Game: Scepter of Zavandor, The

Image

Toynan — 2008-08-30T12:59:57+00:00

One board during the game

Image

Toynan — 2008-08-30T12:56:31+00:00

During the game

Thread: Re: [Review] Scepter of Zavandor

ChernobylCow — 2008-08-26T05:02:55+00:00

Thanks. What I liked about your review is that I realized you included an introductory paragraphed that summarized your article as a whole...not enough reviews do that sort of thing around here. You have to hunt and poke for the details you want even if there are numbered bullets.

I see this game on Tanga right now for 19.99 which is probably a stellar price but unfortunately I already have a 'meaty' game (Arkham Horror) with a long play time that just never gets pulled out. I probably would've enjoyed this one better. As a newcomer to boardgaming I'm coming to realize there is a big difference between 3-4 hours of PC gaming by yourself and gathering up a group for a long table top session.

Thanks.

Thread: Re: Sentinals question...

taraba — 2008-08-04T14:55:15+00:00

Your score is calculated at the end of every turn based on your current positions. This includes sentinel scores as you gain and lose active gems. If you're only adjusting your score marker when you gain and lose stuff, then your just simplifying the work. In our group, we also adjust the scores mostly when we change things. But if we ever doubt our score, then we re-add the values up.

Thread: Re: Sentinals question...

coolpapa — 2008-08-04T06:00:42+00:00

They definitely vary as the game goes on. This leads to, for example, a possible tactic of picking up the Fox (I think), which gives points for sapphires, on the cheap, and then downgrading all your gems to sapphires at the last possible moment.

Thread: Sentinals question...

swingjunkie — 2008-08-04T05:41:43+00:00

Do you score Sentinals the moment you buy them and that is your score, or can they vary as the game goes on if you lose or gain gems?

Image

unittype — 2008-06-29T20:38:50+00:00

The components and box as they come.

Thread: Re: Ending SvZ

taraba — 2008-06-13T15:42:14+00:00

Kaelistus wrote:
In addition there's the added advantage of ending the game earlier and starting one where you do have a chance in winning.

Yeah, that's why I adopt the flip-the-board-in-the-air-when-I'm-losing strategy in games. Then we can move on to some other game where I'm winning. But I never get to see my victory come to life because some asshole flips the board in the air before the game is done. They're so childish.

But honestly, as much as you can justify why ending the game quicker is legal or good, it's in the same realm as flipping the board or just getting up and walking away if you're losing. Sit there and play out your loss when I'm winning and I'll sit and play out mine if you're winning next game.

Thread: The Guardian and the Heirarchy

Cinnibar — 2008-06-11T17:17:50+00:00

These are two variants that have become popular variants with my group to excite the end-game.

The Guardian
At game start, shuffle the Sentinels into a single stack, and use the spare title piece (or other object) to hide the top piece's identity. This top piece is the Guardian of the Sentinels and must be purchased first.
The identity of the Guardian is only revealed after the first winning Sentinel bid (still starting at 120)
After the Guardian is purchased, all remaining Sentinels are revealed and may be auctioned as normal

My group finds this helps curtail a point-leader from purchasing their 'perfect' Sentinel ASAP. Usually, the leader waits for someone else to purchase the random Sentinel, which has hurt the leader a couple times so far by being what the leader could best use. It does encourage the leader to wait until someone else is able to afford the Sentinels.

The Heirarchy
At game start, shuffle the Sentinels and distribute them into a heirarchy as shown, with the single top piece being the entry to the Heirarchy:

[c] 1
2 3
4 5 6
7 8 9[/c]

Sentinels are only available for auction if they are do not have any Sentinels before them in line. So only Sentinel #1 from the chart is available at the start of the game. After this Sentinel is purchased, then Sentinels #2 and #3 are available. If Sentinel #2 is purchased, then Sentinel #4 may now be auctioned (and later #7 once #4 is gone). Sentinel #5 is only available when Sentinels #2 AND #3 are owned.

Again, this helps curb the 'perfect' purchase situation that frequently happens in Scepter. With this model, the desired Sentinels may not be easily available and will require strategy to get through the Heirarchy by getting others to purchase the blocking tiles.

The Guardian and The Heirarchy
Start as with The Guardian setup. Once the Guardian is purchased, lay out the remaining eight tiles as per tiles 2-9 in the Heirarchy diagram.

My group likes this setup using both variants. The Sentinels becomes a task to stratigize around and there is the minor wild-card of the Guardian to defuse immediate 'perfect' purchases by the current leader.

Image

thorndor — 2008-06-11T04:00:17+00:00

The Reverse Side of the Sentinals

Image

thorndor — 2008-06-11T03:49:28+00:00

Elf Player Mat (English)

Image

thorndor — 2008-06-11T03:47:40+00:00

Witch Player Mat (English)

Image

thorndor — 2008-06-11T03:44:14+00:00

Faerie Player Mat (English)

Image

thorndor — 2008-06-11T03:42:17+00:00

Druid Player Mat (English)

Image

thorndor — 2008-06-11T03:39:24+00:00

Mage Player Mat (English)

Thread: Re: Get rid of the mathiness ---> shorten the game

StormKnight — 2008-06-09T13:32:13+00:00

After the first few games we've been playing with players able to have a '1' dust chit (counting as 1 card). That tiny change saves a lot of fiddliness in itself.

We also generally keep paper or dry erase material around to jot down money on, though we've found its not needed all that often.

Thread: Re: Ending SvZ

Moti — 2008-05-09T19:01:55+00:00

WhiteKong, thanks for your reply.
I take most of your points. That is I do work out what sentinels I'll be buying, and usually end up with most of my energy used up.
It is sometimes not obvious until the points are counted at the end where one is position wise specially for players 3,4,and5 , and in our games someone will be fighting not only to win, but just as importantly not to finish last or as best they can. For that reason, in our group in any game, no one will ask or be told what their strategy is during the game. Crowing about it afterwards is another matter. I have to accept that there is different group think on this, and this is going to affect our games, but maybe not yours or others who play a similar system.

Part of the problem as I see it is the random choosing 5 sentinels to end the game. Why is this? In a 3 player game it may take 1-3 rounds to buy up to five sentinels, in a 6 player game 1 round is almost always assured.
Hence it is easier to predict the finishing round the more players there are. You could have had the game end when 3 sentinels are bought in a 3 player game, 4 in a four player game etc etc.

Why is the game not ended when all the sentinels are bought?
I assume this was a fix to shorten an already overlong game, but it would be a much fairer game ending condition.

