Game: Ice Cream

Image

jsper — 2008-02-16T16:21:19+00:00

Thread: Re: rules question: removed scoops

huber — 2007-09-13T19:06:36+00:00

free_planet wrote:
I would also like to ask if the Scoop Removal Rule was by mistake put in the Preparation session? Should it be stated in the beginning of Phase 1 so that the combination of removed scoops would be different everyday?

No, it's in the correct place.

Would you explain a little bit on the intention of the creation of the Scoop Removal Rule?

Certainly - 24 is not divisible by 5.

Well, perhaps a bit more than that, then...

During playtesting, I discovered that there need to be about 24 scoops in total each round. Since there are 6 types of ice cream, 24 scoops would provide even distribution and work fine for 3 or 4 players - but for 5 players, the number either needed to drop to 20 scoops, or go up to 25. Going up to 25 required 5 of each of the 6 types, or 30 scoops in total. And thus, removing 5 or 6.

The possibility of removing a different 5/6 each round was considered (i.e. playtested), but not doing so allows for more informed choices after the first round. Of course, if you prefer to remove different cards each round, feel free to do so.

Hope that answers your question...

Thread: Re: rules question: removed scoops

free_planet — 2007-09-13T18:10:26+00:00

Dear Mr. Huber,

It seems to me that the rule of removing 5-6 Scoop cards face down from the deck randomly adds some degree of uncertainty to the game and makes the late Phase 2 less predictable.

However, to my understanding, the removal of the 5-6 Scoop cards is stated in the Preparation session on page 2 of the rule, which would suggest that the constitution of those removed Scoops would remain the same during the whole 4-day course of play. Then, when Phase 2 of Day 1 ends, every player can count the number of scoops of each flavor and can thus know the content of the removed scoop cards. From then on, the effect of having some cards removed to achieve uncertainly is apparently nullified.

I would also like to ask if the Scoop Removal Rule was by mistake put in the Preparation session? Should it be stated in the beginning of Phase 1 so that the combination of removed scoops would be different everyday?
Would you explain a little bit on the intention of the creation of the Scoop Removal Rule?

Thank you very much for your answers.

Thread: Re: The "Zero" Factor

free_planet — 2007-09-13T17:00:20+00:00

In fact, you've answered the question yourself: "following the letters of the rules I should be able to".

Taking reference to the Example of Joe printed on page 6 of the rule that he has an option to serve a single scoop that he doesn't have and discard the Scoop card, gaining nothing.

Please note that in a situation where the Ice Cream Deck is exhausted, the above move becomes compulsory.

Thread: Re: Review of Ice Cream

hokietiki — 2007-04-06T02:10:20+00:00

An excellent review. I, too agree that there is more there than first meets the eye. My 9 and 10 year olds like to play it, and they are pretty good at figuring out how to set up the cones to maximize their points.

I would caution that when you first play the game it is a little long, but once you get the rules down, it plays rather quickly.

Thread: Re: The "Zero" Factor

Kubigaruma — 2007-02-18T00:30:45+00:00

Joe Huber, the designer, is a member here. Email him directly. Search for his username "huber".

Thread: The "Zero" Factor

lonadar — 2007-02-17T17:03:08+00:00

My wife pointed out a rules question we'd "house ruled", but didn't have a straight answer on: Is an empty cone a sellable cone? If a cone has only one scoop that I don't have, can I "discard" that single scoop and short-sell a (now) empty cone? We ruled by intent and said no, but following the letter of the rules I should be able to.

This caused other issues when we would lay out all 12 cones while setting up, rather than bringing them out as needed (it was actually less confusing for younger kids), but I see the rules do say to restack the empty cones at the end of each day.

Image

casterlyrock — 2006-08-19T01:57:29+00:00

An Extra Mini Version included in the box

Image

laiernie — 2006-07-15T20:56:51+00:00

front and back of unpunched scoring tiles

Image

matthewjhoskins — 2006-03-21T07:09:37+00:00

Ice Cream played at KublaStaffCon 2005

Thread: Re: User Review

robuck — 2006-02-21T02:50:40+00:00

Thanks to all of you for this thread! I am a very new user to BGG and do not belong to a "gaming group" other than my family. As such, I have to buy many games "blind" and hope that the descriptions/age categories are descriptive enough to help me choose a winner not a dud! Trying to please a bright 10 year-old, an 8 year-old with a developmental delay that makes long-term strategy sometimes tough for him (I am hoping games help develop this planning skill), and my husband and I, is a REAL trick!

This thread has made it clear that all of us will probably have fun with this game - sometimes "blowing" it because of missed strategic choices and sometimes winning from blind luck and the missed opportunities of others...AND it sounds like there is some built in balance so that my son shouldn't get "blown out." Even Happy's negative review was helpful - hearing exactly what he did not like and seeing that there was some strategy, but not complete control (which frustrated him) started to convince me that this would work for us.

This is the kind of information I cannot get simply from reading rules on line, but your back and forth here (and Mr. Huber's explanations) have really made me want to try this! Thank you BGGer's for taking the time to offer information for everyone!

Image

fsumarc — 2006-01-13T18:06:23+00:00

Ice Cream box back

Image

CharlieWonka — 2006-01-11T07:28:29+00:00

Neapolitan Ice Cream

Image

CharlieWonka — 2006-01-11T07:28:29+00:00

Which Cone would you choose?

