Game: Palazzo

Thread: Re: Tao of Gaming Review

elcomadreja2 — 2008-06-02T03:14:31+00:00

Short review, but spot on. Knizia has many auction games out there. There's nothing about this one that stands out for me.

Thread: Substitute money cards?

tritone — 2008-04-16T21:38:18+00:00

I know what you're thinking... and the answer is "No, the size and quality of the Palazzo money cards are just fine!"

What I want to do is use the Palazzo money card mechanic in ANOTHER game but don't want to have to dig out Palazzo every time I play the other game. Does anyone know of another (preferably super-cheap) game that has at least 3 copies of each colored card in the range of 3 thru 7?

For example, Rage sells for $3.77 and has 6 different color cards (suits), but no duplicates. Since Palazzo has 15 cards of each color, I thought I might try Rage and use the full range of 1 - 15 in 3 colors, and maybe increase the 3-group value to 24 points. You see where I'm going. I could also buy 3 decks of cheap playing cards and just use 3 different suits, but they wouldn't be 3 colors (whine whine).

I thought maybe there was another mass-market card game (Uno? etc.) that might have duplicate cards and 3 color suits I could easily cobble something together for this other game. Any thoughts?

Thread: Re: Money

Sanders — 2008-03-06T18:14:42+00:00

Zooboo wrote:
Hi there!

Just wanna let you know what Stefan Brueck from Alea wrote me today :

you can pay only with jokers or trios as well...

It's not the way I understood it in the English rules published here on BGG...

- Eric -

I know it is a little late. However, I recently PMed Jay from Rio Grande Games and asked if you can do your example above - play 2 Jokers in an auction to bring it up to 4. Or if you could bid a trio and than 2 Jokers. His reply about the Jokers was:

"You have to have real currency in your bid, but not necessarily in an add-on. "

Thread: Re: Give me your perspective on the REBUILD action.

TVis — 2008-02-29T12:11:01+00:00

kmiernik wrote:
You have to remember that only 'buying' option moves game to the end. WI'm rebuilding, though, my opponents are buying so that the end still approaches soon. I've played a few more times in recent weeks but I've remained uneasy about how short the game is.

Thread: Re: Give me your perspective on the REBUILD action.

kmiernik — 2008-02-29T07:05:52+00:00

I've played this game a lot and I often use the rebuilding option especially in a two-players game. You have to remember that only 'buying' option moves game to the end. Picking a 'rebuild' slows the game as there are no new tiles from the stack. It often seems quite worthy to buy fifth floor in early stages. The three-windowed fifth floors are only in the second stack. So if you are collecting a top-rank building you have to rebuild it later. This game is really nice calculated and gives a lot of different strategies. In my opinion is a very underestimated (6.7 average only) game.

Thread: Re: The Bottom Line Review

Beowulf — 2008-02-24T19:12:32+00:00

Great review, Marshall. You succinctly captured my own impressions of the game, all the way down to the rating (although since I rate in whole numbers, I rounded down). I particularly liked your comments about how the game scales.

On to Taluva!

Thread: Re: Money

podgorc — 2008-01-03T14:34:20+00:00

Hi all.

Yesterday we played our first game. At one point in the game, I started the bid with the trio - 15.
So when it was my turn again, was it correct to choose the color for my bid at that point, or should I have done it at the first bid. (BTW: not relevant, but the cards were two red and one white, value 4)

EDIT:
I saw in the forums that I should have payed with all three cards of different curency but the same value.
But the question is still the same. With what color you increase the bid? When do you announce it?

Image

TVis — 2007-11-22T16:04:12+00:00

contents at one quarry

Thread: Re: Winning an auction

Favre4MVP — 2007-11-19T22:17:40+00:00

generalpf wrote:
He just wins it in that case. The Certificato is his bid, even though it didn't come from his hand. Nice, huh?

Yup. He'd get the tiles for free. The bid is 3, but he doesn't have to pay anything out of his hand.

Thread: Re: Winning an auction

generalpf — 2007-11-18T05:33:53+00:00

He just wins it in that case. The Certificato is his bid, even though it didn't come from his hand. Nice, huh?

