Thread: Re: Component List?

MartinStever — 2008-10-10T04:25:06+00:00

Mine also has 112 cards. Thanks for the confirmation!

Thread: Re: Component List?

schlappy — 2008-10-01T23:08:48+00:00

Wow -- I just found a copy of this today!

Mine has 112 cards. I'm assuming that's right, because the copy I found is in great shape -- appears unplayed.

How many cards does yours have?

Thread: Component List?

MartinStever — 2008-10-01T05:50:30+00:00

Does anyone have a card count on this game?

Thread: A game of genuine knowledge and bluffing

whac3 — 2008-09-16T22:26:37+00:00

1. Introduction

This is the second of two games which are not my cup of tea but which I think a friend of mine will love. I prefer games of pure strategy and tactics, although I do extremely well at games of knowledge. This is decidedly of the latter type, since the game is not only about knowing historical figures but knowing lots of them and thinking on one's feet so to speak.

2. Components

The bx-art is extreemly well done and the cards are nice yet very functional and easy to read. The rules are short but complete and well-written. One should perhaps be aware that the board consists of alarge plastic mat on which cards are played, but this is at least a nice-looking and frankly durable plastic mat. The bookshelf style of packaging also keeps the inner box looking nice while the outer box absorbs the wear and tear. For the copy I am looking at, the outer box shows its age a bit but the rest could be brand new.

3. Game-play

This game is quite unique as far as I know. Players place cards in groups both in front of themselves and modifyign the groups in front of other players. Cards have categories like Status-- which is livign or dead-- country or region, activity [e.g., sports, politican, etc.] A player must place a card in one of the four groups but must have someone in mind who matches all the criteria of the group; players can be challenged to name a person at any time-- with points scored for winning or losign a challenge. Bluffing enters because one must always at least look like one knows a person to name and must guess when others cannot.

Scoring relates the the number and type of cards in the group. When a group is complete, the player can also name the person to score the related points. The first person to a certain score wins.

Thread: Tiptoeing through the Past, Episode 5

Randy Cox — 2007-09-26T18:20:07+00:00

After test driving Tennis, Decathlon Games, Fast Golf, and Venture over the past couple of nights, it was time to try out an old leisure game--Image. I call this a leisure game because it isn't really a party game or a trivia game plus that's what Avalon Hill called it in their catalogs after they acquired the game from 3M.

The game is pretty simple, but not always straightforward. This causes some people (*cough* rules lawyer *cough*) a little consternation, but works fine for me.

Components
A huge deck of cards in 5 different groupings (they're not suits, though they have distinct colors). The five groupings are: Time, Place, Status, Activity, and Letter. Time indicates a century (18th, 19th, 20th, maybe others). Place is either a continent or country. Status is Living, Dead, Fictional, etc. Activity is a general area of expertise like Poetry, Sports, or Business. And letters are just that, cards with one or more letters on them.

In some editions, there was a supurfluous board, but the game is meant to be played on a bare table.

Rules
Ten cards are placed on the board, two from each grouping. Players are dealt five cards each. Then players take turns building "Images" (strings of cards) from the common cards on the table and some from their hand. Players are not allowed to use a communal card (or cards) from the table unless they play at least one from their hand into that "Image."

The idea is to build a string of attributes (e.g. 20th century - Sports - Dead - W, X, Y, Z) for which you know a celebrated figure who fills the bill (Ted Williams). No players "own" any of the images. Everything is communal except for the cards in your hand. You can "cover" attributes of the same color with a different attribute or simply add to the string of cards. When an "Image" reaches at least 3 cards in length, a player may add a letter card to it to end it (you can only add a letter when you are ending an image). At that point, you state who the historical figure is and discard the image, scoring points based on its length (4 cards are worth 2 points, 8 or more are worth 12).

The intent of the game seems to be that you will leave unfinished images from turn to turn, hoping that no one else can alter it into a different person. Per the rules, you can challenge someone at any time (even before they cap off the string with a letter card) and say "Who on earth matches that Biblical - 20th century - Fictional - Woman - Living string you're working on." If they can't come up with an answer, they lose 6 points, otherwise, they get 12 points.