Image

CharlieWonka — 2006-01-11T07:28:29+00:00

Opened Tubs

Thread: Review of Ice Cream

Larry Levy — 2006-01-09T02:27:18+00:00

It may not rank up there with pirates, but one common theme of some recently released games is food – specifically, comfort food. Sole Mio (pizza), UFOs Fritten Aus Dem All (hamburgers), and The Nacho Incident (fairly obvious, I’d say) are some examples of this trend. But when it comes to comfort food, it’s hard to top ice cream, which happens to be the title of this filler from Face2Face Games.

Okay, here’s the scoop: Ice Cream is the creation of Joe Huber, whose comments have appeared in these pages before. It’s his second published design; the first was Scream Machine, a 2003 Jolly Rogers release. Some have said that the game is a spin-off of Coloretto, but other than some surface similarities, I find the two designs to have quite a different feel. In any event, I prefer Ice Cream to the Schacht design.

The game’s theme is that the players own ice cream emporiums and are trying to attract customers. Your goal is to influence customers into enjoying the kinds of ice cream that you provide and then selling them scoops of their favorites.

The game is played with three types of cards. There are 30 Ice Cream cards, each of which show a gallon of ice cream. There are six flavors of ice cream in the game. The 30 Scoop cards are half-sized and each shows a scoop of one of the flavors of the frosty treat. There are equal numbers of each of the ice cream flavors for both the Ice Cream and Scoop cards. Finally, there are 12 Cone cards, showing an empty ice cream cone. The Cone cards aren’t strictly necessary, since they’re just identifying locations on the playing area, but they do make the game easier to play and add to the theme. In addition to the cards, cardboard scoring counters are provided.

To start play, the 12 Cone cards are arranged in the center of the table and each player is dealt an Ice Cream card face-up. The game consists of four turns and each one has the same structure. First, each player is dealt a face down Ice Cream card. A player can refuse the card if he wishes, whereupon it is replaced by another face down card that he must accept. The main reason for rejecting a card is that it matches one of the player’s face up cards. Then, each player in turn takes a Scoop card and places it on one of the cones. Scoops can be stacked on top of earlier played scoops, but no cone can hold more than four scoops (due, no doubt, to those troublesome laws of gravity). Other than that, a player can place his scoop on any cone he wishes. This process continues multiple times until the scoop deck is exhausted.

The different cones represent the favored flavor combinations of the ice cream lovers in the area. In the next phase, the players try to lure those customers into their shops. First, each player reveals their face down gallon of ice cream. Then, in turn, they compare their gallons to the cones. There are three possibilities. If there is at least one cone which consists of scoops that can be serviced by the player’s ice cream gallons (in other words, she can completely satisfy that customer’s request), she must claim one of those cones. So, for example, if the player’s gallons are chocolate and strawberry and one of the cones has two chocolate scoops and one strawberry scoop, she would either have to claim that cone or another cone with matching scoops. The second possibility is that there are no cones with matching scoops, but there are some in which all but one scoop matches. In this case, the player has the option of claiming one of these near misses. If she doesn’t claim one of these cones, she gets a new face-up gallon from the Ice Cream deck. Finally, if all of the cones have at least two scoops which don’t match the player’s gallons, she must take a new Ice Cream card. When a player claims a cone, she takes the scoops and places them on the appropriate gallon cards in front of her. When claiming a near miss, the non-matching scoop is discarded.

This continues in turn order, with each player either claiming a cone or taking a new Ice Cream card. There’s no limit to the number of scoops a single gallon can service. Eventually, the players will receive enough new gallons that every cone will be claimed. At this point, the turn is scored. First, each player discards every gallon that has scoops on top of it (the customers in our town may be willing to compromise on their favorite flavors, but they do require that the ice cream be fresh!). Next, each player receives a Victory Point (via the scoring counters) for each scoop they claimed. Finally, players discard any duplicate gallons they may currently have and get 1 VP for each one as compensation. The players begin the next turn with their remaining gallons, with the player with the fewest VPs going first. The scoops are gathered up and shuffled for the new turn. Continue for four turns and the highest VP total wins.

On the surface, Ice Cream looks to be a pretty straightforward game determined mostly by luck. But like many of Knizia’s early designs, there’s more here than first meets the eye. Most of the skill comes when building the ice cream cones. Players can choose to try to set themselves up for scoring or try to stop their opponents (if you’re lucky, you might be able to do both simultaneously). Thanks to the claiming procedures, these goals can be met in a number of ways. For example, to stop an opponent, you could pile what you think is a flavor he doesn’t have on top of a cone that it looks like he will be able to claim. But it might be easier to try to force him to take another cone. For example, if he has Pistachio revealed and you suspect his hidden flavor is Vanilla, there might be a cone with two Vanilla, a Pistachio, and a Black Raspberry that he will obviously want to take. One way to stop this would be to start a cone with a single scoop of Pistachio. If this cone goes unchanged for the rest of the scoop laying phase, your opponent will have to take the single scoop cone first (or another cone he can completely service), since he doesn’t have Black Raspberry. This might give you time to claim that big four-scoop cone for yourself! There are similar considerations when trying to improve your own scoring chances; it can be just as effective to put non-matching scoops on single scoops of one of your flavors as it can be to pile on scoops you can service. Much of this depends on where in the turn order you go and all of it depends on what flavor scoop you draw. Some draws just aren’t helpful, but you’re still bound to have at least a couple of interesting scoop laying decisions each turn.

