Game: Buy Low Sell High

Image

Keng Ho — 2008-07-20T12:08:33+00:00

Palmyra - card back design

Image

Keng Ho — 2008-07-20T12:06:42+00:00

Palmyra - Contract, Mirage and Tax Collector cards in all three colours

Image

Keng Ho — 2008-07-20T12:02:54+00:00

Palmyra - +1 to +3 cards in all three colours

Image

Keng Ho — 2008-07-20T11:58:03+00:00

Palmyra - all the amphorae

Image

Keng Ho — 2008-07-20T11:55:12+00:00

Palmyra - contents in box

Image

Keng Ho — 2008-07-20T11:53:45+00:00

Palymyra - box bottom

Image

Keng Ho — 2008-07-18T18:27:11+00:00

Palmyra - cover of rulebook

Image

Keng Ho — 2008-07-18T18:23:49+00:00

Palmyra - board

Image

Schroinger — 2008-05-05T17:22:04+00:00

www.juegosdemesacr.com

Thread: Re: Turn Order Question

Schroinger — 2008-04-09T09:19:35+00:00

Does anybody know about any official statement about this? They should say something, cause this is a common issue with this game...

Thread: Re: Stupid question at end of game.

Schroinger — 2008-04-09T09:17:55+00:00

Does anybody know about any official statement about this? They should say something, cause this is a common issue with this game...

Thread: Re: Bid for Position (each financial period)

rjl152 — 2007-12-29T01:15:28+00:00

bidding is definitely a good idea.
however, i think there are better ways.
anyone familiar with the game FOR SALE has an understanding of a good, while not perfect, bidding system.
it is as described here, but rather than the "losing" bids paying the full amount, they pay half, rounded up.
a better method is blind bidding.
that is secretly and simultaneously bidding an amount, with all players "paying" this amount from their score. high bid goes 1st, etc. tiebreaker could be the player currently behind in points, or some other "fair" method.

Thread: Re: Motley Fool selling stock on the final round

tofuji — 2007-12-12T16:20:41+00:00

daveroswell wrote:
First player doesn't get to buy two shares due to unfair advantage, but third player does? That makes no sense.

if first player played as normal, s/he would get to buy all the stocks at the lowest price. this is the unfair advantage. if the first two players' turns are restricted, by the time it is the third player's turn, the prices will have gone up, thereby taking away the unfair advantage. yes, the third player can buy more, but at a higher price.

perhaps the confusion is if you are doing this at the start of every trading year. this is only supposed to be done for the first trading year.

daveroswell wrote:
You keep the dividend cards throughout the game? That also seems wrong...

actually, you don't. the dividend cards are played onto the board, like any other card, and are removed before the start of the new trading year, like any other card.

also, only the dividend cards on the board are being counted at the end of the trading year, and they can be nullified by the breaking news during the trading year.

i only mention this to further clarify the dividend cards, since i'm not sure how one would "keep" the cards throughout the game unless you are counting the ones in your hand or if they were not being removed at the end of the trading year.

Thread: Re: 5 Player Game

Professor Plum — 2007-12-07T04:22:47+00:00

Apparently 9 is the only number of players the game won't support (says so in the rules!)

Let us know what happens and if you need house rules to accommodate!

Thread: Re: Turn Order Question

tonyfung1205 — 2007-11-24T18:46:03+00:00

We played it the same way you did.

And it sounds fair enough. The one who controls the end of a trading year, will be the last player to manipulate his stocks in the next trading year.

Thread: Turn Order Question

earache — 2007-11-24T12:46:43+00:00

It seems that player order can make a difference in both ending a round and selling stocks after the final round. Which led us to question who starts the second and third round. If player A starts the game and and player B finishes the round (by filing the last discard spot) does player C start the next round, or does it revert back to A who started the game? And if player B finishes the final round, does player C get to sell first, or does player A (since he was first at the start of the game?)

We played it that whoever was next in turn order would start the next round/sell first.

Thread: Re: Motley Fool selling stock on the final round

everlong205 — 2007-09-30T23:32:11+00:00

in either interpretation, not sure if it makes the game all that much better.

it just might not be a very good game.
I didn't hate it, but certainly could see the issues that were raised about it.
Want to try it again, now that I've played it once to see if maybe my impressions go up after repeated playing.

Thread: Re: Motley Fool selling stock on the final round

daveroswell — 2007-09-30T21:40:53+00:00

Paul,

Do you admit the rules are worded poorly in Buy Low Sell High? You know I never cared for this game; I just played it with John (as a 3 player) for kicks. I also know that in Palmayra what you state is exactly the case: the first to sell sells two (declining), and then people take turns selling at declining values.

However, in the Motley Fool version the rules keep using the words stock and shares seperately. This is where the confusion lies.

I never played Palmayra. I just think Buy Low is not really a game, but an excersize in moving pieces up and down. And I've won pretty much every game I played (lost 2 out of 8 I think.) Other issues....

First player doesn't get to buy two shares due to unfair advantage, but third player does? That makes no sense.

You keep the dividend cards throughout the game? That also seems wrong...

For some reason, this is a game I keep playing every once in a while, even though I hate it.

Thread: Re: Motley Fool selling stock on the final round

Psauberer — 2007-09-29T20:45:53+00:00

You sell one share at a time.

Thread: Motley Fool selling stock on the final round

everlong205 — 2007-09-29T20:27:53+00:00

In the scoring round when you ultimately sell all stock how does it work? The rules say: "Now each player cashes out by selling all of his or her stocks. In turn order, each players sells one stock per turn and adds the money he or she receives to his or her cash on hand. when all of the shares have been sold the person with most money wins."
Does this mean that each person sells all of one color of stock on their turn and then the next person sells all of their color, or does it mean each player sells one individual stock at a time.
So if i had 5 red stocks would i sell one at 20,then the next time it came to me the price would drop to 18 or so on (provided noone else sold red in between) or does it mean I would sell every red stock at once at 20 and then the next person if they wanted to sell red would have to sell all of their red at a single price per stock.

In other words does one stock mean one share of stock or one stock group.

Thanks.