Thanks for your thoughts on the matter

Moti

Thread: Re: Ending SvZ

WhiteKong — 2008-05-08T22:27:58+00:00

Moti wrote:
WhiteKong

Your Paragraph1
I'm not talking about Kingmaking, but rather unintentional Kingmaking, thats is the problem.

I see now.

Moti wrote:

Your Paragraph2
Sorry, but I think you live in a Disney type world, If only life was as easy as you describe it. In the real world theres competition for the sentinels and you rarely get the chance to hang around thinking " you know what I'll get that one next round....OOps someone else has got it , silly me". Most of the time you have to grab them when they're put up, they're not like buses there won't be another owl coming along in a minute.

In the real world, you need to plan toward a sentinel strategy earlier than the second to last turn of the game. I like to go unopposed for my sentinels. I see early on what strategies other players are developing and choose one where I can go unopposed. If I see a guy grabbing a ton of diamonds, I know he wants the unicorn. If I must compete with another player for a specific sentinel, I'll bid it up to a point I think will prevent him from buying two, and then I let it go. It's a real poker game at that point. It's not a fantasy world. It's realizing that games take ~17 turns. It's using the bidding to force your opponents into wasting turns. It's about planning to have zero resources left on the last turn of the game beacuse you've spent it on another big victory point generator.

Moti wrote:

Your Paragraph3
You seem to argue against yourself. By ending the game without energy as you advise, you loose the flexibility to control the game if goes one round further. And my point is that whether the game ends there or not is not always in your hands but in the decision of people further down the line taking the wrong or right decision by good or poor play, something you can't guess (although you seem to think you can), which leads me up to your last point..

I think you didn't get where I was going. I mean, if the game ends and you still have 20 dust and 2 ruby cards, you messed up. That is 50 energy somewhere along the line that you failed to spend on something that would generate victory points.

Moti wrote:

Your paragraph4
Are you being serious? You ASK the other players in your group what they're trying to do and they TELL YOU. I had to laugh. If I asked that in my group, I'd be told to mind my own business and go and get another round of drinks in for being cheeky.

Yes, I am serious. If it is obvious that the players in third and fourth place can't win, I would ask them directly what their plan is. And, if I was one of the players in third or fourth place, I would tell you exactly what I planned to do if you asked. If others don't want to answer, that's fine. They may want to turn Zavandor into a guessing game, where the two players in front need to guess correctly on the last place players' next move. In my groups, we'd much rather it be a game about effective planning. It's kind of like telling someone in diplomacy, "Sorry, I'm in an alliance with someone else, and you're our target." The best players never lie. (or only lie once)

What advantage does the guy in third or fourth place gain by not telling what he is doing? If the answer is "none", then why not tell? If he chooses not to say anything, that's up to him. I figure he's trying to end it, or make a decision that puts me in second place instead of first. I plan accordingly. Also, if the guy in last place actually laughed at me for asking his strategy, I'd probably laugh back for him having one that put him so far behind.

Moti wrote:

Well I've played quite a bit of SvZ and and still maintain that this is a small flaw in a brilliant game. Maybe in your group by everyone discussing what they're going to do and taking time out to work out each players possible outcome in the final turn, you've overcome this, and good luck to you. However I don't think I'd enjoy the game quite as much if I did that.

In my games, the people in a position to change their own position in the game don't normally discuss what they are going to do. If a guy is out of it and can't change positions, he is usually fairly straightforward. I maintain that buy the time the C deck comes out, you need to figure out how many more turns there are going to be, and how many (if not which) sentinels you are going to be able to buy. If you can't figure it out, just keep playing. Maybe start keeping a written log of the turns to figure out how long your groups' games go so that you can more properly plan for the last few turns before they are upon you. By the time the first Mask of Charisma is sold, you should be able to accurately peg (and possibly even determine the outcome) of how many remaining turns there will be and how many sentinels you will be able to buy. In the groups I play with, the winner is always the person who outplayed the others. What you put up for auction, how much you let it go for, how far you dig into others treasuries always plays into the last couple of turns.

Thread: Re: In defense of the Magic Mirror and Crystal of Protection

jhagen1908 — 2008-05-06T20:43:40+00:00

The point about leaving the Mirrors out to tempt other players is valid. I've tended to prioritize game pacing more, figuring that if a player who shouldn't be tempted by the Mirror is tempted, I'll be able to beat that player in the long run anyway. But I suppose if you never give them any rope, they can't hang themselves.

Thread: Re: In defense of the Magic Mirror and Crystal of Protection

BFoy — 2008-05-06T20:18:52+00:00

I agree, Magic Mirror bleh!
Crystal of Protection

Magic Mirrors tend to sit around for a while, taking up space which a useful artifact could be in. For that reason Elves tend to buy them in order to speed up the game. Sometimes Mages will also buy them for the same reason.

My group has played Outpost, so we understand the value of the Crystal of Protection. It always is bid up.

Thread: Re: In defense of the Magic Mirror and Crystal of Protection

WhiteKong — 2008-05-06T14:32:08+00:00

You define an excessively narrow set of conditions in which buying a magic mirror could benefit you. I definitely agree. It's not that I have never bought a magic mirror. However, even if I am going to buy one, I still typically like to leave it out there to tempt a player who really doesn't need it. And it usually works out. Someone will break down and buy it. So, even if purchasing a mirror works out, it still may be more beneficial to let another player set themselves back a turn in the game.

As for the Crystal of Protection, you are right. They are grossly undervalued. As a gem slot and a gem, it is worth essentially the price of an emerald and half the price of a magic belt - 45 for most players. If you aren't going for diamonds (hence you have some money to burn in the B artifacts) picking up a Crystal of Protection can really be a big boost. This artifact is one of the cores of any low gem strategy. My group regularly sees these crystals go for over 50. It is the best artifact in the first half of the game. Although you have a set of conditions for acquiring them, my condition is simply "am I the witch". If I am the witch, then I am stuck on the knowledge of gems, and I really don't need to be purchasing a crystal. I need to get diamonds and a belt or rubies.

Thread: Re: Ending SvZ

jhagen1908 — 2008-05-05T19:35:13+00:00

I see what you mean. I probably should have been more precise, I think I was shortchanging the game's complexity. Assume that you are player II, in a tight race with player I. None of the other players are in a position to catch either of you, even if the game goes another turn after this one. Player I has bought his second sentinel this turn. Assuming you can move ahead of player I by doing so, do you buy a sentinel, which is your second and the fourth of the game?