The decisions when claiming cones are more straightforward, but still require some thought. Usually, you try to maximize your VP count, but exceptions aren’t uncommon. Maybe you’re better off taking one less scoop if it can keep an opponent from claiming a sky-high cone. You may also want to avoid a particular cone if it means there will only be one scoop on your gallon at the end of the turn – you’ll probably be better off with the extra gallon during the next turn than the extra VP this one. This issue is even more significant when you are given the option of taking an all-but-one cone or drawing a card; sometimes it’s best to delay instant gratification to improve your scoring chances for next turn. All of these decisions require good judgment, rather than heavy calculation, so the game retains a nice light touch and is unlikely to give you an Ice Cream headache.

Many super-short fillers recommend that you play several hands during a session, guidance that is often ignored (after all, one of the charms of a game like For Sale is that you can play it in ten minutes). In Ice Cream, however, playing the full four hands definitely improves the game. That’s because this can be a game of feast or famine – making a big score for one hand usually means that you’ll begin the next hand with a small number of gallons. Managing this ebb and flow is reasonably challenging and both adds variety to the gameplay and gives the design a bit of a story arc which is quite unusual for a filler. Even with four hands, you shouldn’t have any trouble finishing the game within 30 minutes.

Face2Face did their usual fine job with the components. The box art is particularly attractive and distinctive. The cards and counters are sturdy and the card art is realistic and quite yummy looking. The only problem I have is that it can be hard to distinguish the vanilla and chocolate chip flavors from across the table, at least to these forty-something eyes. Once the players are made aware of this, it isn’t a huge issue, but I imagine they would have been better served by going with the butter brickle!

Overall, Ice Cream is an enjoyable little filler that should play well with a large variety of groups. I think the game is particularly suitable for families, since the theme will obviously appeal to kids, who can have fun making the obvious plays, while their parents should find enough to think about to keep them interested. Most of the hardcore gamers I’ve played the game with have also enjoyed it. It plays equally well with three, four, or five players, which is a nice plus. Just like its subject matter, the game is light on the surface, but turns out to be surprisingly filling. Ice Cream: it’s not just for breakfast anymore!

Image

Kobra1 — 2005-12-05T15:53:13+00:00

Image

Kobra1 — 2005-12-05T15:53:13+00:00

Thread: Re: Phase 3 of Play

tool — 2005-09-03T22:37:33+00:00

You keep going until one of the two end conditions occurs.

Thread: Phase 3 of Play

jschweers — 2005-09-03T00:03:58+00:00

In Phase 3, once each player has had an oppourtunity to serve a customer, does the serving continue around until one of ending events occurs, or does each player only get one chance to serve each day?

Thread: [Review] Ice Cream

TomVasel — 2005-07-11T13:43:43+00:00

We used to (and still do) have long discussions in my gaming group as to how much theme affects a game. Obviously theme is more evident in some games (Betrayal at House on the Hill) than others, such as Kingdoms. The mark of good theme in a game (at least to me) is a theme that makes the game rules and mechanics easier to understand. Ice Cream (Face 2 Face Games, 2004 – Joe Huber) falls into this category. Not only is the theme one that will naturally appeal to many people (how many people don’t like ice cream?), but the theme suits the game well.

I’m not sure how to even categorize Ice Cream, as it plays like no other game I have. It’s a card game, one where you try to get the most points (typical), but building ice cream cones and then fulfilling orders makes for a quick, light, yet satisfying experience. I say “light”, because there is a healthy dose of luck in the game. Yet, at the same time, players who do poorly usually have only their playing to blame. Ice Cream is a good, not great, game – but as a filler, it’s fun – and the theme fits it to a “T”.

Twelve “cone” cards are placed near the middle of the table, and two other decks are shuffled and placed next to it: the “Gallons” deck and the “Scoop” deck. Each player is dealt one gallon of ice cream, which is placed face-up in front of them. The gallons come in six different flavors: strawberry, chocolate, vanilla, black raspberry, chocolate chip, and pistachio. (I like the choice of flavors!) The youngest player goes first, and the game is ready to begin!

The game is made up of four days (rounds). Each round has four phases, starting with the ice cream deliveries. Each player is dealt one gallon card, which they secretly examine. Players may discard the card and draw a replacement, but must keep the replacement if they do so. These gallon cards are placed face down on the table.

Starting with the first player, and proceeding clockwise around the table, each player draws one scoop card (showing a scoop of one of the six flavors of ice cream) and either adds it to an existing cone (to a maximum of four scoops) or starts a new cone (a maximum of twelve cones.) Play continues until the entire scoop pile has been placed on the table, at which point the players “serve” customers.

All players reveal their hidden gallon card; and starting with the first player, each player takes a turn in which they may serve some ice cream cones. The cones with scoops in the middle of the board demonstrate the wants of the customers, and players must seek to fulfill those needs. If one or more ice cream cones can be completed by a player, they must do so on their turn (for example, if I have chocolate and vanilla gallons in front of me, and there is a cone with two chocolate scoops and one vanilla scoop on the table, I must fulfill it – or another cone that I might meet the requirements of – like a single scoop of vanilla). The player takes the scoops of ice cream, discarding the cone, and places them face down in front of the gallon card used. (Each gallon can supply many scoops).