Thread: Stocks Win Big

wormious — 2007-09-21T17:28:03+00:00

Picked up this game from the last Tangathon. I am definitely not regretting it, although it may be hard to get my wife to play it.

I'm a computer scientist and I love math not mention board games. When I read about this game I was like, "Math and strategy! What's not to love."

]]>

Both times I've played it has only been two player.

1st Game---
I had no idea of strategy or tactics so I just kind of "winged it" the first couple of turns. It is a real easy game to pick up, the rules are relatively simple.

Started out by purchasing a stock that matched up with a "Bull Card" in my hand and sold some tech stock. No reason just wanted to make up for my lost moneys.

At the end of the first year no stocks took too big of a leap but my wife made technology bottom out. I had a few but was able to get out of it.

I went first at the beginning of the second year and decided it would be good to sell my stock in oil because it would be considerable profit. This would also allow me to buy shares of retail which I knew would be going up.

So the second year was concentrated on oil and retail. played many a bull card on retail while my wife got more into oil and some retail.

My wife made some good plays during this year as well. She made me pay fees on some of my stock and canceled out one of my bull cards. It wasn't enough but it was good none the less.

At the end of the year, retail was maxed out although there was still a lot of stock in the market.

Last year was kind of slow. There wasn't a lot of buying or selling. We both just kind of held onto our stock to wait to sell it at the end.

I won 80 something to 60 something. Had I not bought the quantity of stock I did she would have won. This is sort of correlated in the second game too where I won because I bought more stock.

Game 3---
We had a good knack for everything now so this went relatively quick. I had an idea for strategy now. I figured going first is most important so I'd have to make use of news cards and/or fee cards.

In the first year Technology was up. So much so that I think it was close to maxed out. I had bought my stock low so I was going to make a good profit. Second year I fooled my wife a bit. I knew Retail was going to soar and tech was not. So I bought 1 retail and 1 oil and played a tech dividend card. In this I was hoping she would hold onto here tech stock. It worked! I got to sell 2 tech next turn. This put me a little behind in retail but it was a good profit.

We each picked up some oil, dumped all of our tech stock and picked up a fair amount of retail.

Third year I got rid of all my retail stock. Played a few bear market cards. Oil was going to be the big winner this year. I didn't get in on the bottom floor but managed to get a majority of it. With oil bought out and the other stocks not performing well there wasn't much to do. But during that turn, 3 dividend cards were out for oil which picked me up 28 moneys.

I won 130 something to 110 something. We both did better! My wife has mixed feelings about it because she's not a big fan of numbers but like how fun and quick it plays.

I told here next time we play we'll each talk our strategy out loud so we can get a better understanding of it.

Thread: A Wise Investment

Neendy — 2007-08-13T12:00:44+00:00

Buy Low, Sell High is a 4-player game based on the stock market. Players buy and sell stocks while affecting the market by playing cards. It is easy to learn, yet can also provide a fair amount of strategy once one has mastered the basics.

The game has stocks in three categories: retail, oil, and technology. Each player starts out with one of each stock, five game cards, and $50. The remaining stocks are laid out on the board for purchasing, and money is kept track of by means of a scoring track around the outside of the board. The unused cards are placed in a draw pile. The stocks are represented by little plastic figurines which make up for their lack of sturdiness by being cute and colorful.

On a player’s turn, they can buy and sell stocks. Then they must play a card. The cards are what really allow a player to affect the game, and where a player can really strategize. Cards can raise or lower stock prices, pay dividends, or cause players to pay stock fees. After playing a card, the player draws back up to five cards in his or her hand.

The cards are laid on an inner circle on the game board, and once this circle is filled with cards, that round, or “trade year”, is finished. Because some cards can be played on top of other cards, the number of turns in each round will vary. At the end of the round, the stock prices are adjusted and dividends are paid. The cards are shuffled and a new round begins.

After three rounds, the game ends. Players cash in their stocks, and the one with the most money wins.

The placement of the stocks for purchasing is interesting. For each category of stock, there is a line of circles, numbered from 2 to 30, with some of the numbers being skipped - there is no 3, for example. The stocks are initially placed on the line, beginning at the number 24 and going down until there are no more stocks. Players buy stock from the lowest number, and pay that number from their cash. When they sell stocks, the stock is placed on the lowest number, and the player receives that amount. Buying and selling stocks does not affect the price as much as playing the cards that raise and lower stock prices.

Overall, this is an enjoyable game that allows some strategizing but won’t overwhelm less serious players. It doesn’t take long to learn, and experienced players will have no problem playing it. It takes about an hour to finish a game.

Thread: years

beavis6 — 2007-05-26T07:11:42+00:00

instead of ending the game after 3 years, would it still be playable extending it to 4 or 5 or even 6 years? What other tweaks would anyone suggest? 3 years just seems too short.

Image

gamephotos — 2007-05-09T21:51:04+00:00

Shopping Trolley Shares

Thread: Re: Bid for Position (each financial period)

orangeblood — 2006-04-17T17:46:42+00:00

I like this idea. I'll give it a try the next time this game hits the table.

Thread: Bid for Position (each financial period)

Steve99 — 2006-04-17T05:58:30+00:00

The main issue that I have with this game is that the first players to start each round have too big an advantage over the other players.

For instance in a 4 player game, where one of the stocks has reached a maximum price of 30 the first player can sell one stock for 28. Player 2 can sell a stock for 26, Player 3 can sell for 24 and 22 and player 4 for a mere 20 and 18.

A better option would be to do away with the first player buy/sell 1 stock option altogether and have all 4 players bid for positional play in each of the 3 financial periods.

Each player starting with the normal starting player would make a bid or pass. All other players must either raise the bid or pass. As soon as a player passes they take the lowest position available (i.e. beginning with 4th in a 4 player game) and deduct their last bid from their score.

For example Player A bids 5; player B bids 6; player C passes and takes 4th position at no charge; Player D bids 7; Player A now passes and pays 5 for 3rd position; Player B raises his bid to 10; Player D passes and pays 7 for 2nd place. Finally Player A pays 10 for 1st postion and leads off by selling two shares for 28 and 26.