Depends on whether the other players have enough to buy a sentinel. If it's a 5-player game, probably someone does. Maybe even two players do, and of course your worst case scenario is to pass on a sentinel and have the game end anyway. If a 3-player game, more likely not, and you've guaranteed the game will go another turn if player III doesn't have enough for two sentinels. You also have knowledge of their cards, dust, active and inactive gems, and concentrated energy, which gives you at least a rough estimate of their resources if you want to count it out.

Assuming they have enough energy to make the purchase, it also depends on their endgame ethos -- will they prolong the game even though they realistically can't win or improve their placement by doing so? (The "never give up, never surrender" approach.) Do they appear to be having fun? Scepter is a game which a lot of players try out and don't like, and it's usually obvious when that happens. Perhaps they might make suboptimal plays in the context of the game because their optimal play in the metagame is to end their misery and start another game 10 minutes sooner. It's not really sporting, but it is understandable.

Ultimately the decision is in the other players' hands as you say, and I could see why one would perceive that as a flaw. It probably is a small flaw, but as one of the leaders you do have a lot of information at your disposal.

As for the quotes, there's a "quote" button above your window, which will generate a blank quote tag. Also you can click the Quote link instead of the reply link and it will quote the entire last post, which you can edit as needed.

Thread: Re: Ending SvZ

Moti — 2008-05-05T17:23:02+00:00

I avoided using the term 'Kingmaker' in my posts as I think the situation I am trying to refer to is not that. None of our group countenance king making. Maybe, and it wouldn't surprise me, I have failed to explain myself properly!

Because of the complex (hidden) Energy situation, it is my opinion that the players ahead in the game would find it difficult to determine if players in lesser positions, might be able to afford a sentinel. Do they have 119 energy, or enough to buy a sentinel. One of them, two of them or none of them. So say three sentinels have been bought, and the leading players have had their turn. I don't think there is a way to work out whether the game will go one more turn or not. And I find this situation rather random.

Now if people say that they can work out in which turn the game will end, then more power to them, and they have a achieved a level which I think I will never be able to attain. But I still maintain that player A or Player B can win or loose the game because player D (maybe 20pts back) should have calculated to have 120 instead of falling one short on 119, and that can be annoying without being the fault of player D.

I just wondered if anybody had come across this, but since no one else has, it must be restricted to our group.

By the way, I'm not using the nice blue quote boxes, through ignorance of how you do that. Any one help there?

Thread: In defense of the Magic Mirror and Crystal of Protection

jhagen1908 — 2008-05-05T17:05:25+00:00

Magic Mirror (B-deck, 40 base cost, 2 VP): Transfer 1 knowledge chip from its home space to your pentagon. Each other player must destroy one active gem.

New players are often frightened of the gem-destroying Magic Mirror, but once players gain some experience and learn to protect their more valuable gems with opals, the Mirror loses some of its shine.

The case against the Mirror is well documented here: http://www.boardgamegeek.com/thread/196142. In most situations I follow this line and avoid buying the Mirror. However, I'd like to make a case for the Mirror in certain specialized situations.

I am generally willing to purchase a Mirror if the following conditions are met:

1. I have reached level 2 of the Knowledge of Artifacts track.
2. I am not in position I or II, or have less than 10 points.
3. My plan for the turn includes purchasing a knowledge chip at 25 anyway. (If I'm even considering buying the 30 chip, I'm probably losing unless I'm playing against newbies, but obviously this analysis applies to higher-cost chips as well.)
4. I have at least 35 energy available without selling gems.
5. I can get the Mirror for no more than the minimum bid plus maybe 1 or 2. I'm not interested in fighting someone who's bidding up the Mirror out of fear.
6. I am interested in a fast-paced game; in other words, I am playing sapphires, emeralds, or low-gem diamonds.

If conditions 1 and 2 are true, then my -5 discount from the Artifacts track and lack of any penalties for being in first or second place mean that the Mirror costs me 35 energy. Since I was already planning to spend 25 on the knowledge chip, I am paying an extra 10 for 2 VP plus the convenience of not having to destroy an opal. The opal itself is valued from 3-5 depening on my position on the Knowledge of Gems track. This makes the Mirror purchase essentially a straight trade of 5-7 energy for 2 VP, far exceeding the ratio available from most other VP sources.

Taking the VP early might put me in an unfavorable turn order position; usually I want to be confident that buying a Mirror won't move me higher than III. For this reason I find the Mirror more appealing in 4- or 5-player games. (I haven't yet had the pleasure of playing with six.) I'm also more inclined to buy the Mirror at the beginning or in the middle of the B-deck than at the end, since I don't yet have to worry about stockpiling cash for the inevitable Mask of Charisma bidding war.

This situation comes up for me maybe one game in five or six, but it does happen. I think buying a Magic Mirror at 35 is a viable tactic under those specific conditions.

Crystal of Protection (B-deck, 40 base cost, 2 VP, toad): Generates 1 emerald card/turn.

Unlike the Magic Mirror, you likely won't get laughed at for buying a Crystal of Protection. However, I think the Crystal is undervalued even by many experienced players. In particular my group tends to value Magic Belts very highly, which I think advantages those of us who can make use of Crystals.

Broken down into its components, a Crystal is essentially an emerald plus a gem slot. Even without an artifact discount, 40 is a reasonable price for what amounts to a gem plus half a Belt. After all, if Belts are bid up, then extra gem slots become a very expensive commodity, as moving onto Knowledge of Accumulation is not much cheaper. I start looking to buy Crystals of Protection in the following circumstances.

1. I am not on the Knowledge of Gems track. If I can get an emerald for 18 or 21, or a diamond for 28 or 24, I'm probably better off just buying the gem. Crystals only become really attractive when compared to full-price gems.
2. I am not the Kobold. Gem slots are less valuable to the Kobold, who starts on the Knowledge of Accumulation track and will unlock extra gem slots through research.
3. I don't already have a Magic Belt. I probably don't have enough money to fill out seven or eight gem slots with enough left over to buy Crystals, and if I do I'm probably still in the middle game while others are positioning themselves for Masks and their first sentinel purchase. Not a good spot to be in.
4. Preferably I have other Toads. If I'm planning to buy the Toad as my first sentinel then I might be able to score 4 points off the Crystal instead of 2.
5. Preferably I am on the Knowledge of Artifacts track, and have no position penalties. -5 is always nice, though I am willing to buy a Crystal without the discount if my setup warrants it.