If a player does not meet the requirements for any cone, they can either serve one that is close (all the scoops match except one), or they can draw an additional gallon card, placing it face up in front of them. If a player serves a cone that is not exact, they keep all the scoops except the one they could not serve – discarding it. After all cones have been taken (or someone cannot do anything – a rare occurrence), the round ends, and each player scores points.

First, players discard all gallon cards that served scoops this turn. Then, they score one point for each scoop they took, and one point for each duplicate “unopened” gallon card. Each player takes tiles equal to the points they’ve scored. The next day then begins, with the player with the lowest score going first. After the fourth day, the player with the most points is the winner!

Some comments on the game…

1.) Components: The whole game comes packaged in a small, thin box with attractive artwork on it. The cards are good illustrations of, well, ice cream. The ice cream looks good – especially on a hot day, and just naturally draws people to the game. The scoring tiles come in denominations of 1, 5, and 10, although I think that paper and pencil might be simpler. Either way, the game simply looks good. The scoops of ice cream are fairly easy to distinguish, although we sometimes confused the vanilla and chocolate chip.

2.) Rules: The rules, which come in several languages, come in an eight-page fold-out. I know this kind of thing is slightly easier to produce, but it’s a lot easier on players when the pages form a book. But the full-color instructions come with a lot of illustrations and several examples. This was good because I didn’t catch onto the game from simply reading the rules, and needed the examples to better understand it. However, I found the game very easy to teach, since the theme made the mechanics fairly intuitive.

3.) Theme: Some games have a theme, that while interesting to some people (Industrial Waste), aren’t about a topic that appeals to many people. But everyone loves ice cream (or almost everyone), so the game has instant appeal when I pull it out. That and the fact that the theme fits so well really help the game. Of course a gallon of ice cream can cover a lot of scoops! And the cones and how they stack, and the fact that a cone can’t have more than four scoops (because they would melt and fall off), makes perfect sense. A theme like this makes a game easy to teach.

4.) Coloretto: I saw many references to Coloretto (another light card game) on the internet; and while I see some similarities, there aren’t enough to justify only owning one game. Unless, of course, you only want one filler.

5.) Strategy: It seems to me that most of the strategy lies in the part of the game where players are placing down the scoops of ice cream. Part of this is bluffing – as players try to guess what face-down gallons the other players have, but knowing how to set up the scoops is crucial. I always try to put a few one-scoop ice cream cones down in flavors I don’t have, forcing other players to take the less lucrative cones; but sometimes I’m actually setting another player up for a four-scoop cone worth of points. When actually taking the cones, it’s usually just a simple matter of taking the cone worth the most points; but players must also try to set themselves up for the next round, and also take cones that they know the other players want. This adds a bit of “screwage” to the game that makes it fun without being overtly mean.

6.) Luck: Sometimes luck is against you. Sometimes you’ll have just a horrible selection in the ice cream gallons you draw, as well as bad luck with the scoop layout. This may turn some people off, but I found that while the game is fairly lucky sometimes, skillful play can avert much of the luck, and the best player seems to win. I would rank the game above Transamerica and even Coloretto when it comes to strategy.

7.) Fun Factor and Number of Players: While the game can handle up to five players, it seems to hit the sweet spot with three. And, since there aren’t too many good fillers for three, that’s a great thing! The game is fun because there are moments of joy when you grab a four-scoop cone that’s made just for you, and horror when you realize that instead of grabbing that four-scoop of ice-creamy goodness you must take a single scoop. And the game is over before it wears out its welcome, keeping the fun times short and sweet.

I really like Ice Cream. It isn’t the best filler I’ve ever played, but it definitely has one of the best themes for a filler I’ve seen; and it has an instant appeal when I put it on the table. Both kids and adults are attracted to the theme, and the gameplay is amusing and unusual enough that it deserves its own place in my fairly large collection. After a dinner party full of conversation and light talk, what better dessert than a round of Ice Cream?

Tom Vasel
“Real men play board games.”
www.tomvasel.com

Thread: Ice Cream Review

grinningpik — 2005-07-02T07:39:26+00:00

I picked up a copy of Ice Cream on the recommendation of the owner of my local FLGS as I went in to buy games for a elementary school games club I hope to start in September. Well with school over for summer I couldn't just leave an unopened game at school alone in a cupboard for two months. I snatched the game and put it on the table for the first time on Wednesday night. I had read the rules before playing and just had to refer to them a couple of times during the inagural play. (The rules come in more languages than you can possibly imagine, kudos to the Face2Face for this consideration for the other nations of the world.) In the box you find 30 cards with 6 different flavours of Ice Cream displayed in their tubs, 30 scoop cards of the corrisponding flavour, 12 cone cards and little victory point chips in denominations of 1, 5, 10. Materials are good quality but could be plasticsized for longer play-life. VP chips punched out with only one tearing slightly. (Never let a 11 year old do something so important as punching out chips.) Game play follows four steps. First each player receives a ice cream pail with which to serve customers in step 3. In the first round (the game will be played over four rounds) Players start with one pail face up and receives one face down. (All other rounds start with just one face down.) Players may look at the face down pail. In step 2 players flip and play the scoop card on to the cone cards in the middle of the table. Players try to make cones, representing customer orders, that they can fill exactly while also trying to foil opponents by making cones they can't. After scoop card are exhausted the players move to step three, filling the orders by using their pail to make cones exactly, or near. This is where you must be watching the other players to see what they have, and selecting the cones you can make and some you may make to prevent other from taking the points. You may make a cone if you have all but one flavour. If you can't make an exact order you may make a near cone or draw another pail card. For each scoop you make of a cone you garner 1 VP. If you make a cone but are missing one flavour, you put that one flavour aside, no VP for you Cream man! After all cones are made you take the VPs and discard any opened pail. Extra pails, more that one un-opened, must also be chucked (the freezer breaks every night) but will earn another VP. The thought in this game comes down to making cones that are good for you and undesireable to others, and serving the cone that will get you the most points this round but balancing to make sure you have some unopened pails for the next. There is also the element of messing other people as you try to force them to take low scoring cones in lieu of taking the fresh pails. In a filler catergory of game I found this quite enjoyable similar in ways to Coloretto, but with a bit more bite to it. I do wish the components were of heavier plasticsized stock for great durability with the students to which this game will shortly fall into the hands of, but that is a small matter. I think this game will hit the table many times yet this summer and will be a fave with the students after.