Thread: Winning an auction

Sabavana — 2007-11-18T05:07:08+00:00

We've just been given Palazzo, and love it already. We've played 2-player about half a dozen times (today, at least, with more to come ).

Question: In an auction in a 2-player game, Player 1 takes the 3 certificate as his first bid of 3. Then, if Player 2 passes, Player 1 wins. Does Player 1 get the tiles for free, ie. just for the 3 certificate, or does he have to pay at least 1 currency card for his hand?

We have (perhaps mistakenly) been playing that the winner has to pay at least 1 currency card, but the last game we didn't, and it seemed too easy to get free tiles.

Opinions??

Thread: Re: The Bottom Line Review

mdp4828 — 2007-09-18T03:21:53+00:00

cornelanner wrote:
I'm not sure about it not being suitable for non-gamers.

You're right. I should have been more carefull to say that it can be used for non-gamers, almost any eurogame can. What I was trying to say was that if you need a game for a non-gamer there are many excellent ones I would choose before Palazzo. Mainly because of the fiddly rules excpetions and non-intuitive theme to mechanics, which doesn't make it any easier to learn.

Thread: Re: The Bottom Line Review

ssmooth — 2007-09-18T00:30:11+00:00

I played Palazzo at a con a couple of times with four players and wasn't especially impressed with it. But at another convention, my girlfriend played it and liked it, so at yet another convention, I picked us up a copy from the prize table.

Palazzo has grown on me as I have played it more. It is not a game of grand scope, but for the size of game it is -- which, let's say, is medium, a notch simpler than Ra -- it is tightly and cleanly designed, interesting to play, and works well for two players, which is not something you can say about a whole lot of auction games.

We also used it successfully with a girlfriend of hers for a three-player game.

So I recommend it -- not as a Must Have game, but as one which is not too hard to learn and enjoyable while being played.

Thread: Re: The Bottom Line Review

cornelanner — 2007-09-17T22:34:37+00:00

Excellent review.

I'm not sure about it not being suitable for non-gamers. I've played it with my gf and her mother, who isn't a gamer at all although she enjoys a board game every now and then. She picked it up quite easily. My excellent rules explanation was probably to blame for it.

At the end of the day, it's a decent 3-player game, but as you said, not overly exciting. I purchased it without having played it, I mean it was an Alea and Knizia production... And then I realized it was an ok, albeit slightly disappointing Alea/Knizia, which I wouldn't recommend, really. I rated it a 6 on the Beowulf scale.

Thread: The Bottom Line Review

mdp4828 — 2007-09-17T21:07:17+00:00

]]>

The Bottom Line
Palazzo is an auction and drafting game that is suitable as a medium weight game for gamers, but, because of some fiddleyness and poor theme to mechanics integration, is not the best choice for non-gamers or as a gateway game. I recommend it only if you have gamers to play with, and need to add variety in the middle weight, forty-five minute niche.

The Rules
In Palazzo players represent renaissance era architects attempting to build the highest and best Palazzos that they can. Palazzos are considered better, and are awarded more points, if they are constructed out of a homogenous material (there are three construction materials available: marble, brick, and limestone), if they have a lot of windows and doors, and if they are at least three stories tall. In the end, the player with the most points wins.

Players are given money in four different suits with which to buy the components of their Palazzos. Three of the suits each represent a different currency, the fourth is wildcards which can be any currency. Money may only be spent if it is all of a matching currency (wildcards can be added to any currency). One exception is if three money cards are played each from a different suit but of a matching denomination, in this case the three cards together are worth 15 regardless of their denomination. Such a “15 point set” can also be created by playing 3 wildcards together.

Money is spent on “stories” which are used to construct the Palazzos. Stories come in one of three materials and with one to three windows. Additionally, each story is numbered from between one to five. The stories must be placed on a Palazzo in ascending order. In other words a Palazzo may start out with story one, then have story three, then story five, but it can’t have story one then story three then story two. The maximum height a Palazzo can achieve is thereby five stories. The material of a Palazzo may be mixed and matched but there is a point bonus for making homogeneous Palazzos.

