the waitress and the brewery that supplied said beer garden. I had no real use for cards in the beginning, so I expanded my uber garden and was unopposed at least twice. It allowed me to put a stranglehold on the game. I did shift to buying cards in a few later rounds to buy any cards that threatened my monopolies. Still, in my case, expanding early (while everyone else was buying cards and placing shares) really let me get a huge lead.

Thread: Re: Deck shuffling?

TheCat — 2007-09-03T01:35:22+00:00

Used share cards are never reshuffled. They are removed from the game when used.

Thread: Re: Bum and waitress move clockwise only

Jowjow — 2007-09-01T15:41:00+00:00

Friend and I were just talking last night about whether we felt the bum and waitress were overpowered or not. Good to know, thanks for sharing.

Thread: Deck shuffling?

Jowjow — 2007-09-01T15:40:19+00:00

I didn't see anything about this in the rules but just wanted to clarify - do the used share cards ever get shuffled back into a new draw deck during the game other than when the draw deck runs out of cards? If not, this seems to give the bum/waitress even more power as you will quickly run out of ways to manipulate them. I've only played two games of this thus far, though, so I may not be seeing the whole picture. Thanks for any info.

Thread: Re: GoldBrau - Interesting Theme, But Needs Some Work...

Kubigaruma — 2007-07-10T16:17:43+00:00

We play a bidding variant where the number of people choosing the stock option just sets the opening value ($8 or $5) for the bidding round. The first player opens the bid at that price or passes. You are bidding on the right to take first pick and not a specific card.

This will lengthen the game because it may require several rounds of bidding. For example, if 3 or 4 players choose the stock option, then there will be two rounds of bidding opening at $8 for the first and second picks. If the start player got outbid in the first round, he opens for the second pick at $8 again. Third or fourth pick is the same (both off the top of the deck) for $8. Of course you can always choose not to take a card.

But yes, as a group, we seldom ever expand until we have a pretty good lock on the area (no use working for anyone but yourself). This leads to only 2 choices for a while.

We have also found that if anyone happens to draw 3 of the same pub in their initial hand, they are hard to beat. They can actually expand during the first week without fear. And almost always alone for the double expansion. You can give them a run by providing the pub your beer, but everyone else is fighting for this same privilege, so it is usually not efficient enough to give the Pub owner any challange. But, at least, 3 of a kind is rare.

Thread: Re: some suggested rule changes

Devonelle — 2007-07-10T13:53:19+00:00

Interesting mix of power grid and goldbrau with that auctioning scheme...I like it.

Thread: GoldBrau - Interesting Theme, But Needs Some Work...

Devonelle — 2007-07-10T12:56:12+00:00

Interesting game - played it once. Found that in the first round of play it's important to buy cards rather than expand. The cards in this game have an overwhelming weight to overall play. I think while others are attempting to expand any given area, you can pretty much *attempt* to overtake their areas [after all their hard work of expanding], by using the purchased cards to position your markers in the stronger/larger houses. The only drawback to this is buying cards is heavily weighed by turn order and they can get fairly pricy.

If one person can get two markers on any given beer house, it's nearly impossible to oust them without a good amount of luck and positioning when the other four cards hit the market or are drawn randomly. [I was told there are only 6 of each house represented in the deck?]

I almost wish there was a way to sell cards from your hand closer to games end to get a different card from the stock pile. Maybe it's my bad luck, but late in the game I found I was getting stuck with useless cards that would complete the 6th marker on any given house, but would cause my single marker [as well as some others] to get kicked back to their owners hands.

I love the theme and variety in this game [spatial, mathematical and strategic], but felt in my first play that initial setup of blocks and card draw really outweighed any decisions I could have made.

Thread: Re: Lack of choices in end-game?

Devonelle — 2007-07-10T12:53:10+00:00

I had the same thing happen to me, Chris. The last round is pretty much a brawl between the drunken bum and the beer waitress. All other cards were pretty much useless at that point.

Thread: Re: Why the German beer garden names in the English rules?

Great Dane — 2007-05-21T16:38:48+00:00

JeffyJeff wrote:
So that's what those German beer garden names translate to?
Yes - except I didn't use the full title of the inns.

"zum" and "zur" are abreviations of "zu dem" and "zu der", which simply means "to the -".

I removed this because it doesn't sound the same in English. It is part of the name of the inn and not simply an advice of direction.

Somehow I cannot imagine a English pub or an American bar that would answer the phone with: "To the Oak - hello. How may I help you?" whereas it sounds natural in German: "Zur Eiche - Guten Tag."

Thread: Re: Why the German beer garden names in the English rules?