Thread: Re:Gameplay questions

huber — 2005-04-19T21:57:24+00:00

As Paul notes, you can't carry multiple gallons of the same type into a future round - all save one must be returned, with 1 point awarded for each returned gallon.

I'll also note that serving customers _does_ become mandatory after the ice cream deck is exhausted.

Joe

Thread: Re:Gameplay questions

Psauberer — 2005-04-15T09:54:09+00:00

ntrolls (#474134),

Did you require a new ice cream carton for each order? Remember that each ice cream carton can fill an unlimited amount of cones (e.g. if you have only one chocolate carton, you use that to fill any orders that have chocolate in it.) Only one carton per flavor per turn can get used by a player.

If you did the above, did you remove any duplicate unused ice cream cartons from each player and give them a point for each one after filling orders? For example, you had 3 chocolate cartons. You filled orders with chocolate. After filling the orders you discard one carton that was used for filling the orders. This leaves you with two cartons of chocolate. Now you remove one of them and gain a point. No player should have more than one carton of ice cream per flavor going into the next turn (when he/she may get a second of a flavor from the draw.)

Thread: Gameplay questions

ntrolls — 2005-04-15T03:56:37+00:00

A question was raised from a recent 3 player game. Around the end of the first round, almost every player chose to get additional ice cream cards when there was no exact order that they can fulfill(the rule does not say that making a short order is mandatory).

As a result, players were left with a bit too many unused ice cream cards at the beginning of the second round, making the rest of the game almost meaningless. 30 cards for 3 players seemed too many in this game.

Are we missing something?

Thread: Re:rules question: exhaust ice cream deck

Alan Kwan — 2005-03-01T14:44:14+00:00

huber (#91339),

Thanks for the answer!

Thread: Re:rules question: exhaust ice cream deck

huber — 2005-03-01T13:13:30+00:00

Alan Kwan (#91206),

Ah - yes indeed. My fault for not checking.

Yes, it is mandatory to take a customer in that case.

Joe

Thread: Re:rules question: exhaust ice cream deck

Alan Kwan — 2005-03-01T02:13:50+00:00

huber (#91117),

In the F2F rules, when the ice cream deck is exhausted, the day continues on a bit, until a player's turn comes and he cannot perform an action. But I'm wondering whether this makes serving a "short one scoop" customer mandatory.

Thread: Re:rules question: exhaust ice cream deck

huber — 2005-02-28T22:09:00+00:00

Actually, I believe that's covered in the rules - a day ends when all customers are served _or_ when the deck of ice cream is exhausted.

Joe

Thread: Re:User Review

Glamorous Mucus — 2005-02-28T18:05:42+00:00

Alan Kwan wrote:
Are you playing with the correct rules? Your sure-win tactic can be easily foiled by the opponents making lots of single-scoop cones in your flavors, so that you are forced to spend every turn serving a single scoop.

I'll note that this strategy is likely to backfire on the players with fewer tubs of ice cream available. They'll be forced to serve the single scoop cones while the multi-tub player can choose the richer cones.

But in response to the original poster, there is a built in balancing mechanism for the "hoarding tubs" strategy. The player with more tubs will have to open several of them, whereas the players with fewer tubs have more ability to build their tubs for next round. It's wonderful to have a lot of tubs, but it also probably means you didn't serve much the previous round.

Thread: Re:end game scoring

Alan Kwan — 2005-02-25T01:23:25+00:00

huber (#84051),

(Thematically that doesn't explain why duplicates have value, but so be it...)

That's a question that applies to all 4 days, not just the last one. When my customers ask this question, I answer, "You return the gallon to the supplier for a refund, because they made a wrong delivery."

Thread: rules question: exhaust ice cream deck

Alan Kwan — 2005-02-24T05:47:15+00:00

When the ice cream deck is exhausted, a player has no perfect match on his turn, but there is a cone which he is close (short one scoop). Must he serve that cone (even if he doesn't want to), or can he just end the day there?

Thread: Re:User Review

Alan Kwan — 2005-02-17T15:46:22+00:00

happyamoeba wrote:
I would take exception to Alan Kwan's suggestion that I am 'dumb'. I would also beg to differ with Alan Kwan about whether my conclusions are fair.

Sorry if I sounded offensive. I should have said that, your review indicated that you and your group failed to see the strategies in the game.

I'm not going to speak for the others here, but I recruit their opinion to my cause only to the extent of proving that I am not alone in my thoughts on this game.