Game play is as follows:

On a players turn he may choose to take one action from the following three options.

1) Take Money – If a player opts to take money he deals, face up, a number of money cards equal to the number of players plus one. The active player then selects any two of the money cards to add to his hand. The remaining players select, in turn order, one money card each. There is no limit to the number of money cards a player can have nor to how many times in a row this action may be taken (at least until the money deck runs out).

2) Build – If a player opts to build he turns over one tile from the appropriate tile deck (there are three tile decks of increasingly valuable stories. In this way the stories come out in a reasonable progression) and places it in the central market place (see picture below). He then takes a second tile and adds it to one of the quarries on the periphery. This is done by counting the number of windows on the tile and then counting that number of quarries ahead the Master Builder pawn. In this way more valuable tiles are place further from the Master Builder.

]]>

The active player then must decide if he wants to buy from the central market or from the quarries. If he opts for the central market then he may buy one or two tiles and each one costs ten minus the number of tiles that were present in the market at the beginning of his turn. So, for example, if there are three tiles in the central market a player may purchase one for seven, or two for fourteen. When a player pays he may overpay, but he may not make change for his payment.

If the player decides to buy from the quarries then he advances the Master Builder pawn one quarry clockwise, and all of the tiles in that quarry will be auctioned off to the highest bidder. The active player gets a free bid of three. Bidding proceeds in turn order with each player either increasing the bid or dropping out until only one player is left. That player pays his bid and takes the tiles in the quarry. Once again, players may add to their bid but cannot pick up their previous bids and make change.

There is one exception if there are four or more tiles in the quarry. In this case there is no auction. Players take turns selecting one tile from the quarry for free, any excess tiles are discarded.

After a player acquires some tiles he must add them to his Palazzos. He may add a tile to an existing Palazzo as long as the story number of the new tile exceeds the highest story on the Palazzo. A player may also start a new Palazzo simply by placing a lone tile in front of him. There is no limit on the number of Palazzos a player may have. And a player is never forced to keep a tile he just acquired (it’s sometimes a good idea to discard a tile you just purchased because single story Palazzos are worth negative points.) Some sample Palazzos are shown below.

]]>

3) Rearrange – A player may opt to rearrange one story in his Palazzos for the cost of any single money card. A player may take a single Palazzo and insert it into a Palazzo of several stories as long as the story numbers on the new Palazzo are all ascending. Alternatively, a player may remove a story from a Palazzo and place it as a single story Palazzo. Besides those two options a player may also choose to discard a single story Palazzo. The key to the rearrange action is that it must start or end with a single story Palazzo. It can go single -> multi, multi -> single, or single -> discard.

The game ends when the fifth “mural” tile is drawn from the third tile deck (thus it’s a random ending).

]]>

Players total the scores for their Palazzos and determine the winner.

]]>

The Components
The components are ok. The Palazzos tiles look nice, but sometimes there is a functionality question, especially with the first story tiles. Does a door count as a window? Sometimes there’s a person in the scene making it harder to count quickly (answer: yes, I believe a door counts as a window).

]]>

The graphics on the market place and quarries are kind of muted and confusing to me. Plus the tiles are cut with a weird border that looks like they should fit together in a puzzle but they don’t. I’m not a big fan of these but it doesn’t detract from game play.

]]>

The money looks fine but, like the Ticket to Ride cards, is hard to shuffle because the cards are small.

]]>

Overall, the presentation is pedestrian. It’s not bad, and it’s not offensive, but it doesn’t excite either.

Theme to Mechanics Integration
In short, there is none. The most egregious offender of theme is the rearrange action. How can you lift up a whole Palazzo and insert or remove a story? Did they have giant cranes in fifteenth century Italy, are these things made of legos or something?

Also, the differentiation of market places makes no sense. Why is it a straight buy at the central market place but an auction at the quarries? How are they quarrying different materials at one location? Why are they building interchangeable stories at the quarry site?