The first player could sell 2 shares for 54 (28+26) compared to player 4 who may only get 30 (16+14). So bidding for player 1 could be worth paying anything up to 24 in this scenario.

The procedure of bidding for places is also repeated at the start of each of the the three financial periods.

The game will be a little longer but it will be a great deal more balanced.

Thread: Re: Rules regarding buying and selling

Alan Kwan — 2005-12-18T16:36:31+00:00

If there are any oli stocks in the $2 space:

When you buy one, you take one from the $2 space, and hence you pay $2.

When you sell one, you put it in the $2 space, and hence you get $2.

Thread: 5 Player Game

mariojanuar — 2005-12-12T00:00:34+00:00

Is there any known problem if i play this game with 5 player? (This is maybe a Foolish question )

Thread: Palmyra - a solid commodity speculation game

Brandon — 2005-11-04T15:32:45+00:00

This review is on PALMYRA, not the new and slightly different Buy Low, Sell High.

Objective - To have the most money after 3 rounds (each round tends to involve around 4 card plays and sell/buy choices per player. I don't remember the exact card plays, but it's around 12-15).

Time - 35 minutes

There are 3 commodities, Red, Yellow, and Green. Each turn you may buy and/or sell one of each, or buy/sell 2 of one commodity. The price change is non-linear. Its $1 per commodity bought or sold when the price is in the middle, but as the price rises each additional unit bought will raise the price $2. When the price plummets each additional sale will drop the price $2.

After buying you play a card.
Raise/lower price +1, +2, +3
pay a bonus (+1, +2 +4 +8)
Mirage (Cancel a card affecting the commodity of that color)
tax man - all players immediately pay $2 per commodity owned of that color

The cards will affect the price at the end of the round (after each player has several turns). By looking at the trend you can get an idea of how prices will move. If you see a +2 and a +3 played on Red, you will probably want to own some. But there is a major catch which I'll get to! In addition to the price change cards, the bonus cards pay money (after the round is over) based on the # of bonus cards played, and the # of commodities of that type owned. These cards tend to be used as stalling cards, so the player can save his/her -3 or +3 card for their last card play. The Mirage/Cancel card allows the player to negate another players card. Say they play a -3 on the Greens, which you own 4 of. You play the Mirage and it covers and negates the -3.

You need to watch what the others are doing. If a player dumps off a commodity, they may have some nasty cards (-3) so be careful buying it.
Its not necessary to have great cards, as long as you make a reasonable plan and can get rid of what will decline and buy what will rise.

The key tactical decision is to be the player after the one who plays the last card (that ends the round). This is because after the prices are adjusted, you will get to move first, selling 2 commodities at a high price and rapidly dropping it for the next player. If you ended the turn, you may find that despite a net +5 in price (from the cards) the price is the same when its your turn, because everyone else sold it ahead of you. The way you control who is the last player is via the Tax Man (lets you play a second card) and the Mirage (cancels another's card, but doesn't cause the round to end any faster). Example: if you play the tax man, and leave 2 spaces open in a 4 player game, its likely the player to your right will go first the next turn, allowing you to sell/buy at a good price ahead of the next two. But if there are just 2 open spaces left, playing a mirage will tend to prolong the round a card, allowing you to be second rather than third next round.

Its not a splashy exciting game. But its simple, fast, easy to learn, and interesting for non-gamers who would be lost in a complex game.
I think it wasn't popular in the past because:
1) there was a rules translation mistake that caused people to think that you could either buy 3 commodities or sell 3, but not buy one red, while selling 2 green. You MAY buy or sell one of each commodity independently.

2) Palmyra is not they nicest looking game I've seen. Newer games have nicer bits. The commodities are these stupid wooden Amphora's that topple easily. Very poor component design choice.

Its one of my favorite games, I've played it perhaps 30 times.

Thread: Re: Rules regarding buying and selling

ancoll — 2005-10-09T17:35:38+00:00

What's the answer?
I really want to know..
Thanks.

NB: we are still confused with this one..

Thread: Porter Square Gaming

Kaelistus — 2005-08-30T15:17:50+00:00

Matthew Gray brought a brand new copy of the Palmyra remake that we had
to play if only to make him take out the shrink wrap. Matthew, Evan,
Lin, and me took over while the other five players decided to worship
the sun god (Ra) on the other table.

MF'sBLSH simulates the stock market by setting the price of a commodity
be directly related to the number of commodities currently sold. In a
way, it pays to buy what everyone else is selling and sell what everyone
else is buying. There are also cards that people can play to both
manipulate the stock price and pay off dividends to those that already
own stock.

Most of the game it seemed to be that Matthew and Evan were on one page
- buying off technology and oil, while Lin and I were on a totally
separate page - buying large numbers of retail. This worried me a bit
since the game was new to Lin and me but not new to the others. And yet,
the strategy seemed to work, thanks to some high cards that kept the
retail value high all the way to the end of the game. By the end of the
game everyone was buying retail, with oil prices staying stagnant (I'm
proud to say I had something to do with that), and technology getting
bearish (A mistake, IMHO since it regained some strength later).

I had tons of retail that I had kept from the beginning of the game, and
I made a hefty profit by selling these off while everyone else was
buying. By the end of the game, I had very few commodities to sell which
also scored me very high - everyone else got stuck getting rid of their
last commodities at low prices.

Final placing: Felix 157, Evan, Lin, Mathew (I'm not entirely sure of
the last two).

Opinion: I was very pleasantly surpised with MF'sBLSH. Its just the
right length and seems to have just the right amount of tension. I think
I would get it hands down, but the ridiculously oversized box holds me
back. There's absolutely no reason for that. Maybe I'll buy it, put it
in a small cardboard box and dump the oversize.

Thread: Motley Fool's Buy Low Sell High -- Session Report

gschloesser — 2005-06-01T04:55:02+00:00

EDITOR'S NOTE: This is an abbreviated version of my review of Mothley Fool's Buy Low, Sell High. My full review will appear elsewhere.