You are not alone, but your group will be in the minority. Many of our "gamer" customers (the mechanism-type, rather than the theme-type) find the game quite interesting.

I did not understand why ice cream cones that were made up of several scoops were being dismantled and put back into tubs. If the cones represented orders from customers that had to then be made up, why were they being dimantled into their seperate components and put back into tubs? If they were already orders that were made up, why were they being put back into the tubs? It seems that the process of selling ice cream was happening backwards. I didn't read the rules, but had them summarised to me, so perhaps there is a thematic explanation in the rules which I didn't notice. I stand corrected if that is so.

The ice cream cones represent customers' orders. "Dismantling" a cone represents that you scoop the requested ice cream scoops from your tubs, put them onto a cone, and hand it to the customer. Placing a scoop onto a tube represents scooping a scoop from the tub and selling it. If a tub has one or more scoops placed on it, that represents the tub has been opened (and has some scoops taken from it) and cannot be saved for the next day.

Your criticism of the theme was analogus to: "wargames are unrealistic because battles are resolved by rolling dice, and real battles are never fought like that".

There is no choice in the tub which each player takes. Each player is only allowed one tub. There is accordingly no skill there.

Starting from the second day, your (and your opponents') play on the previous days has a large influence on what you start the day with.

As soon as a cone developed three scoops or more, it became unclaimable.

Are you playing with the right rules? On the first day, every play starts with two tubs, one face up and one face down. The game even involves a little bit bluffing/guesswork (Heimlich type) about figuring out the opponents' face down cards.

If you wrongly plays that each player has only one tub on the first day, I can understand why you think there is little control in cone making. But even so, that's only for the first day.

My tactic happened to be, take as many tubs as you possibly can as it then gives you stacking options in later rounds. I stormed the other players. But I did not find any satisfaction in having won.

Are you playing with the correct rules? Your sure-win tactic can be easily foiled by the opponents making lots of single-scoop cones in your flavors, so that you are forced to spend every turn serving a single scoop.

Thread: Re:User Review

huber — 2005-02-15T20:58:50+00:00

Firstly, not that it makes a difference, but I was surprised a little that the author actually read my review.

I'm not sure why you would be; most of the authors of "German games" are active, to one degree or another, at BGG; I'm less certain of the numbers in the party, mass market, and wargame spaces, but I know that at least some authors in those spaces participate here.

As with every creation, an author will inevitably feel someone hurt by a negative review, especially if it is a first creation. If I caused any offence by my review, I did not mean too.

No fear; no offense taken, whatsoever. Of course, I wasn't hurt and it isn't a first creation, either...

I said that the theme did not hang together. Perhaps I should have explained further:

I did not understand why ice cream cones that were made up of several scoops were being dismantled and put back into tubs. If the cones represented orders from customers that had to then be made up, why were they being dimantled into their seperate components and put back into tubs? If they were already orders that were made up, why were they being put back into the tubs? It seems that the process of selling ice cream was happening backwards. I didn't read the rules, but had them summarised to me, so perhaps there is a thematic explanation in the rules which I didn't notice. I stand corrected if that is so.

How I think of it:

After influencing the customers, players then serve the ice cream; the meaning of the scoop cards changes from scoops of ice cream desired to scoops served.

As for the strategy;

There is no choice in the tub which each player takes. Each player is only allowed one tub. There is accordingly no skill there.

Actually, there is the choice of not taking the first tub dealt, and taking a replacement. I wouldn't call that a significant decision, but it is a choice.

There is no skill in choosing the scoop on the "stacking of the cones" round. Certainly, in a four player game, things were very chaotic. And it was impossible to plan such that you could maximise chances of being able to later take an ice cream cone and recover the flavours. As soon as a cone developed three scoops or more, it became unclaimable. That is to say, it became unclaimable until you were randomly delivered another ice cream tub as 'compensation' for the fact that you could not dismantle an ice cream scoop. HOwever, it is impossible to plan in advance in scoop stacking for this eventuality because you cannot know what flavour tub you are going to get. Accordingly, this is to me, quite random.

Interesting - your group seems to have taken a very destructive view of cone construction; in plays with many groups, I only rarely saw such behavior - and never for a full game.

With every scoop drawn (well, save for the first) there are a number of choices. Sometimes there is incentive to build for oneself; often there's incentive to mess up other players. But even in that, there's the choice between messing up a good cone and creating a single scoop cone to force an opponent to spend a turn serving it.

The only real decision that needs to be made in my humble opinion is whether or not you take an ice cream tub instead of dismantling a cone. (There was of course the decision to be made in placing a scoop on a cone, but there was no skill in this for the reasons explained.)

I believe there is skill in choosing where to place a scoop; that explains the difference of opinion.

Joe

Thread: Re:User Review

happyamoeba — 2005-02-14T19:24:04+00:00

Alan Kwan (#83825),

Hi. I'm the original reviewer.

Firstly, not that it makes a difference, but I was surprised a little that the author actually read my review. As with every creation, an author will inevitably feel someone hurt by a negative review, especially if it is a first creation. If I caused any offence by my review, I did not mean too. However, I still stand my original thoughts.

I would take exception to Alan Kwan's suggestion that I am 'dumb'. I would also beg to differ with Alan Kwan about whether my conclusions are fair.

When I played this game, it was with 3 other people. One actuary, one IT Consultant(?) and one PHD Chemistry student. I am a barrister. (Together, I would suggest that we are certainly not dumb, and I'd like to humbly suggest that I am not dumb.)