There are three currencies that can’t be mixed or matched, ok fine. But why then can you make a set of all three currencies if they’re of the same denomination? None of this makes much thematic sense, but it all works well enough from a mechanics standpoint.

If you are looking for theme look elsewhere. If you are looking for some solid and slightly original (or at least combined originally) mechanics then this game should suit.

The Random Element
There is a large random element in the game, but in my opinion it does not exceed the weight or duration of the game (in other words a light and short game can stand more randomness, and that’s the case here, the randomness is present but at an appropriate level).

I think the main source of randomness is the tiles that come out. You can get real lucky and have the exact tile you need fall into the central market when you build, in which case no one can prevent you from buying it at a fixed price. Or, you can get unlucky and watch your tiles show up in a quarry down the road where you won’t be able to get to them for awhile and must win an auction once you do.

The game end can also be painfully random when you just need to do one more rearrange action but the fifth mural comes out before your turn. That will often cost you the game so it’s vital not to save those actions for the bitter end.

There is some randomness in how the money is distributed, but it’s actually not that much. Certainly this affects the game less than the tile randomness.

Overall, I was not put off by the amount of randomness. You certainly will get lucky or hosed a few times, but you feel like you have the tools to roll with the punches also.

Strategy vs. Tactics
At first blush the game is purely tactical, but I believe there is some strategy in there. For one thing you have a very good idea of how many Palazzos you need to complete (or have made good progress on) before the game even starts. For four players you’ll need two well built Palazzos, add one more Palazzo for each fewer player in the game. This gives you some structure on which to plan your turn by turn actions.

Also, there are really two resources in the game: money, and actions. You have to realize that actions may be a limiting feature of how many tiles you can acquire. You have to be careful to leave yourself the resources to acquire tiles out of your turn, i.e. when someone else puts a quarry up for auction. This requires some planning and money management strategies.

Overall, I’d say the game is more tactical than strategic, but you do have to spend some time thinking about future turns in a general sense.

Scalability
Scalability, I believe, is one of Palazzos strengths. It seems to work perfectly well with any number of players (from two to four) you just have to build more Palazzos with fewer players. In fact, it’s one of the rare auction games that I’ve found works well with two players. I wouldn’t buy it purely for a two player game, but it can be used as such.

My Opinion
My opinion is that Palazzo is a mechanically sound game, but it is fiddly, and not good for non-gamers. I’m happy to play it occasionally, but it’s not the highest game on my list for its niche. I think it’s best suited to a group of gamers who play a lot of medium weight sub one hour games. In that context it could add variety and interest to their rotation.

The bottom line is that Palazzo is ok for gamers, not recommended as a gateway game. I give it a 6.5 on the BGG scale.
[c]

For more in the "Bottom Line" series of reviews see:
Taluva

Thread: Re: Give me your perspective on the REBUILD action.

chadm — 2007-08-21T18:54:57+00:00

The randomness of the tiles does sometimes lead to odd situations where more 4 and 5 level tiles have come out than 2 or 3 level tiles. It isn't that frequent and there are ways of taking advantage of it.

I too would shun placing a 5 onto a 1 and would rather keep the 5 for a single rebuild action near the end of the game.

In most of the games that I have played near the end players are cautions about which actions they choose and you often have the opportunity to rebuild once and maybe twice without sacrificing a better action you may have available to you earlier in the game.

Thread: Give me your perspective on the REBUILD action.

TVis — 2007-08-21T16:58:16+00:00

I played this game twice, more than a year ago. Simply reading the rules caught my interest (which continues) but I am still not sure what to think about what I learned from this limited gameplay.

Players were afraid to pick non-matching tiles for a tower. They might take nothing rather than take one of a differing material, or perhaps they shunned placing a 5 on top of a 1, even early in the game.

It seemed that the game was over so quickly that no one would risk spending two turns to 1) remove a poorly matched tile and then 2) re-use it in a better placement.

Possible conclusion: the game mechanic invites strategy; the game duration does not.

Provide enlightenment for me.