For seasoned gamers, the following capsule of Motley Fool’s Buy Low, Sell High would likely suffice: It is Palmyra with a modern theme. The changes are virtually all cosmetic, with only slight tinkering with the card mix. Other than that, you have Palmyra. So, unless you didn’t care for the Middle Eastern setting in the original and would welcome a more modern market setting, there is little reason to purchase this new UberPlay version.

Well, there might be one other reason. If you are a fool for the Motley Fool crew -- and in “Fool” parlance, being a “fool” thing – then you might enjoy the game merely for its related value. Plus, you receive a one-page advertisement for the Fool newsletter, which features pictures of the Fool crew.

It is no secret that David and Tom Gardner, co-founders of the Motley Fool, are big gaming fans. They are also quite enamored with prolific designer Reiner Knizia, and even hosted him for a symposium a few years back. Ever the astute businessman, Jeremy Young of UberPlay knew an opportunity when he spotted one, so contracted with the Fools and Herr Knizia to release a financial game under the Motley Fool label. The hope, of course, was to expose German-style games (well, at least this one game) to a wider audience. Resounding applause for the marketing idea and effort. I just hope the game will receive proper marketing and that this hope will be realized.

Buy Low, Sell High is, like Palmyra, a market simulation game. Three different commodities – oil, technology, and retail – are purchased and sold, while players attempt to manipulate their prices by the play of cards. Three rounds of card play are conducted, after which players sell all of their stock holdings. Accumulating wealth is the objective, and the wealthiest player wins all.

Players cannot simply buy commodities, as the primary source of income derives from selling. So, the game is one of constantly buying and selling commodities, hoping to time one’s sales so as to gain a profit. This, of course, isn’t always possible. Money is very scarce, so by the second turn, players are usually forced to begin selling.

After buying and/or selling, a player MUST play a card. The idea behind the card play is to attempt to favorably impact the price of commodities that you are collecting, while negatively impacting the prices of commodities being collected by one or more of your opponents. The trick is to not go it alone, however, as if your opponents are collecting similar commodities and you are blazing a different path, you will likely be the victim of one bad card after another.

Once the card track is filled, the “trading year” ends. Commodity prices are adjusted based on the number of bull and bear cards played, then dividends are paid to the players based on the number and type of dividend cards played. The more cards played of a particular commodity, the greater the dividends earned by players holding that stock. Three rounds are conducted in this fashion, after which players sell their stock holdings back to the market, one-at-a-time per player. As players sell, their marker is moved up the scoring track. Once all stocks are sold, the player with the greatest accumulation of wealth is victorious.

One of the reasons Palmyra has remained a relatively obscure Reiner Knizia title is that it was released by the small company EG Spiele and, as such, had rather limited distribution. Perhaps another reason is that the game itself is rather dry and not terribly exciting to play. Mind you, it isn’t bad … it just isn’t anything terribly fascinating. That being said, it is still better than most mainstream American games. So, if UberPlay and the Motley Fool can combine to generate some additional exposure for the game, then its re-release may well be worth it. Gamers, however, likely won’t find much here to be terribly enticing.

Jim, Matt and I dove into the financial waters in hopes of achieving fabulous wealth. Matt and Jim seemed to mirror each other’s purchases for most of the first two rounds, while I was swimming against the tide. This meant that I was bearing the brunt of the “bear” cards, hurting my financial coffers.

In the third round, Matt pulled away to claim the victory.

Finals: Matt 165, Jim 146, Greg 140

Ratings: Jim 7.5, Matt 7, Greg 6

Thread: Re: Components in new edition

icheyne — 2005-05-18T09:32:20+00:00

My only problem with the components is the size of the box. It's HUGE. It's just a board, a deck of cards and a few pieces in a Ticket to Ride sized container with a massive plastic insert.

I only have a small amount of shelf space, so this is a serious problem for me.

Thread: Breaking news question

everlong205 — 2005-05-06T03:39:19+00:00

Can you play a breaking news card on top of another breaking news card?

Actually, after checking the rules this would only be possible with Tech stocks as there are two breaking news cards. All the rest only have one.

Thread: Re: Rules regarding buying and selling

everlong205 — 2005-05-06T02:18:42+00:00

Rereading the rules I think I answered my own question.

Thread: Rules regarding buying and selling

everlong205 — 2005-05-06T01:00:01+00:00

Little confused after reading through the rules regarding buying and selling when the stocks reach the high (30) or low(2). The rules state that stocks cant go above 30 or below 2, and that stocks can only appear once on the track except in the 30 and 2 spaces.
I ran a sample year to test out the rules and there were a total of +5 bull cards in oil, thus driving the price up 5 spaces. The stock was already high so adding 5 spaces put all of the oil markers at the 30. Thus if one were to sell on the next round , they could sell for 28. Which makes sense.

Now,what happens when the situation is reversed and all the oil stocks hit a value of 2. Is buying and selling reversed? (ie to buy a stock you'd place it on the next higher value (as opposed to reading the value of the stock you're moving the marker from)

Or are all stocks worth 2 until they're all sold? Perhaps playing this out it would make more sense.

Thread: Re: Foolish play

Alan Kwan — 2005-05-04T14:30:28+00:00

orangeblood wrote:
I agree, Alan. Strategic selling during the third year is often the key to victory.

Yes, it is important to clear out some of your stock before the final selling, when the prices will keep dropping.

orangeblood wrote:

I've also found out that it's awfully hard to come out ahead if you're the only person collecting tech stocks. ;-) I've been hammered that way before.

Except when you happen to draw both Breaking News. I've won a game that way.

Thread: Re: Foolish play

orangeblood — 2005-05-04T03:21:25+00:00

I agree, Alan. Strategic selling during the third year is often the key to victory.

I've also found out that it's awfully hard to come out ahead if you're the only person collecting tech stocks. ;-) I've been hammered that way before.

]]>

Rex

Thread: Foolish play

Alan Kwan — 2005-05-03T04:13:32+00:00

It is important that one stays ahead of the competition, as mentioned in the designer's notes (Motley Fool version).

Suppose that I'm now playing the last turn in a trading year. Only me and another opponent (let's call him Tom) have Oil holdings, of 3 shares each. The current selling price of Oil is $15, and it is going to raise by +2 at year end. Assume that afterwards, we take turns (starting with Tom) selling one Oil each.