At least 3 of us shared the view that the game was not engaging and had very little strategy. We were all agreed that the game had some strategy to it (but very very little.) The fourth player was a little shy because English was not his first language and it was his second session at the club, and so I didn't press him for an opinion.

I'm not going to speak for the others here, but I recruit their opinion to my cause only to the extent of proving that I am not alone in my thoughts on this game.

I said that the theme did not hang together. Perhaps I should have explained further:

I did not understand why ice cream cones that were made up of several scoops were being dismantled and put back into tubs. If the cones represented orders from customers that had to then be made up, why were they being dimantled into their seperate components and put back into tubs? If they were already orders that were made up, why were they being put back into the tubs? It seems that the process of selling ice cream was happening backwards. I didn't read the rules, but had them summarised to me, so perhaps there is a thematic explanation in the rules which I didn't notice. I stand corrected if that is so.

As for the strategy;

There is no choice in the tub which each player takes. Each player is only allowed one tub. There is accordingly no skill there.

There is no skill in choosing the scoop on the "stacking of the cones" round. Certainly, in a four player game, things were very chaotic. And it was impossible to plan such that you could maximise chances of being able to later take an ice cream cone and recover the flavours. As soon as a cone developed three scoops or more, it became unclaimable. That is to say, it became unclaimable until you were randomly delivered another ice cream tub as 'compensation' for the fact that you could not dismantle an ice cream scoop. HOwever, it is impossible to plan in advance in scoop stacking for this eventuality because you cannot know what flavour tub you are going to get. Accordingly, this is to me, quite random.

The only real decision that needs to be made in my humble opinion is whether or not you take an ice cream tub instead of dismantling a cone. (There was of course the decision to be made in placing a scoop on a cone, but there was no skill in this for the reasons explained.) My tactic happened to be, take as many tubs as you possibly can as it then gives you stacking options in later rounds. I stormed the other players. But I did not find any satisfaction in having won.

Happy.

Thread: Re:rules question: removed scoops

Alan Kwan — 2005-02-13T14:54:07+00:00

huber (#85416),

Thanks Mr. Huber. I could see an advantage both ways. Revealing the removed scoop would add more strategy, more planning in making cones and even an extra layer of decision when receiving deliveries ("should I exchange my strawberry which has only 3 or 2 scoops at the risk of drawing a duplicate?"). However, this will make the end of the building cones phase predictable, which is inelegant, puts more emphasis on card counting, and would tend to lengthen thinking time (just like playing Cartagena with open cards). To each his taste, I agree. But Ice Cream is tasty! Thanks.

Thread: Re:rules question: removed scoops

huber — 2005-02-13T03:15:43+00:00

The intent was that they be face down. Of course, if you'd prefer to play with them face up, then by all means do so.

Joe

Thread: rules question: removed scoops

Alan Kwan — 2005-02-13T01:04:00+00:00

At the beginning of each day, 6 or 5 scoops are "randomly removed". Are these scoops revealed, or must they stay face down?

Thread: Re:User Review

Alan Kwan — 2005-02-11T08:28:32+00:00

tool (#84369),

Yes, that can be a problem ('the problem of the sheep' in modern society). Similarly, when we read a "review", we expect it to be from a "reviewer", not from a "sheep". So if I find it's written by a sheep, I can't help complaining.

Thread: Re:User Review

tool — 2005-02-09T20:10:31+00:00

I think part of the problem Ice Cream may be having is that at first glance it may well appear that there is little to think about (it doesn't hit you over the head with strategy considerations), and people may not have expectations that there be anything to think about, so they don't look for it.

As a contrasting example, take Coloretto, which as has been noted is similar to Ice Cream. It was designed by a known German designer with a decent track record of thoughtful (if not wildly deep) games and published by an established German company. I think that people were therefore predisposed to find something of interest in the game. In some other cases such predisposition leads some people to find things in a game that I would argue aren't there, but in Coloretto's case I think it worked out well - although I seem to recall that when it first came out there was a minority of comments along the same lines as this Ice Cream review.

Ice Cream has the disadvantage of being from a relatively new designer and publisher. Given that and that it's extremely simple and certainly doesn't force you to think, I think it's pretty easy to unconsciously assume that there is nothing to it until proven otherwise.

Thread: Re:User Review

Alan Kwan — 2005-02-09T03:09:58+00:00

huber (#83961),

I'm sorry if I sounded as if I put words in your mouth.

What I meant was that, I agree with your opinion that there should be more in the game than this review seemed to indicate.

I guess I'm just getting too fed up (dismayed) by the recent trend of clueless reviews, shooting down anything from Attika and Masquerade (Yuhodo) to Jambo and Fifth Avenue to Spy (Knizia) and Ice Cream.

It's one thing to say that one doesn't enjoy Magna Grecia or Yinsh because it causes his brains to overheat, it's another thing to say that a game has no skill or strategy just because one is too dumb to see it. Whether one enjoys or likes a game is subjective opinion, and everyone is entitled to his own tastes and preferences; but whether a game has room for strategy and skill is more or less a mathematical fact which can be judged objectively if the reviewer has an adequately mathematically analytical mind. I do not enjoy playing Caeser and Cleopatra, but I won't deny that the game is rich in strategy and tactics.

If a reviewer doesn't like Ice Cream because the strategies are too simple or because he feels no need for a filler or family game, that's fine. But claiming that the game has no skill component is just factually wrong.