(Inspired by a recent game in which I bought three Crystals and a Mirror, and was able to ride my artifacts plus an early move onto Knowledge of Energy Flow to a win despite my pathetic (2e, 2s, 1o) gem layout.)

Thread: Re: Ending SvZ

jhagen1908 — 2008-05-04T21:13:21+00:00

Moti wrote:

Your Paragraph2
Sorry, but I think you live in a Disney type world, If only life was as easy as you describe it. In the real world theres competition for the sentinels and you rarely get the chance to hang around thinking " you know what I'll get that one next round....OOps someone else has got it , silly me". Most of the time you have to grab them when they're put up, they're not like buses there won't be another owl coming along in a minute.

If you read WhiteKong's strategy article for this game, I think it's clear he's not living in a Disney world as you put it. Of course there is a tangible cost of putting off a sentinel buy -- you get a sentinel less suited to you. One of the things the leader has to do in a case like this is to decide when the game is likely to end, and if it isn't this turn, whether buying the best sentinel (usually 2-4 points better than the next best in my experience) and spending the energy now is worth the tradeoff of a lack of flexibility for next turn.

Often there are multiple sentinels of equal or near-equal value; that too will factor into the leader's reasoning. Number of players will make a big difference too; in a 3-player game, you're usually safer waiting than in a 5-player game. Your second or third choice sentinel will more likely be available if fewer players are ready to gobble them up.

It can sometimes be the best choice to snap up the sentinel immediately, but to use a golf analogy, doing so is essentially posting your score in the clubhouse and waiting to see if anyone can pass you next turn. Sometimes you have a large enough lead to pull it off, sometimes you don't. If it comes down to a kingmaking move on the part of another player, then the lead was pretty tenuous to begin with. I think that's what WhiteKong's getting at when he lays the blame for this situation at the feet of the leader.

Of course, if you're really concerned you can always claim that since the game came down to kingmaking it was really a draw, and resolve it via the tiebreaker in the rule book.

Thread: Re: Ending SvZ

Moti — 2008-05-01T17:01:38+00:00

WhiteKong

Your Paragraph1
I'm not talking about Kingmaking, but rather unintentional Kingmaking, thats is the problem.

Your Paragraph2
Sorry, but I think you live in a Disney type world, If only life was as easy as you describe it. In the real world theres competition for the sentinels and you rarely get the chance to hang around thinking " you know what I'll get that one next round....OOps someone else has got it , silly me". Most of the time you have to grab them when they're put up, they're not like buses there won't be another owl coming along in a minute.

Your Paragraph3
You seem to argue against yourself. By ending the game without energy as you advise, you loose the flexibility to control the game if goes one round further. And my point is that whether the game ends there or not is not always in your hands but in the decision of people further down the line taking the wrong or right decision by good or poor play, something you can't guess (although you seem to think you can), which leads me up to your last point..

Your paragraph4
Are you being serious? You ASK the other players in your group what they're trying to do and they TELL YOU. I had to laugh. If I asked that in my group, I'd be told to mind my own business and go and get another round of drinks in for being cheeky.

Well I've played quite a bit of SvZ and and still maintain that this is a small flaw in a brilliant game. Maybe in your group by everyone discussing what they're going to do and taking time out to work out each players possible outcome in the final turn, you've overcome this, and good luck to you. However I don't think I'd enjoy the game quite as much if I did that.

Thread: Re: Ending SvZ

WhiteKong — 2008-05-01T15:15:20+00:00

Moti wrote:
Ok, I Love this game.

I'm looking for the experience of other players in the last turn of Svz.

It happens quite frequently, that the game can be decided by whether a player who has little chance of winning buys a Sentinel or not.

Theres usually one player that wants the game to end that turn (because he feels he's ahead and may not be able to buy another Sentinel the next turn). And another player that can buy another Sentinel next turn and win.

So its usually left to those who are poorly at placed at the back to decide the winner, not a pleasant situation. It doesn't always happen, but it quite common.

Any thoughts?

I don't play with any type of Kingmaker rules. If you are in a position to have your game decided by someone else play, then that is the position you have put yourself in.

The person who is out in front and wants the game to end quickly is probably the one who made the mistake. Instead of buying that sentinel, maybe he should have seen that by NOT buying it, he could prolong the game an extra turn or two and pad his lead with a talisman or cloak. If I am way out in front, I usually don't buy a sentinel unless I think it will end the game, or unless I believe I can get two.

If the first and second place players feel like they don't have the final say in who wins, then go back and really examine the last couple of turns and see how it could have been played differently. It isn't tough for players to keep control of their own destiny, but they need to plan for it a turn or two in advance. If you keep a log of games turns, you will start to see how many turns it takes for your games to end, and then you can start preparing. If you are ending a game with signficant available energy, you probably missed an opportunity to score some points and decide your own fate.

I also find it helpful to ask the guy in third or fourth place "What are you trying to do?" in the last couple of turns. If I know they are attempting to get a sentinel, then that helps me to plan. If I know they are trying to bump up all of their knowledge markers, again, it helps me to plan. If they won't tell me, then I figure they are trying to make me lose, which again helps me to plan.

Now, if I am not going to come in first place and I am the one playing Kingmaker, here is my game ethos:

#1 - Try to finish as high as possible. If I can go from third place to second place, I do whatever I can to get there.
#2 - If I am unable to affect what place I will finish, I try to finish as close to the leader as possible. I will try to make the point difference between the guy in first and me as low as possible. I won't prolong a game to score more points if it will mean the leader can open up a wider gap between himself/herself and me.

Thread: Re: Ending SvZ

Moti — 2008-05-01T13:44:39+00:00

That is a good ethos and for most games it is easy to apply.
However, SvZ does not lend itself well to this because of its complex point money positions.
A player could spend along time trying to work out, how holding back buying the fifth Sentinel might shift him from 4th to 3rd. As a result he normally gives up and buys.

One could say that the leading players should take this into account ( the back players giving up rather than maximissing their positions) but it can be a bit of guess work, and leads to a somewhat random ending, or several players trying to persuade a luckless player why he should give up or play on.

Thread: Re: Ending SvZ

Kaelistus — 2008-05-01T13:02:15+00:00

We have a general standard of play here: If you're playing kingmaker, pick the action that gets you place or if you can't change win order then the one that gets you closer to first.

so, I'd buy the sentinel. In addition there's the added advantage of ending the game earlier and starting one where you do have a chance in winning. Having said that, players should account for this expected action and play accordingly.

Thread: Ending SvZ

Moti — 2008-05-01T12:26:43+00:00

Ok, I Love this game.