If I stay put, Oil goes up to $18. Tom then sells his 3 Oil for 18+15+13=46, while I sell mine for 16+14+12=42.

If I sell 1 Oil now:
Tom gets 16+14+12 = 42
I get 15+15+13 = 43

If I buy 1 Oil now:
Tom gets 20+16+14 = 50
I get -16+18+15+13+12 = 42

It turns out that it is often advantageous to start selling early, even if the stock is going up or is collecting dividends. The more of a stock held by me and my opponents, and the more opponents holding them, the more I stand to gain by selling before the positive event.

Thread: Session Report

RPardoe — 2005-04-23T23:00:47+00:00

With time still in the session, Rich brought out

Palmyra
(Uberplay's Motley Fool's Buy Low Sell High version)
3 players (First time for all)
30 minutes

Buy Low Sell High is a retheming of Knizia's game Palmyra. As others have mentioned, instead of developing trade lanes to/from Palmyra, the theme here is buying and selling stock in 3 sectors - retail, tech, and oil. Another change from the first version is that the cards that affect the stock price are different. Oil is a more conservative investment paying more potential dividends, but not moving much in price while tech is a more volatile investment paying less potential dividends, but subject to more potential price fluctuation.

Players start with 1 stock in each sector and $50 cash in hand. By buying, selling, and manipulating the market, players hope to end the game with the most cash in hand as all stocks held at game end are liquidated.

With only 3 stocks and 3 players, the first few moves saw each player specialize in a single stock. Rich went into oil hoping to see its dividends. Dave went into retail while Sterling went into tech.

However, the first year saw the oil sector depressed and its stock price fall while retail was the hot sector and increased in price. Both retail and tech awarded their shareholders dividends that year.

The second year saw a reversal of fortune as oil recovered and increased in price while retail fell. This year it was oil and tech paying the dividends.

The final year saw oil fall again while the other sectors were a bit neutral. By the time the shares were cashed in, Sterling had 144 dollars, Dave had 142 dollars, and Rich had 114 dollars.

Looking back over the game, this is not a game to try the Motley Fool's buy and hold investment strategy. That would be foolish in this game. This is more a game of arbitrage where one sells momentarily expensive stock to buy momentarily cheap stock. After a move, one then hopes hopes to depress the expensive stock and increase the cheap stock by manipulating the market through card play so that other players can't benefit and/or to reverse the deal stream to capture more money.

I think part of my shortcomings (30 dollars less than others) was relying too much on buy/hold for the first few turns in the first year. I realized too late where the market at year's end was going, but by then the stock I wanted to get was in short supply (therefore too expensive) and held by the other players.

In the end, an interesting, light weight filler. With 3 players, we tended to each have a majority in a single stock with some diversification into the other stocks. With 4 players, I wonder if this tendency is reduced as there are more players than stocks, so naturally 2 players will be jousting over one of the stocks.

Thread: Re:Components in new edition

locusshifter — 2005-04-20T02:56:02+00:00

Uberplay needs to abandon the idea of teenie cards......

Thread: Re:Fees Cards

RPardoe — 2005-04-08T23:52:28+00:00

In the absence of an official decision, make it 2-0 with your reading of the rules. It's how I would play also.

Thread: Fees Cards

Favre4MVP — 2005-04-08T17:45:21+00:00

I have the new Buy Low, Sell High version of the game. In the rules, under the explanation of the Fees Cards it says, "After having played a Fees Card, that player must also play another card, unless the one he has just played ends the Trading Year by filling up all the card spaces on the board."

Can you play another Fees Card as your second card? Do you then play a third card? I assume so since it isn't prohibited, but I just thought I'd ask.

Thread: Re:Components in new edition

taraba — 2005-04-02T15:51:13+00:00

I don't have a problem with anything other than the thickness of the cards. They're much too thin. If anyone from Uberplay reads this and you end up doing another print run of the game, please make thicker cards and print extras so we can by new ones.

Thread: Components in new edition

SkookumPete — 2005-04-01T18:33:02+00:00

Although the new Uberplay / Motley Fool edition is lavishly produced, I have to express some disappointment with the design. The cards are somewhat overdesigned -- for instance, the drop shadows on the numbers don't make them any easier to read, and it's not that easy to tell the "bulls" from the "bears". The deep and busy colors on the board tend to overwhelm the cards and other components that are giving information.

The cute little shopping carts etc. on their pedestals, crowded together on the price tracks, are awkward to handle, and in danger of being scattered every time the cards are gathered up at the end of a round.

These design choices don't ruin a fine game, but I think this is a classic case of striving for effect at the expense of usability.

Thread: User Review

orangeblood — 2005-02-28T00:01:10+00:00

Background
The Motley Fool's Buy Low, Sell High is Reiner Knizia's update of Palmyra, published in 1996. If you're wondering what in the heck Motley Fools are, and how Knizia became involved with them, read on.

The Fool was founded 12 years ago by brothers David and Tom Gardner, to help people with investing and personal finance. (I work there.) Both grew up avid gamers, and admired Dr. Knizia greatly. For David's birthday a couple of years ago, Tom arranged to have Reiner fly to Washington, D.C. for a few days of gaming. The friendships that developed from that event eventually led to this partnership.

Review
In Buy Low, Sell High, 2-4 players try to earn the most money by transacting in three different types of stock: retail, technology, and oil. Each share of stock is lined up on the board on top of its value. In a typical setup, the least expensive share will be around $12, and the shares march up the line to the most expensive, at $24. Players can buy a share of stock by taking the lowest priced one, or sell by placing their stock on the highest free space -- but still on the low end. Thus, if the lowest priced retail stock is sitting on the $12 spot, it cost $12 to buy. But a player wishing to sell would place his share on the spot next to it, which happens to be worth $10. So, all buying and selling is done on the low end of the line.

After buying or selling, a player will place a card down on the board. Most cards are designed to raise or lower a stock's price at the end of each trading "year." Those values range from -3 to +3. There are also cards that pay dividends for each share of stock at the end of the year, and some that hit players with immediate fees. Finally, there are "Breaking News" cards, which can cover up any card of a particular industry. As you might imagine, covering a +3 retail card is pretty *bad* breaking news for players who own a lot of retail shares.