Thread: Re:end game scoring

huber — 2005-02-08T20:16:14+00:00

Since the designer is here, I'd like to ask a question about something I'm curious about, while I'm still looking for opportunities (enough players) to really try out the game more.

At the end of the first 3 days, one keeps the unopened gallons for future use, and scores 1VP for each duplicate gallon. But at the end of the 4th day, one scores 1VP for each duplicate gallon, but unopened gallons are worth (next to) nothing.

Does this cause a significant shift in one's strategy? More specifically, about how much do you think an unopened gallon is worth (in the first 3 days)? Do you consider its worth to be more or less than 1VP?

I believe an unopened gallon is worth a bit more than 1VP in the first 3 days - the exact value has a number of dependencies. But I like to think of it as much like the end of summer - it's a rush to get the Ice Cream sold, because what's leftover won't be appealing by the time you re-open next Spring. (Thematically that doesn't explain why duplicates have value, but so be it...)

Joe

Thread: Re:User Review

huber — 2005-02-08T15:29:53+00:00

Alan Kwan wrote:

Joe, you are right. We're seeing more and more of these dumb reviewers here on BGG, who shoot down a game just because they are too dumb to understand it.

I'd like to be clear - while I have a different opinion than the reviewer here, I do not consider him a dumb reviewer or his review to be fatally flawed. He has expressed his opinion, and tried (I believe) to do so in a humorous manner. He's entitled to his opinion, and I'm sure there are others who share it.

There is always a danger in writing a review that you will have missed something - good or bad - about the game, either because you haven't played the game enough or because you haven't played it with enough different opponents. I am absolutely certain that there are games I would like _if I played them with the right people_, not for the company but for the insights I would receive into the game. Instead, they fall flat with me, and get lumped in with the greater number of games that I just don't happen to care for. I don't review such games, generally - I've never found a strong desire to write extensively about games I don't care for - but there's no reason someone else shouldn't be allowed to. (Of course, it's also entirely possible that happyamoeba wouldn't enjoy Ice Cream even with repeated play with the optimal opponents, and would write essentially the same review then that he in fact did now.)

Joe

Thread: end game scoring

Alan Kwan — 2005-02-08T14:25:06+00:00

Thread: Re:User Review

clearclaw — 2005-02-08T06:15:08+00:00

Alan Kwan (#83825),

Yup. Ice Cream isn't chess, but there's definite significance and increasing impact to the decisions made from the first round onward.

Thread: Re:User Review

Alan Kwan — 2005-02-08T03:34:43+00:00

huber (#83112),

Joe, you are right. We're seeing more and more of these dumb reviewers here on BGG, who shoot down a game just because they are too dumb to understand it.

While Ice Cream is definitely little more than a filler of about the same weight as Coloretto, I can't see how it is "worse" than Coloretto in that respect. Perhaps the game is even more subtle than Coloretto (with the 4-day game play and the mechanism of "opening" gallons), so the dumb reviewers don't see the (supposedly rather simple) strategy.

If we don't start some kind of moderation or censorship here on BGG, it's going to turn into a site which advocates Jenga/Quarto/Igloo Pop ... only those games with strategy no more than 1 move deep. We recently have been seeing many games with non-obvious, non-trivial, non-immediate-effect strategy being shot down by dumb reviewers here.

Thread: Re:User Review

huber — 2005-02-05T14:31:44+00:00

happyamoeba (#82469),

Sorry to hear you didn't enjoy it. I think there's more control than you're suggesting, but I suppose I'm rather biased on the matter...

Joe

Thread: Re:User Review

kayebee — 2005-02-05T13:47:20+00:00

happyamoeba (#82469),

I enjoyed this session report, even though it looks like I would not enjoy the game. Very funny, nice job

Thread: User Review

happyamoeba — 2005-02-04T00:07:29+00:00

Hi,

This is my first comment/session report, and I don't speak for the members of Swiggers, but put that name down becasue the computer asks for it.

ICE CREAM

Oh Dear. What a dreadful game. Even if this is meant for children of about 6, designers ought to be designing a game which is a step up from games like 'snap' which have very little thinking involved. This is sure to put young gamers off gaming generally and possibly result in them demanding real ice cream as compensation for the trauma that they've been put through as a result of playing it.

Parents, you better buy some proper Hagen-Dazs with your money and give it to your kids. They'll soon discover that the card components don't play well or taste nice.

The game doesn't actually hang together as a theme either. The game starts by players secretly taking a flavour of ice cream in a tub. Each player then takes a card representing a scoop of ice cream and either loads a new cone or puts it onto an existing cone.

Once the ice cream scoops have been exhausted, players then remove cones full of ice cream based some really arbitary rules involving matching ice cream in the cones to the ones in the tub you possess.

Either you can do it, or you can't. No skill there. You may choose to take an extra tub (thus increasing the probablity you will obtain a match for the ice cream scoops later on in the game, either in another round or this round.)

Scoops score points. (1 each). Tubs that have scoops of the same flavour on them are discarded.

The only skill emerges in round 3 where you actually have enough tubs to be able to load the ice cream on cones in a way which will score you points. By then, its too late, the game is almost over. I suppose the consolation of this, is that the game is almost over.

Regard should be had to Article 1 of the Human Rights Convention (Torture is forbidden in ALL circumstances)when deciding whether to play this game.

Happy.