Thread: Re: [Español] Dudas

marioaguila — 2007-05-14T22:59:10+00:00

Salvo la inglesa, las demás traducciones sí permiten jugar y pagar solo con comodines

Thread: Re: [Español] Dudas

D0NK1J0T3 — 2007-05-14T22:41:40+00:00

El juego lo tengo un poco olvidadillo; puedes jugar comodines solos pero el pago no puede ser solo con ellos.

Thread: Re: [Español] Dudas

marioaguila — 2007-05-14T18:35:25+00:00

Un error: se pueden jugar comodines sin necesidad de cartas normales

Thread: Money | BoardGameGeek
Hi there!

Just wanna let you know what Stefan Brueck from Alea wrote me today :

you can pay only with jokers or trios as well...

It's not the way I understood it in the English rules published here on BGG...

- Eric -
http://www.boardgamegeek.com/thread/69740

Image

BaSL — 2007-04-20T07:18:51+00:00

Image

dipdragon — 2007-03-26T21:08:07+00:00

Palazzo - The Three Currencies (Worth 15 as a Group)

Image

CinMel — 2007-01-30T02:26:30+00:00

Palazzo back cover English version

Image

Artax — 2007-01-28T18:01:12+00:00

Image

Artax — 2007-01-28T17:59:04+00:00

Image

BigWoo — 2007-01-10T15:09:19+00:00

Palazzo - German Alea edition (box cover)

Thread: Re: Tao of Gaming Review

slith — 2006-12-17T10:48:42+00:00

Sweet review. It's not a rules summary and it just focuses on the gameplay itself. After 1 play of the game, I found the review to be spot on.

These days I'm leaning towards shorter games (that are still meaty enough to appeal to my gaming group) because you get more plays in at the weekday games nights. This game fits that requirement.

Image

simonh — 2006-09-25T21:38:37+00:00

Image

simonh — 2006-09-25T21:38:29+00:00

Image

simonh — 2006-09-25T21:37:23+00:00

Thread: Re: 3º Certificato plus money at the beginning of the auction

Favre4MVP — 2006-09-21T17:09:56+00:00

The monkey speaks truth.

Thread: Re: 3º Certificato plus money at the beginning of the auction

apotheos — 2006-09-21T16:53:36+00:00

marioaguila wrote:
THE RULES:
The current player takes the “3er-Certificato” and places it in front of him to indicate that he will begin the auction. This is the first bid for the tiles. The auction then proceeds clockwise in multiple rounds. Each player must offer an amount higher than the previous bidder or drop out.

It is possible to the auctioneer to put money card(s) with the 3º Certificato at the beginning of the auction?
Nope. The pay off is that they do get a bit of 3 for free.

Thread: 3º Certificato plus money at the beginning of the auction

marioaguila — 2006-09-21T16:49:39+00:00

THE RULES:
The current player takes the “3er-Certificato” and places it in front of him to indicate that he will begin the auction. This is the first bid for the tiles. The auction then proceeds clockwise in multiple rounds. Each player must offer an amount higher than the previous bidder or drop out.

It is possible to the auctioneer to put money card(s) with the 3º Certificato at the beginning of the auction?

Thread: Re: 8 Building Sites?

Koert — 2006-09-21T00:03:57+00:00

Incorrect translation.

The German rules mention "8 Stanztafeln", which in English translates as "8 punching boards". These 8 boards contain the items listed in the rules (quarries, warehouse, building tiles, etc). As these punched out boards are of no use for playing the game, I have thrown them away. So, I can't confirm that there were actually 8, but in any case, I don't think it is that important.

Thread: 8 Building Sites?

marioaguila — 2006-09-20T22:41:20+00:00

In Components section of rules appears this item: 8 Building Sites
Which? where they are?