Once a certain number of cards are played (depends on the number of players in the game), the trading year ends. At that point the cards are tallied up and the stock prices adjusted accordingly. If all the oil cards on the board net out to a +2, for example, then the two shares of oil stocks on the board at the lowest end are moved to the high end, effectively raising the value of oil. Should retail net out to -5, then the five pieces at the top of the line are moved to the bottom, really pounding the value of retail.

After three trading years, the game ends. In order, players will sell one of their stocks back by placing them on the board. Around it goes, until all shares have been sold back. Whoever has the most money wins.

Differences
There's little difference, rules-wise, between Buy Low, Sell High and Palmyra. But the new game does have a different feel to it. First of all, instead of the amphorae in Palmyra, the plastic pieces in this game are yellow shopping carts for retail, red oil derricks for oil, and green computers for technology. But the biggest difference is this: In Palmyra, there was no distinction between the different colors of amphorae. But in Buy Low, Sell High, Knizia has made technology stocks more volatile by including more +3s, -3s, and Breaking News in that industry. Oil is the most stable, with no +3s or -3s, and it pays more dividends. Retail is in the middle of the road. To me, these slight changes in the card distribution make for a much better game. For example, I have been both burned and well-rewarded for having the most technology shares. As in real life, high-tech carries big risk, but potentially more reward!

So yeah, I work at The Motley Fool and think it's cool to have a game with our name on it (though I had nothing to do with this project). But I liked Palmyra before Buy Low, Sell High was even conceived. In my opinion, Knizia has improved on the design, and given it a more exciting feel.

Thread: Re:Stupid question at end of game.

Psauberer — 2004-08-01T13:21:45+00:00

Grognard/Dad (#47540),

Since the rules do say in the beginning that "The game will move clockwise" and in the end that "Now the players take it in turns to sell their goods..." we have always played that it would be the player after the one who played the last card who would start selling. The reason is that it doesn't say, "...in turns, starting with the original starting player," or "...in turns, starting with the player who ended the last trading year." In the absence of contrary instructions, playing in turn would move clockwise from the last turn executed.

Likewise, we start the second and third trading years with the player to the left of the one who ended the prior trading year because it is now that player's turn.

Thread: Stupid question at end of game.

GrognardDad — 2004-08-01T01:35:00+00:00

This probably a stupid question, but what the hey...

I was learning/teaching this tonight, and after playing one round, decided to wrap it up and cash out. BTW: We ran out of time, everyone seemed to like the game.

The problem was we were playing three player, and the second player played the last card to end the round (Trading year).

Now for the stupid question: Where do we start the turns for cashing out, the first player (cause he's the first player), the second player (because they finished the round), or the third player (because he would have been next). The rules don't seem to say.

Thread: Have an extra green amphora??

crparis — 2003-09-13T15:46:08+00:00

My copy of the game arrived shrink-wrapped and missing a green amphora.. Months of trying to track one down (and many emails to the producers that went unresponded to) have left me a piece shy of a complete game.

If you by some miracle of miracles have an extra green amphora, please let me know!!

--Clinton

Thread: Quick Comments

db3000 — 2003-08-05T16:13:24+00:00

Palmyra has the feel of a stock market game condensed. Typically you buy low and sell high. But stocks (um, Vases) are in short supply and timing of purchases is, of course, critical. Players, using modifying cards, desperately want to start new price trends as opposed to simply following others leads. A very interesting and surprisingly intense little game. Challenging stock game and recommended 7.5/10. The main negative is the vases and the fact that they fall over rather easily. We replaced them with wooden cubes.

Thread: Session Report

BoardGameGeek — 2001-12-09T21:00:08+00:00

PALMYRA
*Dave, Scott, Sam, Jeanette
We went from an exciting, loud, totally engaging Knizia title (Royal Turf) to one that was about as dry as you can get without going to the candy camels of Through the Desert. I've owned this game for a while and have not had the chance to play it yet, so when Scott asked about it I was glad to pull it out.

The game is about buying and selling different types of merchandise form caravans going toward the city of Palmyra, an important trading center in the ancient world. There are three colors of goods, which are represented by pretty turned wooden "vases", which represent the Amphoras used to transport goods in ancient times. Each color Amphora has its own track, a line of numbered spaces extending away from the city of Palmyra on the board. The numbers of the spaces represent the current sale price of that type of good. On your turn you may buy or sell goods (you don't have to), and then you play a card. When you buy or sell goods, you must buy or sell one of each color, OR you may buy or sell two of one color. The cards you play affect the value of different commodities at the end of each of the three rounds of the game, or give bonus points for people holding certain commodities. When the spaces on the board are filled, the trading round ends, and an interim scoring round is done based on the cumulative effects of the cards played. The board is emptied, price levels of the amphoras are changed by moving the chain of amphoras up or down in value on the board, and the next round begins. After the third round, each player sells back the amphoras they have collected during the game, one at a time, earning the amount equal to the number of the first open space on the track closest to Palmyra. The further from Palmyra, the higher value of the good. Player net worth starts at 50 and is adjusted by moving a pawn on a wealth track similar to the one in Medici.

The trick to this game is clearly being able to buy low and sell high. There's some luck in how values get adjusted by the cards, but still, timing is everything. It seemed like each of us took a very different approach to strategy in this game. Sam appeared to attempt to corner the market in green vases. Scott seemed to be trying to have more diverse holdings, holding all three colors. Jeanette looked to be trying to keep her net worth high by only buying bargains. My goal was to hold two commodities and hope to manipulate the value with cards. My strategy paid off, as I won by almost 30 points. Scott came in second.

The restriction about how many commodities you could trade in at a time seemed to be the biggest difficulty we had with the game. It's a very analytical game, and one that could easily be played in about
20-30 minutes by a group of 4 who knew the game. I enjoyed trying to figure out what was the best strategy, and it was interesting to see that none of us seemed to be doing the same thing. In the end, I
think the game is OK, I'd rate it a 5. I'm looking forward to playing it again to see if being familiar with it makes it more fun. It's just so analytical, and compared to the riotous game of Royal Turf we had just played this seemed to just take the wind out of the sails.