I'm looking for the experience of other players in the last turn of Svz.

It happens quite frequently, that the game can be decided by whether a player who has little chance of winning buys a Sentinel or not.

Theres usually one player that wants the game to end that turn (because he feels he's ahead and may not be able to buy another Sentinel the next turn). And another player that can buy another Sentinel next turn and win.

So its usually left to those who are poorly placed at the back to decide the winner, not a pleasant situation. It doesn't always happen, but it is quite common.

Any thoughts?

Thread: Re: Organizing my Zepter bits

Vaughn — 2008-04-22T21:37:16+00:00

Thanks for the info.

I just picked up my case. My bits are neatly arranged.

Now I just need 3 opponents to play against.

Thread: Re: Differences between Scepter and Outpost

BFoy — 2008-03-28T12:05:43+00:00

artmark wrote:
The main difference is that they fixed a few problems that outpost had.

Outpost didn't penalize the first place players by making them pay more for their bids on items, so if players got way ahead they would probably stay there.

I don't consider this run-away leader issue a problem. Its refreshing to not have to worry about doing 'too good'. And Scepter has a problem with the Emeralds, they are worth the same number of VPs as Diamonds but they produce alot less.

artmark wrote:
Outpost only had two main victory tracks that you had to commit to by buying specific items, titanium and new chemicals. scepter has many more options.

There is an advanced game which is better, are you playing it?

artmark wrote:
Outpost doesn't have an equivilant of the knowledge track to let you bend rules a bit.

Which isn't a problem. The knowledge track has too many flaws. I.E. the tracks aren't of equal value. Its not well-balanced, the artifact track is clearly the most powerful track. Other tracks are weak.

artmark wrote:
Outpost's big ticket scoring items at the end of the game are worth the same to all players unlike the sentinels being worth different things to different players, depending on what combinations of gems or items they have.

Unfortunately its too easy to shift gems around, so most gem sentenels can be used by anyone who isn't on the Gem track.

I like both games. Each has a different feel to it. I haven't played Phoenecia yet.

Thread: Re: Differences between Scepter and Outpost

artmark — 2008-03-27T22:02:52+00:00

I had totally forgotten about phoencia. it is a more streamlined version of outpost (no different kinds of money).

It's hard to compare these games. I had said I preferred the the game play of scepter, but outpost has a nostalgia factor to one of my game groups.

Thread: Re: Differences between Scepter and Outpost

Eric Brosius — 2008-03-27T21:09:25+00:00

I love Outpost. I didn't like Zeptor nearly as much (possibly because it compares so unfavorably to Outpost, in my opinion.) There's a third game in the set: Phoenicia. I enjoy Phoenicia, though I don't like it as well as Outpost.

The main difference between Outpost and Zeptor is that Outpost is a much "sharper" game. Your skill (and to some extent your luck) makes a big difference, even from the start of the game. Zeptor is far more forgiving. It handicaps the players who gain an early lead to give the trailers a way to catch up. Thus, in Zeptor you see the tactic of deliberately trying to stay out of the lead so as to avoid the leader penalties (similar to what happens in Power Grid.)

Also, as a previous poster mentioned, Zeptor is loaded up with a lot of extraneous fluff (such as differences in the values of the sentinals depending on who gets them.) Outpost is more straightforward.

Phoenicia is a streamlined game that plays in under an hour once you really know it. It, too, does not have the catch-up mechanism, but by the time you can clearly see that you're losing, there's only one more turn to play, so it doesn't put anyone in the "can't win but still need to play" situation for long. I enjoy Outpost so much that I don't mind the fact that it is sometimes a longish game.

You'll see that I and the previous poster list the same facts about Outpost and Zeptor, but our tastes are different, so we prefer different games. Since Outpost is so hard to obtain, you probably should compare Zeptor with Phoenicia.

Thread: Re: Differences between Scepter and Outpost

artmark — 2008-03-27T20:55:14+00:00

The main difference is that they fixed a few problems that outpost had.

Outpost didn't penalize the first place players by making them pay more for their bids on items, so if players got way ahead they would probably stay there.

Outpost only had two main victory tracks that you had to commit to by buying specific items, titanium and new chemicals. scepter has many more options.

Outpost doesn't have an equivilant of the knowledge track to let you bend rules a bit.

Outpost's big ticket scoring items at the end of the game are worth the same to all players unlike the sentinels being worth different things to different players, depending on what combinations of gems or items they have.

I like both games, outpost was great 12 years ago, and still good recently, though I prefer the game play of sceptre and theme of outpost.

Thread: Differences between Scepter and Outpost

brauerle — 2008-03-27T20:15:32+00:00

Hello geeks.

I played Scepter, but not Outpost (and I don't see any way to do this in the future).
So I'm just wondering, which are the main differences apart from theme between these two games...

Thanks in advance,
Michael

Thread: Dismal von Zavandor

Paul Mackie — 2008-03-18T11:41:37+00:00

A long one, but works well with five players so we all jumped in enthusiastically. The first several turns were typical magic-engine-building, with no or few card purchases and everyone grouped within one or two points on the score chart. It wasn’t long, however, before Alex started pulling away quite significantly. I don’t know what triggered this - whether he just grew his investment in opals or he scored himself the right card purchase early. But he just went for it after that, unfazed by the handicap on the leader’s card purchases after breaking the 10 barrier.

I was ok with the idea of hanging towards the back of the score track with Pat for a while, expecting my position to jump later as my engine built up. Although Alex seemed to be flying away in front, I was still comfortable with my relative position, until suddenly people were bidding on the sentinels way earlier than I was expecting. It was probably a panic reaction, but I felt I had to get in on this too or be left behind. My timing and bids ended being all wrong as I competed with Jeff for the Unicorn, thinking this was the only one likely to be any value because of my growing investment in diamonds. I ended up bidding too much for it, despite significant discounts. In fact, in hindsight, I should have let him buy that one while I instead should have gone for the Owl (which he eventually took rather cheaply).

Another mistake was my pattern of expenditure in turns where I had a ‘lumpy’ income. With no cards that gave me any boost to hand limit, I had to spend, and ended up planting a token in the pentagon rather late in the game. I compounded this error by buying a Cloak artefact later instead of a Talisman - the latter would have helped me complete another knowledge level and provided more points, while the former just gave me a second useless token in the pentagon. I was not going to get another opportunity to use its discount power for further sentinels.