JeffyJeff — 2007-05-21T16:15:38+00:00

Great Dane wrote:
The rules should have given the names of the Inn signs:

The Mug, the Oak, the Bear, the Bugle, the Dear and the Eagle
So that's what those German beer garden names translate to?

Thread: Re: Why the German beer garden names in the English rules?

Great Dane — 2007-05-21T12:15:27+00:00

Jay - or whoever made the translation - simply forgot to look at the board while doring the translation, and thus didn't notice that the name of the German places wasn't actually spelled out on the board.

It is a simple mistake made by someone who is too busy to pay close attention to every detail in all the games he publishes.

The rules should have given the names of the Inn signs:

The Mug, the Oak, the Bear, the Bugle, the Dear and the Eagle

Thread: Re: Questions regarding becoming boss and defending it

Game Knight — 2007-05-20T22:45:07+00:00

JeffyJeff wrote:
1. Can you attempt to name yourself boss in a business even though you would be automatically blocked even if the current boss does not play a card to increase their share in the business? For example, red already has 3 shares in the business, you have only 1, and no one else has shares present. I "attempt" to become boss and play a card from my hand to increase my stake to 2 shares in the business. Red however still has absolute majority (3 shares, compared to 2 shares owned by everyone else), so the attempt fails...

2. ... or is blocking an attempt to name a new boss not automatic... ie. does the existing boss have to indicate they are (attempting to) block(ing) or not, and if they decline the new boss is named regardless of a majority or not? Since each player only has 6 boss tokens, I could see have another player's boss kick your boss out of a business would free it up for you because you have bigger plans for that boss.

Yes and yes: you are always allowed to attempt to appoint a boss somewhere, even if it will most likely be blocked, and blocking is not automatic. So the player with the absolute majority whose boss is being removed has to indicate he is blocking/attempting to block the appointment.

JeffyJeff wrote:
3. Just want to confirm... You only need an absolute majority in a business to "block" someone naming a new boss... you do not need any kind of majority to become the new boss. For example, red has 2 shares in a business and happens to also be the current boss, green and blue also have 2 shares each, and green attempts to name a new boss in the business. No one has absolute majority so no one can block the naming of green as boss. The very next round red or blue can do the same thing (but per the note in the rules, not in the same round).

Correct, so in your example all three can become boss and none of them can block it.

Thread: Why the German beer garden names in the English rules?

JeffyJeff — 2007-05-20T22:35:04+00:00

In the English rules it makes repeated references to the German names for the businesses. It makes perfect sense for the breweries as the names of the breweries are on the share cardss, brewery signs, and the brewery squares themselves.

However the rules also make repeated references to the names of the beer gardens (Zum Krug, Zur Eiche, Zum Baren, Zur Post, Zum Hirchen, and Zum Adler) about where to start placing brewery signs, the pretty waitress and the drunken bum markers, order for scoring, and in examples.

But those names are no where on the cmoponents! The share cards for the beer gardens are by symbol only... and the same with the spaces on the board.

Dd the original German version of the game have the names on the components and then at least for the beer gardens they were internationalized?

It's not really a problem as the picture of the board on page 2 showing the initial setup shows where the pretty waitress and drunken bum start out, but I'm just curious

Jeff

Thread: Questions regarding becoming boss and defending it

JeffyJeff — 2007-05-20T22:05:35+00:00

Just placed for the 1st time and have a couple questions regarding the action to name yourself boss in a business (beer garden or brewery)...

1. Can you attempt to name yourself boss in a business even though you would be automatically blocked even if the current boss does not play a card to increase their share in the business? For example, red already has 3 shares in the business, you have only 1, and no one else has shares present. I "attempt" to become boss and play a card from my hand to increase my stake to 2 shares in the business. Red however still has absolute majority (3 shares, compared to 2 shares owned by everyone else), so the attempt fails...

2. ... or is blocking an attempt to name a new boss not automatic... ie. does the existing boss have to indicate they are (attempting to) block(ing) or not, and if they decline the new boss is named regardless of a majority or not? Since each player only has 6 boss tokens, I could see have another player's boss kick your boss out of a business would free it up for you because you have bigger plans for that boss.

3. Just want to confirm... You only need an absolute majority in a business to "block" someone naming a new boss... you do not need any kind of majority to become the new boss. For example, red has 2 shares in a business and happens to also be the current boss, green and blue also have 2 shares each, and green attempts to name a new boss in the business. No one has absolute majority so no one can block the naming of green as boss. The very next round red or blue can do the same thing (but per the note in the rules, not in the same round).

Thanks,

Jeff

Thread: Re: Lack of choices in end-game?

WhiteKnight85 — 2007-04-28T23:53:04+00:00

I guess I lose my bet.