Addendum: I found out soon after playing that we had the buy/sell rule a little wrong. I'm hoping to convince people to try it again with the rule right this time, it sounds like our biggest complaint about the game was due to our rule error. If so, maybe the game is better than it seemed.

Thread: Session Report

derk — 2001-01-01T06:00:00+00:00

Aldie, Will, Derk

Aldie’s been pulling for this older egSpiele title for a while now, and this would be the first time for all of us. As he explained the rules (while he was reading them), I got the sense that I’d seen many of the elements of this game before. And that game would be one of my own. See, this game is actually a simplified version of the stock market game that Ken and I created a while back, Day Trader. We still need to playtest that game after our initial tries, but that should happen before too much longer.

But on to this game. The concept of the game is quite simple. There are three commodities, red, yellow and green vases. You can purchase additional vases by removing them and paying the money under the spot, makes the markets react to buying and selling. However, players are restricted from purchasing a lot during games by a pretty severe lack of funds. Additionally, players are given a hand of cards, which they must play out of each turn. Cards will indicate whether the price will go up or down on a commodity or possibly give a tax or bonus for each vase of that color at the end of the round. When the round is completed, all the movement (positive and negative) cards for a particular color are added and the resultant number will drive the price up (or down) the appropriate number. Players go through three rounds and then sell off their entire portfolio to determine the winner.

The first game was rather a mess, as we blundered around trying to make any sort of profit. Eventually, I think we made one commodity move enough in one direction to make a profit for Will, and he took the game handily. It was a quick game and we started another one. This game was a little bit better as we became familiar with the cards and card play. But again Will seemed to be the man to beat, and he wasn’t (beat, that is). Aldie insisted we play another game, and this one went much better for Aldie. On the other hand, it nearly my worst performance.

Granted, I might not have understood this game, as people are prone to do with Reiner games. But I really felt that I understood the mechanisms of the game, only I was falling prey to ‘Neil’ism. In a three-player game, anything that you get without the other two is much better than shared points. And that’s what I was trying for most of the game, a profit in a color that Will and Aldie weren’t collecting. That’s a very difficult proposition when considering they’re playing two cards to my one, and I was summarily stuffed. That said, while this game will never become my most favorite Reiner game, I think it actually quite interesting. I think perhaps there needs to be four players to even out the possibility of two players banding together against a third (as what kinda happened in my games).

Thread: Session Report

gschloesser — 2001-01-01T06:00:00+00:00

It was time to introduce the group to Reiner Knizia's Palmyra. With Eric Alleman's departure, that left Lenny, John, Eryk and I to take to the roads of the desert and try our hand at commodity management.

Lenny opted for a strategy of selling most of his amphoras before the end of each round so he could be cash-rich. Thus, he held substantial leads following rounds 1 & 2.

Eryk, meanwhile, had placed all of his hopes in the yellow amphoras ... not a bad idea as at the end of the game, if you are the only one holding a particular color, you will be able to earn rich rewards when you sell as you will have no competition during the selling phase.

Problem was that during round 2, the price of the yellow amphoras dropped a staggering five levels, insuring that most of the amphoras of that color would have a ridiculously low value of '2' when sold. This crushed Eryk's hopes.

When round 3 came to a close, Lenny was way ahead in cash, but had few amphoras in his warehouses to sell. John, meanwhile, had a ton. Everyone thought John would overtake Lenny and capture the win. However, John's vast holdings were heavily weighted in green, which I also had an appreciable amount of. Thus, we split the profits on green, and this caused John to fall just short of catching Lenny.

The round-by-round cash totals:

Round 1: Lenny 81, Greg 26, Eryk 23, John 16
Round 2: Lenny 80, Greg 52, John 33, Eryk 15
Round 3: Lenny 104, John 101, Greg 91, Eryk 71

Ratings: Eryk 7, Lenny 7, Greg 6, John 6

Thread: Session Report

dougadamsau — 2001-01-01T06:00:00+00:00

Doug writes:

A new game to Bernie, who again joined Peter, Doug and Julian in a faster game while waiting to link up with the other table. This is a fine Knizia game of the "buy low, sell high" kind.

This game saw Doug dealt the +1, +2 and +3 for green which immediately led to the plan "invest in green during round 1". That kind of hit a snag when all the other players gleefully played what appeared to be every negative green card under the sun to send green down 5 after round 1 (it would have been 8 but for a fortunate mirage - these abberations can be handy!). Red and Yellow were the big winners in round 1, with Julian heavy in yellow, Bernie in red, while Peter held a balanced hand and was leading comfortably on the cash track.

Round two was where green made a comeback, with everyone in on the cheap price. As the round progressed, some very pro-green cards came out, and during this, Doug was picking up yellow contract after yellow contract as a replacement card. A subtle conversion of green to yellow holdings began late on round two.

Round three saw the great green selloff as the starting price began at 28! Bernie was guarding his red hoard of amphorae, but once the yellow contracts began to appear even he began purchasing yellow. All available yellow was purchased as the four contracts appeared giving a payoff of 8 per amphora at the end of the game.

Scores:
Doug: 173
Peter: 144
Bernie: 138
Julian: 118

Doug's rating: 7

Thread: Session Report

dougadamsau — 2001-01-01T06:00:00+00:00

Present: Julian, Alan, Dey, Roger, Liz, Moray, Doug

Doug Adams writes:

We were up at Julian's this week, with two new 'bongers attending. I see the day when we get 15 to a session to really test the seating resources! I was on the kitchen table all evening, so I'll report on the action there.

Alan, Roger and myself tackled this great Knizia game, while the others were playing Elfenland. The rules were explained to Roger and off we went on our three round spending spree.