I haven’t even mentioned yet another mistake of failing to take the bonus +2 dust with every concentrated energy tile, but nearly all of us forgot this rule too. I made yet another by failing to take a further 15 discount off my Cloak purchase (I should have bought this for 50), but this was something I realized only after the game was long over.

So my final score highlights fairly a pretty dismal playing of Zepter; probably the worst game I’ve ever had of this. Pat too was disappointed with his performance, although an email from him yesterday indicates that he’s ready to re-try his rubies strategy at the next reasonable opportunity. Bring it on - I need to make amends too!
Final sentinel counts were me with the Unicorn (points boost from diamonds); Pat with the Salamander (for rubies); Jeff with the Owl (knowledge levels) and the Toad (special artefact cards); Brian with the Fox (sapphires) and the Scarab (emeralds); and Alex with the Raven (special artefact cards) and the Tomcat (opals).
10 mins setup and rules refresher; 147 mins game time (as Pat observed, consistently half an hour per player).
Results: Alex (yellow): 73. Brian (red): 65. Jeff (green): 59. Pat (blue): 58. Paul (white): 47.

(Originally posted in The Mine Shaft Gap.)

Thread: Re: Mudando de tema

lbathayde — 2008-03-03T14:46:46+00:00

Mais uma que a baixinha leva...
Na próxima, vamos pegar ela logo de início, certo?

Thread: Re: Ruby rush by character

onigame — 2008-03-01T13:02:00+00:00

It seems to me the Druid can get the ruby in 5 turns:

Turn 1: 20+10=30 buy sapphire (2o 2s)
Turn 2: 10+15=25 buy sapphire (2o 3s)
Turn 3: 5+20=25 sell opal, buy sapphire (1o 4s) advance ruby track
Turn 4: 0+24=24 advance ruby track
Turn 5: 9+24=33 sell three sapphires, buy ruby (1o 1s 1r) lose one dust

Of course, it seems like that last step is sub-optimal as one's income actually lowers from 24 to 22. But the 24 counts as 5 cards, and the 22 only counts as 3. So maybe:

Turn 5: 9+24=33 lose 8 dust (!)
Turn 6: 25+24=49 sell opal and sapphire, buy ruby (3s 1r)
Income of 30 after turn 6.

Of course, compared to the other situations, you don't actually have a second knowledge chip purchased, so it's not clear this is that much better.

Or did I make a mistake?

Thread: Mudando de tema

tiagoaob — 2008-02-27T11:36:38+00:00

Depois de jogar Manila, Niagara e Santiago, decidimos quebrar a sequencia do jogos aquáticos. Tudo bem, jogamos também Through the Desert, mas este pode ser considerado um jogo com tema de água às avessas.

Como a Andréia deciciu jogar, abandonamos de vez o projeto de jogar o StarCraft: The Board Game e fomos jogar Scepter of Zavandor, que ela já conhecia. Eu e o João precisamos de uma explicação de regras, que naquela hora do noite, foi algo bem difícil. Eu perdi algumas partes das regras, mas acho que meu irmão perdeu mais ainda.

Iniciado o jogo, o Luiz disparou na frente, pois tinha saído com a fada que lhe dava mais dinheiro. Eu e a Andreia tentamos segui-lo, mas para a gente era mais difícil, pois tínhamos começado em outras áreas de conhecimento do jogo.

Meu irmão demorou para descobrir a mamata da grana extra e acabou ficando bem para trás no começo do jogo. Eu e a Andreia passamos esta primeira parte do jogo empatados e o Luiz disparado na frente.

Eu e o Luiz pegamos os artefatos de esmeralda e com isso, conseguimos bastante dinheiro, o Luiz mais do que eu e como a Andreia estava na minha frente no conhecimento da mamata, continuamos enpatados.

O jogo permaneceu nesta mesma situação, até que eu consegui um artefato com efeito de rubi e a Andreia o conhecimento de rubi, então começamos a ganhar mais dinheiro os dois e foi possível alcançar o Luiz. O jogo ficou embolado entre nós três por várias rodadas. O João, mais atrás, finalmente conseguiu um rubi e começou a se recuperar, mas talvez já fosse tarde, pois o Luiz, eu e a Andreia começamos a ir atrás dos ajudantes.

No ultimo turno, a Andreia disparou na frente, no que ela deixou o Luiz e eu comendo poeira. O João também deu um belo salto e quase me alcançou, mas a ordem final ficou assim: Andreia, Luiz, eu e o João.

Depois desta, eu estava com sono e fui me deitar, mas o pessoal ainda estava animado e jogou Pillars of the Earth.

Thread: Re: Get rid of the mathiness ---> shorten the game

onigame — 2008-01-22T14:22:49+00:00

Octavian wrote:
After playing again it is clear that more a fair amount of time is spent figuring out how to achieve a certain expenditure figure without wasting extra points of magic due to the limited denominations available for change. I don't feel those mental gymnastics really add much to the fun of the game itself.

An even simpler variant might be just to add some 1 chips for magic dust, which count as 1 towards the hand limit. This way, players will never need to lose points due to making change, but might still lose points due the the hand limit.

Thread: Re: Great Economics Game

JamesMc — 2008-01-18T14:58:39+00:00

I counted several times, lemme see if I can figure it up again.

5 Rubies - 15 Points
4 Sapphires - 4 Points
Master of all 6 Fields - 12 Points
Talisman - 8 Points
Belt - 2 Points
2 Mirrors - 4 Points
Some other Artifacts I don't remember - 10+ moreish
3 Sentinels each giving max value of about 17 each

That right there is 106 points. I may have had more artifacts, and there may be other things that I am forgetting that contribute to victory points. I counted several times, and we 100% did not just keep adding the points up.

Thread: Re: Great Economics Game

Werbaer — 2008-01-18T11:24:38+00:00

rydiafan wrote:
JamesMc wrote:
I loved this game and did rather well with 120 Victory Points at the end,
Ummmm... no?
Right.
There are rumours of possible 80+ scores in a 3 player game. But 120 is too high.
Sounds like a (not uncommon) rules error.

James,
you don't add your VP each round to your total. You only keep a running track of your current points; nothing gets accumulated. You score is the number of VP you have at hand in the last round.

Thread: Re: Great Economics Game

rydiafan — 2008-01-18T03:28:32+00:00

JamesMc wrote:
I loved this game and did rather well with 120 Victory Points at the end,

Ummmm... no?

Thread: Re: Great Economics Game

Paul King — 2008-01-17T22:19:34+00:00

Scepter is a bit more more than a retheming of Outpost. They are closely related but not really the same game.