After each player's turn, they replinish their hand to 5 cards (they can use no more than 3 from their hand during a turn) and then they replinish the table cards to 10 (5 of each type, which is a major design flaw, as you do a deck search trying to match the missing colors).

Playing in the Real World
The idea of building personalities is a good mechanism. However, in practice, few gamers are going to leave an unfinished image on the board. It's just too risky, as the next player can alter part of it, add to it, and get the points. Thus, players simply try to make as long a string as they can from the cards on the board plus the three (or fewer) from their hand.

And then the debates come in. As you'd expect, some gamers will argue about images. They'll want to challenge whether or not George Harrison is legitimately associated with the activity "Business" as well as "Singer." And if you play by the rules, you'll need some definitive resource to arbitrate and then follow the benefit/penalty rule.

Should one play by the rules as printed, I think this would be a pretty poor game. Fortunately, there's a kinder, gentler way to play.

My recommendations
First, seed the board as they say in the rules 10 cards, 2 of each color, on the board and 5 to each player. From that point on, after a turn, replenish the player hand and replenish the board to 15 cards, without regard to color groups.

Also, get rid of the challenge rules as written. Just let players make their image and then either leave it on the table or finish it off with a letter and score. But when scoring, allow the other players to remove any attributes that aren't completely kosher. If half of the opposing players think an attribute should be tossed, take it out and discard it. Do this only during the scoring; do not allow challenges to incomplete images.

So, in the instance of George Harrison being a businessman, let the opponents decide. The imagemaker can lobby for their cause, but the opponents' say is final. Yes, this style of play could be abused, but why? What's the point in belly-aching about a leisure game? It's just for fun anyway.

The verdict
We abandoned the rules as written on the very first image and played pretty much by the alternate rules I outlined above. And it was fun. We didn't come close to playing a full game (until all cards are gone--which I don't think I'd recommend). We just played two turns each plus one cooperative turn (where we made a monstrously long image of Teddy Roosevelt).

Images we came up with during the short time we played:
Maya Angelou: 20th Century - Living - Female - Poetry - "A"
Ted Williams: 20th Century - Dead - Sports - "W, X, Y, Z"
George Harrison: 20th Century - Europe - England - "H" (Africa and Business were disallowed)
Stevie Nicks: 20th Century - Singer - Living - "N, O"
Teddy Roosevelt: Military - Government - Head of State - "R" - and a lot of others I can't remember now

We were playing very late at night and with only the 10 communal cards per the written rules. As a result, it took some time for our brains to engage and it took us 26 minutes to come up with these images. I believe with the extra communal cards and an earlier playing time, it would move much quicker.

In the end, I think it's a better game than it's given credit for and would be much better with more than 2 players. I look forward to trying it again with the revised rules and more participants.

Image

patrel — 2007-09-01T19:01:22+00:00

Image AH boxfront

Image

Andre_g54 — 2007-08-11T10:26:28+00:00

1972 IMAGE - The Bookshelf Game of PERSONALITY PROFILES by 3M Company

Image

sroney — 2007-01-08T17:57:32+00:00

Back of Box

Image

Boomer — 2006-06-11T18:47:03+00:00

Score Sheet

Image

belial1134 — 2006-05-06T07:51:21+00:00

Image

TheCat — 2006-01-03T07:31:03+00:00

Cards

Image

TheCat — 2006-01-03T07:31:03+00:00

Rules cover

Image

gamesgrandpa — 2004-11-08T20:20:48+00:00

Box

Image

greg — 2002-07-12T21:33:58+00:00

Game: Image

Thread: Re: Component List?

Thread: Re: Component List?

Thread: Component List?

Thread: A game of genuine knowledge and bluffing

Thread: Tiptoeing through the Past, Episode 5

Image

Image

Image

Image

Image

Image

Image

Image

Image