This game was quite unlike the others I'd played, in that the card play was very positive. There were lots of contracts played during the rounds, highlighted by a four red contracts appearing in the final round. I suspect the reason for this new trend is a rule I missed in my first few games allowing you to toss any or all of your cards in at the end of a round, allowing more flexibility and tactics into your play. Also, the endgame was great, there was only one free space left for a card on my turn giving me a minute of agony deciding my best option - play a +3 green in which I was the majority holder, or play a red mirage card to nullify one of the four red contracts on the board, in which Alan held lots! I covered a contract, giving the game one extra turn which Roger used to play a mirage card! That gave Alan an extra turn to hit green...drats! Great stuff, though.

Scores:
Alan: 130
Roger: 116
Doug: 95

Doug's rating: 9

Thread: Session Report

dougadamsau — 2001-01-01T06:00:00+00:00

Doug writes:

Always glad to grab this off the shelf to learn more nuances. Alan hadn'tplayed this before but picked up basics and played well. For the first time I saw four contracts of the one colour appear with the accompanying 8 ducat payout. We all used the 'toss and redraw' rule at the end of each trading year to good effect. The end result was our closest spread of scores yet for this game. I knew I was doomed when Janet was selling before I was at the end of the third trading year - we were in on the same type of goods. If I got in before her, I would have been ahead instead of constantly behind in the final reckoning. Great game.

Scores:
Alan: 97
Julian: 94
Janet: 93
Doug: 84

Rating: 9

Thread: Session Report

dougadamsau — 2001-01-01T06:00:00+00:00

Tina, Janet, Alan, Doug

Debbie was beginning to look slightly desperate in response to our "how long will Sternenfahrer take?" question, so we figured we had time for a Palymra. It had been a while since we'd played this Knizia "buy low, sell high" game, and it was good to return to it.

We taught Tina the game, and she didn't have any troubles at all with it. This was a hard fought game with lots of fluctuations, market cornerings, and several visits from the tax man! Once again the game proved that a full warehouse at the end is the key to victory. Janet had almost completely sold up during the game and looked miles away on the scoreboard (in fact she'd lapped Alan!). But Tina ran her down in the final sell off to just edge over the line.

Tina: 144
Janet: 140
Alan: 123
Doug: 118

Doug's rating: Another 7.

Thread: Session Report

DangerMouse — 2001-01-01T06:00:00+00:00

Palmyra

With about an hour to go we brought out this somewhat obscure (for a Knizia title) game. It's basically a stock manipulation game. Buy low, sell high, and with the usual Knizia group think mechanism thrown in.

On your turn you can buy/sell goods and then must play a card that influences the prices of those goods, or levies a tax against a particular kind of goods, or introduces a "dividend" for holding that good. The game is played over 3 years. A year ends when the available slots for card play are filled. At that time commodity prices are changed and dividends paid off. You can also discard cards from your hand.

In our game I was able to get out to a lead by taking profits in yellow which Brian was working to build on. I built up red over the first year and got a nice dividend payoff on them (I had 3 dividend cards for red that first year). I was also able to nuke Brian a couple of times with the tax on yellow commodities. In the second year Brian and Marty started to depress red's value so I took my profits on it and started to diversify.

The final year was a bit strange for me in that I wanted to go with red, but I never had the cards. Brian had a bunch of yellow and Marty a bunch of green. I decided to jump on the Marty bandwagon and go with green also. We built up green's value while toasting yellow's. That spelled doom for Brian's strategy of focusing on yellow alone.

At the end of the game you sell off all your goods and the winner is the player with the most money. Well I would've won except for one exceptionally bonehead move during the selloff. Ah well.

Final Scores:
Marty: 131
Mark: 130
Brian: 100?

Neat game, which I'm eager to try again with a full complement of four. You've got to see the winds of change coming and buy and sell accordingly. Also it plays quickly, a nice filler.

Thread: Session Report

DangerMouse — 2001-01-01T06:00:00+00:00

Palmyra: Needing quick filler I pulled out Palmyra. It's a great filler game. It has just enough going on to keep you entertained, but it moves very quickly, and leaves you asking for more.

In our game I surged out to an early lead after Dan and I built up green's value and I was able to take profits before him. Dave languished with some red holdings, unable to catch the green wave until it was too late. Yellow was the big hit of the second year, Dan was able to corner the market and closed the year out with the 4th yellow contract card. He had 5 yellow amphoras and scored a whopping 40 pts, Dave and I had 3 yellows apiece so we didn't lose too much ground, or so we thought.

After that Dan took profits where he could but started to run out of gas as Dave and I tried to close the gap. We ran out of time.

Final Scores:
Dan: 175
Mark: 151
Dave: 108?

I really enjoy this little game, it's nice combination of luck and group think, things I always enjoy. Add to that is the fact that it plays in 45-60 minutes and you've got the perfect filler.

Thread: Session Report

DangerMouse — 2001-01-01T06:00:00+00:00

Palmyra: It was filler time! And Palmyra is developing into one of my favorite fillers. I've only played it with 3 players, so 4 was a new experience.

The game started innocently enough, Dan bought up some green and slapped down a negative red card. I had a red mirage and a couple of red plusses so I bought up red and played a plus, confident I could make it work for me. And then the difference in play with 4 started to show. Before my turn came around again both Marty and Richard jumped on the yellow bandwagon and made it roll for them. They both played positive yellow cards. Meanwhile Dan and I continued to nuke each other, a theme for the game. Apparently all he had were negative red cards so he continued to nuke my red stocks.

I did manage to get a bit of the yellow profits when I was the first to take profits after the first year, which was very good one for yellow. But I never contended for the win. I had jumped onto red and I was alone. The only move Dan ever seemed to make was a small positive green or a nuke of red. He taxed it, played -1, -2, -3 cards on it etc. Dan was also pretty much alone in green and I was doing the same to his position. I had positive yellow cards, and by then Richard and Marty had bought most of the yellow amphoras up and so I didn't want to give them any more profits than they were already getting. I was forced to play nuke green cards because for some reason I had no red cards! Apparently Dan and I had matter/antimatter hands.

Richard was entrenched in yellow, while Marty took the diversification route and that proved to be the winner. Dan and I had bombarded each other out of contention.

Final Scores:
Marty 132
Richard: 120
Dan/Mark: 90 (poetic justice)