Phoenicia is another Outpost variant - maybe you'd prefer the ancient civilisation theme ? And it plays in less time than either Outpost or Scepter.

Thread: Great Economics Game

JamesMc — 2008-01-17T16:03:34+00:00

I had been staring at the box of this game for almost a year, and thought it looked terrible. It sat and sat on our Gaming Store shelves with nary a person even looking at it. Finally by chance, I saw a picture of someone playing it here on the Geek, and was intrigued. After doing some research, I picked this up and have been very pleased by it.

I won't go into the details of the game, as that has been covered in other reviews already, but it is esentially an economics management game. If you know what Opportunity Cost means, then you will do well. As a person with business experience, I loved this game and did rather well with 120 Victory Points at the end, the second closest in the 70's.

Pros: Very meaty. I felt like I had many possible actions to take each round, and that many of them had a similar benefits. I never felt locked into taking a certain action that was clearly better than others.

It also rewards good play. Smart decisions early on pay huge dividends towards the end of the game. The player in last place did not agree that this was a benefit, as he felt that there was nothing he could do to catch up to a runaway lead in this game.

Non-Conflicting. Our groups like games with a minimum of conflict, but cooperateive is the best. With this one, the only real conflict is in the bidding, and really that is just competition. Beyond that there isnt a huge amount of interaction, and very little interfeerence from other players other than the errant Mirror that is easily negated.

Cons: The theme isn't really a Con, but it is kinda weak. I only recently learned that this was a retheming of a colony building game, but I think something like a Company or Business would better suit the theme of the game system. Then again, there are already plenty of games with that theme, so maybe that helps this stand out.

The game begins to feel inevitable towards the last few turns. When a person has a huge lead and is raking in money, there is little that can be done to stop them. They can't be outbid. Furthermore, this is a game where you have to spend money to make money, and the system is explicitly designed that way through the hand size limit. With that in mind, if you have a lot to spend, you will make a lot.

If you are bad with money, and do not really understand economics, this may not be the game for you. Then again, the game could teach you a lot if you are willing to learn from other players!

Final: Given everything, I really liked this game. I would rate it about an 8, as I can't see myself turning it down for any reason other than the time commitment. The game probably takes a minimum of two hours to play with four people, but can take much longer if you add even just one person with analysis paralysis. With that factor, I'd have to lower my total review to a 7, as it is not totally accessable. I love it, but you have to play it with the right crew.

Thread: Re: Great game - horrific theme

alicious — 2008-01-09T04:11:56+00:00

yeah, they should have made it about port trading or farming, we could sure use more games like that...

personally, I want everything to do with this game because of the theme and box.

Thread: Re: Complex strategies for Scepter of Zavandor

ipgyst — 2007-12-30T02:01:48+00:00

This thread is now a must-read if you play SoZ. Good stuff.

Thread: Re: Complex strategies for Scepter of Zavandor

DrakeStorm — 2007-12-30T01:39:20+00:00

There is alot of good insight here, but I think some key points are missing.

First, to consistently win the game you have to really manage your victory points. Getting a discount or paying extra for artifacts can make or break your chances of winning, no matter what Character you are.

Also, you have to be careful what strategy you pursue based on the people you are playing with. Are the players smart enough to know that the Magic Mirror is horrible and should almost never be bought? If so you have more leeway in maxing out your gems and not having to leave 1 or even 2 opals around for the "stupid" player that buys the Mirrors (at least till the end of the game when someone will eventually buy one or 2). Also if the Mirrors aren't bought, that stops new Artifacts from coming out which in turn lends itself to certain strategies.

As to which Character is the best, its hard to say and might depend on the number of players. I agree that most new players get sucked into the idea that the Knowledge of Gemstones is a good track to be on and thus The Witch is a good character. I, however, would say the Witch is the Worst. Other than that I like the rest except the Mage. My first 10 or so games, I thought the Elf and then the Mage were the 2 best, but now I've realized that the Kobold is better than the Mage. In almost every game I've played recently, I end up on both the Knowledge of Artifacts and Knowledge of Accumulation (if I'm the Kobold or Mage) and everything else equal the Kobold starts with 5 extra dust and thus gets off to a better start because of that (if you get a 5 or better Sapphire card with the Kobold you can buy an Opal and a Sapphire turn 1. You can't with the Mage). Also after getting to level 2 of each track would you rather get 5 off an artifact each turn (which would mean you actually have to BUY an artifact each turn which usually isn't the case) or get a Sapphire card every turn (i.e. you have a sapphire in your extra slot).

I have won the game with many different strategies, more so than I would have expected possible.

Generally, however, I stick to these ideas -

1) Don't go for Rubies unless you are the Druid.
2) Don't go up the Knowledge of Energy Flow unless you are the Elf.
3) Don't go up the Knowledge of Gemstones unless you are buying Diamonds or Rubies, or are the Witch.
3) Don't buy any artifacts early on that aren't going to increase your income. The extra victory points from the artifacts will come back to haunt you in turn order. That's why the mirror is horrible - you get 2 victory points and no income for it! I also don't like the Crystal Ball, its not as bad since you only get 1 VP, but you should be able to manage your hand limit without it!!.
4) Don't go up to level 4 on any track till you really need to (again the extra 2 VPs will hurt you on turn order more than what you gain usually). The exception would be the Energy Flow (but even recently I'm beginning to question this and think it could be better to stop at level 3). Also you obviously have to go to level 4 on the Ruby track as the Druid to get more Rubies after the first.
5) Don't let anyone get 2 Mask of Charismas! Try to get at least 1 for yourself!
6) Late in the game, make sure you will get a decent return on your purchases. Don't overbid on Chalice of Fire if the game is gonna end in a turn or two - you won't get your money back. Same is true for a Mask of Charisma - if the game ends with everyone buying 1 Sentinel (in a 5-6 player game), it might only be worth 50 where as if you get to buy 2 Sentinels then it could be worth 100. Knowing when to bid up artifacts and when to drop out is crucial!
7) Its usually never a good idea to buy a Talisman or a Shadow Cloak, the money should be used to buy a Sentinel.

One variant we play with (mostly to speed up the game) is have a 1 Dust token (we use an upside down Opal that has a 1 printed on it). It counts 1 towards hand limit just like the 2 Dust token. The reason it speeds up the game is you don't have figure out how not to get screwed out of 1 dust when buying things.