I'm not sure why your endgames are so much different than the ones I've experienced. But I believe you, for whatever that's worth.

Thread: Re: Lack of choices in end-game?

TheCat — 2007-04-28T21:13:06+00:00

I read the rules thoroughly, played again, and we had the same experience. On the last four turns, everyone took "buy share" because there was nothing else to do. Once all the bosses are established and the gardens expanded to their fullest limit, what else is there to do?

Thread: Re: Question about 3 -players

bennodelonge — 2007-02-03T10:29:48+00:00

Yes, the same single-share-rule applies with three players/five shares.

Thread: Question about 3 -players

pongo42080 — 2007-01-27T22:26:02+00:00

In the 4 player version, when all 6 shares are played any single shares are removed. Do you remove shares in the 3 player version when you reach 5 shares since you can't reach 6 shares being that one share has been removed prior to gameplay?

Thread: Re: Lack of choices in end-game?

WhiteKnight85 — 2007-01-24T17:22:51+00:00

I've played it three times, and I've never experienced the endgame situation that you described. There were always choices until the end. In fact, I won my 2nd time playing this because of choices I made during the last 3 turns of the game which (uncharacteristically for me) worked out, and allowed me to pass the leader in the last turn. It was a mixture of choices that I was making based on correct guesses of what the other 3 people were going to choose that did the trick.

Like I said that was unusual for a plan of mine to come together so well, but my point is that the endgame allowed for such planning. In other words, it wasn't the static yawnfest that you described from your game.

My other 2 games that I played weren't as dramatic, but there were definitely choices.

By the way, were you playing with people who had played before, or were all of you new to the game? I ask because I was thoroughly confused throughout my first play of Goldbrau (I was the only first-timer in that game). I played it again about a month or two later, and it finally started clicking for me about halfway through the game. There's not a lot of rules, but I (and perhaps it's only me) find them to be a bit confusing. As such, I think it's possible that you were playing something incorrectly which led to the dull endgame. Either that, or you just happened upon a fluke that will rarely happen.

Check the rules again, then play it another time or two. I bet that you don't have the same endgame situation.

Thread: Re: Lack of choices in end-game?

ctalbot — 2007-01-24T15:53:22+00:00

I've only played Goldbrau once, but I don't remember the ending being so stale.

Chris

Thread: Re: Oktoberfest in a box, bring your own lederhosen.

fizzix — 2007-01-24T14:25:48+00:00

It figures ... NOW the coasters are in the game. The early adopters get screwed.

Thread: Lack of choices in end-game?

TheCat — 2007-01-24T12:24:27+00:00

We played this for the first time recently, and on the last 3-4 turns, nobody had a choice except 'draw share.' Nobody had bosses in adjacent beer gardens and there were no unclaimed spaces for expansion. All bosses were in spaces with 3+ cubes, so could not be dislodged. All boss/brewery pairs already had supply from the appropriate brewery. We knew in advance that players would take 'draw share'.

In fact, on the last turn, there weren't any shares left to take. The only remaining card was a pretty waitress. So the first player paid 8 thalers and moved the waitress, and everyone else had no valid action.

Has anyone else experienced this?

Thread: Re: Playing share cards

TheCat — 2007-01-24T12:09:57+00:00

bennodelonge wrote:
tenmaya (#61913),
yes, you can show our hidden share at any time you want. Even if it is not your turn.
Because you do already own the share. And it is your completely free decision, how long you want to use the additional advantage to keep this fact secret.
Greetings
Benno

Note that this is not in the English-language rules at all. I prefer playing this way, and it's obviously the designer's intent, but the English-language rules explicitly prohibit player shares at will. Per the English language rules, the only time shares can be played are:

1) At the beginning of the game, during setup.
2) When purchasing shares.
3) When initiating or directly defending against a boss takeover.
4) Immediately prior to scoring.

Thread: Re: Oktoberfest in a box, bring your own lederhosen.

TheCat — 2007-01-24T11:58:33+00:00

I just got the English version in trade and it included six coasters.

Thread: Re: User Review

TheCat — 2007-01-24T11:50:40+00:00

locusshifter wrote:
3) Purchase a share card. You may purchase 1 of the face up share cards or take one off the top of the supply. Any face up shares must immediately be used, however the ones taken from the supply may be saved for later. If only 1 person takes this action the card costs 2; if 2 take it the card costs 4; if 3 or 4 take it then the card costs 8.

If two players take the action, it costs 5, not 4 thalers.

Thread: Re: Bum and waitress move clockwise only

mitnachtKAUBO-I — 2007-01-16T03:22:45+00:00

Wow. Guess I'll have to try that out next time I play.

Thread: Re: Another Rules Question

TheCat — 2007-01-16T01:54:18+00:00

bennodelonge wrote:
The rules say that you may show a hidden share at any time you choose.

Actually, the English-language rules don't say that at all.

In fact, in the rules on the "name boss" action, the English-language rules say that only the player taking the action or the player blocking the action may play a single share card each. The rule says "Other players (other than the blocking player) may not play share cards in an attempt to break the absolute majority!"

In the Payday rules, it says "Just before collecting income, players have one last chance in the week toplay share cards from their hands, converting them to owned shares..." and this is done in clockwise order from the current player.

Nowhere in the English-language rules is there a provision allowing players to play share cards at-will.

Thread: Re: Question Re Management

TheCat — 2007-01-16T01:44:56+00:00

Geoman wrote:
1) A player can play a hidden share from his hand at any time - even out of turn - (so Blue can attempt to change the boss in the above example even if he has no marker there). Am i right?

Not according to the English-language rules. In the given example, Blue could only play the share when using a "name boss" action. However, the designer has stated that the intent is that players may reveal hidden shares (cards) to convert them to revealed shares (cubes) at any time.

2) In the above example can Blue play more than one hidden shares at once if he wants to attempt to change the Boss?

According to the English-language rules, when using a "name boss" action, if your attempt fails, you may try again, until you succeed or decide to stop trying. You can only play one card per attempt, but over the course of several attempts, you could play several cards. However, according to designer intent, you could reveal all the cards at once.

Thread: Bum and waitress move clockwise only

TheCat — 2007-01-16T01:37:35+00:00

As stated in these threads, the bum and waitress can only be moved in the clockwise direction. The English-language rules are incorrect.

http://boardgamegeek.com/thread/27435

http://boardgamegeek.com/thread/27735

Thread: Re: some suggested rule changes

Kubigaruma — 2007-01-09T22:58:04+00:00

Yes, by all means, rotate the start player!

Also, as a house rule, we play that the first player to act on "buying shares" actually starts a bid of the minimum value if interested, or pass. In the case of 3+ players selecting that action, the first player bids $8, with each successive player increasing the bid or passing. Note that you are not bidding on a particular CARD, you are only bidding for the chance to PICK first. After this, you auction the right to have second choice, again starting at the minimum value. The 3rd and 4th (if there is one) may still purchase a card, sight unseen, for $8 or choose not to purchase one at all.

Thread: Re: some suggested rule changes

fellonmyhead — 2007-01-09T21:48:42+00:00

It sounds like you're not changing the start player every turn (day); this is crucial to make the action choice work fairly.

Thread: some suggested rule changes

telphick — 2007-01-09T21:40:21+00:00

My wife Jacqui got snotted in her last game by having to buy 3 face-down cards at $8 each which were useless as the bum was in a garden of size 1. Putting her about $20 behind the rest of the pack.

We later found out that you don't have to buy, but it got us thinking of what you could do to mitigate the problem of paying $8 and being the third to choose a share, and here were a couple of her suggestions, and I thought I would throw them out for interest and/or comments.

1. Try replacing the bought shares, so there is always 2 showing.

2. show one less share than players, so for 4 players, there are three face up shares

3. the first person to choose the share pays the $8, and the second pays $5, and the third pays $2. (actually this feels too strong, maybe the first 2 pay $8 and the rest $5, or the first pays $8 and the rest pay $5.)

4. the face-down card is cheaper than the face-up cards, buy a small step.

This is our second game where the share buying has gone very unfairly, and it seems to be the dominant action (you can't do the swap bosses or expand the beergarden actions unless you have majority shares, so you have to buy shares, there is no other road to victory).

We will probably try the game one more time knowing the 'optional share buy' rule and see if that makes a big difference (cause then you have the option of skipping a turn - yay!). but unless we figure a variant, I think it won't see the light of day again, as it feels kinda broken.

Thread: Re: Confused about the actions...

fuzzyfife — 2007-01-03T21:58:55+00:00

jttm wrote:
Okay, I've just played the game for the first time. And I don't quite see the balance in the 3 actions.

Shares: This is the part I don't understand. Why wouldn't you just pick shares each turn? Every turn that you don't pick a share, two things happen: (a) your opponent gets 1 extra bit of control somewhere (thus earning more during payday), and (b) your opponent pays less for a share.

Our game deteriorated into a mad grab for shares, and anyone who wasted their turn expanding lost out. Did we play wrongly?

I agree with GUTRENDER. One of the problems with that idea is that if everyone does indeed pick shares on a turn the shares are going to be EXPENSIVE!

Image

Major Sholto — 2006-12-31T00:53:26+00:00

The pawns weren't drunk, they were just set on their side once scored.