I think everything is pretty well balanced, but I would make 3 changes to the game besides the variant above.
1) The Magic Mirror gives you 0 VPs when you buy it, but gives you 2 VPs at the end of the game. That would make it ALOT more attractive.
2) The Mage starts with 20 dust instead of 15. (might then be just a little too powerful, but can't think of a compromise. 15 is too weak in my opinion.)
3) The Shadow Cloak gives you 1 free Knowledge level rather than 1 free chip to pentagon (95% of the time, by the time you can afford the Cloak, getting the free chip is useless).

Thread: Re: Great game - horrific theme

Al Johnson — 2007-12-22T16:33:15+00:00

In response to previous poster about Pheonicia...

One of the players in this game had previously played Pheonicia but liked this one more - mainly because it's a bit meatier.

Thread: Re: Great game - horrific theme

cparrott — 2007-12-22T15:50:56+00:00

If you enjoyed the economics of this game, then you will most certainly enjoy Phoenicia. Another rethemed Outpost by Tom Lehmann, but shorter in play time.

Thread: Re: Great game - horrific theme

the bored gamer — 2007-12-22T12:17:41+00:00

To me it feels completely the other way around. I like the theme, the artwork and especially the box. Really nice job there, but I don't care for the game at all. So from that perspective you are right. This game almost spoiled me on fantasy.

Thread: Re: Great game - horrific theme

BFoy — 2007-12-22T10:44:10+00:00

I think most people ignored the theme.

Thread: Re: Great game - horrific theme

jtakagi — 2007-12-21T23:12:31+00:00

I would admit that I'm not fond of the theme (though I would imagine that most are, I'm just not into fantasy stuff), it did make it more difficult to learn the game, especially because of the nomenclature. Why not just say "buy" instead of "enchant"?

However, I think the box cover is very nice - very thematic and more evocative than the standard illustrative style generally used on box covers. The only thing that kind of messes it up is the Z-Man logo. Not because I'm against Z-Man, but because it doesn't blend in very well (due to the white background).

Thread: Great game - horrific theme

Al Johnson — 2007-12-21T22:22:52+00:00

The title sounds harsh, but in my opinion the theme just does not fit this game. I never wanted to try the game, something about being young magicians to gain power of magic knowledge and achieve a powerful position turned me off. On top of this they must enchant jewels, nope did nothing for me. Then add on the game box and truthfully I didn't want anything to do with this game.

However I finally did try the game - and through the beginning of the rules I was regretting I had. But finally we got around to playing and bang! I realized this really is just an economic game; you need to get a good cash flow system going and evenutally use that to gain victory points. The game was great - after one play I give it a 9!

It made me wonder how many others wanted nothing to do with this game because of the theme and box. Frankly, it just doesn't fit - it seemed more like a role playing game and something to do with magic when you read the back of the box.

The bottom line is - forget the theme and play the game. It is a very good game - one of my top ten! It's a shame so many people won't even play this game because of the title alone. I really believe this game could be a bigger seller if it was re-themed with a different box.

Again, great game though. P.S. I know this is a rethemed Outpost - I don't really know if that fit well really.

Thread: Re: Online game

jearles — 2007-12-05T13:06:02+00:00

I am not aware of a Scepter of Zavander online version, but... there is an online version of Phoenicia at http://ellought.demon.co.uk/jklm/phoenicia.php.

Phoenicia is Tom Lehmann's take on a streamlined Outpost, which was also the basis for Scepter of Zavander.

Despite the site talking about "pre-release" and "released" games, both Phoenicia and On The Underground are still available for play without an upgraded membership.

Thread: Online game

biso — 2007-12-05T10:59:56+00:00

Is there an playable online version of this marvellous game?

Thanks
biso

Thread: Re: Two-player experience with a non-gamer

BFoy — 2007-11-26T16:36:25+00:00

JoSch wrote:
Conclusion:
Zepter works completely fine with only two players. I hardly can imagine playing this with more then three or four players as downtime will grow too long. Although more players will add some fun to the auction elements in buying artefacts and sentinels.

A group can easily reduce the downtime by internalizing. The more players, the more interaction. But AP can really ruin this type of game. You need to play this with a group that is dedicated to playing it in a reasonable amount of time.

Thread: Two-player experience with a non-gamer

JoSch — 2007-11-26T14:14:33+00:00

This weekend I played this twice with my girlfriend who is a "non-gamer". Actually it was the first time introducing her to a board game being on the strategic side. Before that we only played games like "Die Insel", "Anno Domini" or "Cafe International". But as I really wanted to try Zepter of Zavandor and as the fantasy theme seemed appealing, I gave it a try.

Was it a good choice? Almost. We played two games so she was willing to give it another try after the first game. But I don't think that I can get her into another round if there are alternatives available. Which supposedly will always be the case.

Gameplay:
I consider the mechanisms to be pretty smooth. Once you have understood that in principle it all boils down to a choice of three alternatives in player turn (invest in gems / purchase artefacts or sentinels / buy knowledge) the game should run smoothly. To my mind that is.

The problem was that for my better half the actions became clear but she couldn't make heads or tails out of them. In the first game I had the druid and therefore the ruby strategy (I never heard of it before playing) was set for me. Once my girlfriend saw the big returns from the first rubies she copied that strategy. Hence, she was closely trailing me but was never able to catch up. In the second game we both shied away from rubies. While I followed a new strategy of all-emeralds she did a little bit of everything. It came to a runaway-leader syndrome which spoiled her game experience. The income collection (energy) at the start of each turn was a turnoff for her all the time. Also she complained about the playing time being too long (2hrs for our first game including rule explanation).

While a gamer might consider this a medium-weight game, a non-gamer can easily be overwhelmed by the possibilities. You must have a grip on Invest-for-return to like this game.

Rules:
It is easy to overlook important rules. This happened to me in three instances in the first game:

- Starting amount of dust: only written on the player tables and not in the rules. So we started without any dust.
- Limit of five rubies: just written in brackets. This made the ruby strategy even more powerful playing without this limit.
- Only one knowledge advance per turn: this was the most serious mistake. Thereby we advanced far too fast and in the middle of the game there was barely anything to be learned anymor.

Thanks to BGG files we had printed out an overview for the second game which helped a lot. Still, there seem to be too many rules for a non-gamer to really enjoy this.

Conclusion:
Zepter works completely fine with only two players. I hardly can imagine playing this with more then three or four players as downtime will grow too long. Although more players will add some fun to the auction elements in buying artefacts and sentinels.

But I would recommend it only to people with some interest/experience in strategic games or at least basic knowledge of economic principles.

My rating: 8/10

Image

cuazzel — 2007-10-22T18:12:50+00:00

Box back (2nd Edition)