Thread: Portuguese Review (crítica em português)

Soledade — 2006-09-07T14:56:16+00:00

Esta crítica foi, inicialmente, publicada em http://spielportugal.blogspot.com/

INTRODUÇÃO
Criado por Reiner Knizia, esse grande mestre da era dos jogos, este é um jogo simples, de dois a quatro jogadores e que pode assegurar uns bons quarenta e cinco minutos de entretenimento justo e despreocupado. Um peso-pluma da safra de 2005 que acaba por constituir uma surpresa positiva, por um lado, alguma desilusão, por outro.
Quem espera que um jogo do Reiner Knizia possa ser melhor que o Tigris e Euphrates? Eu! É assim, eu estou bem ciente da dificuldade que deve existir em conseguir criar um jogo, ainda mais portentoso, que esse colosso de matemática, interacção e abstratismo, de seu nome T&E. Claro que estou. Por outro lado, também continuo à espera de ver a sua obra-prima ultrapassada. Ainda não acredito que o mestre Knizia se tenha rendido a tentar ultrapassar-se. Também não acredito que o tenha tentado com Palazzo. Porque é um jogo leve, desenhado, quase, para ser de agrado generalizado, sem grandes falhas e acessivel a toda a família. Mas vamos ao jogo.

BOB O CONSTRUTOR
O objectivo do jogo é ser esse grande arquitecto do universo kniziano e fazer o maior e mais bonito palácio antes da chegada do rei. Tal e qual "Bob o construtor", temos de pegar nas lagartas e nas escavadoras para conseguir levar a bom porto essa magistral obra de arte maçónica, só ao alcance de alguns arquitectos mais experimentados e mais arrojados.
O tabuleiro de jogo divide-se em cinco pequenos tabuleiros. O central, que corresponde ao mercado, e quatro circundantes, que correspondem a locais de construção onde podem ocorrer leilões.
O jogo tem como objectivo construir palazzos. Cada jogador constroi o(s) seu(s) próprio(s) palazzo(s) e, com isso, espera obter, no final, o maior número possível de pontos vitória. Para completar tamanha empreitada, cada jogador, por turno, pode realizar uma de três acções:

a) Retirar tiles de uma das três pilhas de tiles existentes (numeradas de I a III e utilizadas por ordem). Os tiles a retirar são dois.
O primeiro vai para o tabuleiro central, o mercado, onde pode ser comprado pelo jogador que o retirou por um valor mais ou menos fixo (10 dinheiros, menos o número de tiles que, no início do turno, estavam no mercado). Pode-se, optando pelo mercado, adquirir até um limite de dois tiles por turno.
O segundo tile retirado vai, conforme o número de janelas e portas presentes, para um dos tabuleiros circundantes do central, afim de ser leiloado. Esta é a principal diferença. No tabuleiro central o jogador em curso compra o tile ou tiles, enquanto nos tabuleiros circundantes, os tiles, são leiloados e podem vir a pertencer a qualquer jogador que vença o leilão.
Cada tile é munido de portas e janelas e também de uma cor representativa de um material de construção. Os tiles mais valiosos são os que têm mais portas e janelas, bem como a construção mais alta e mais coerente em termos de materiais utilizados. No fundo, os tiles são ordenados por pisos (de 1 a 5) criando prédios (palazzos) que quanto mais altos forem mais pontuados serão.

b) Retirar dinheiro
Já se percebeu que sem dinheiro não há palhaço. Ou, neste caso, não há arquitecto. Pois então, uma das acções possíveis neste jogo é a de retirar dinheiro. O jogador que escolhe esta acção volta, do baralho do dinheiro, quatro cartas e escolhe duas. As duas cartas restantes, no sentido dos ponteiros do relógio, são retiradas pelos adversários.
Existem diferentes tipos de moeda, divididas em cores, que só podem ser somadas se forem de cores iguais. Ou seja, se eu tiver dois cincos, um amarelo e um rosa, não consigo ter o valor de 10. Para somar dois valores tenho de ter dois cincos de uma só cor. Neste caso, ou rosa ou amarelo. O dinheiro é fundamental para o sucesso do jogo e da estratégia já que dele dependem todas as outras acções. Um jogador sem sorte no momento de recolher dinheiro é, à partida, um jogador afastado da vitória.

c) Ordenar o Palazzo
Por vezes, em determinadas circustâncias de jogo, não conseguimos ordenar os nossos Palazzos da maneira mais equilibrada. Esta acção, apesar de ter custos, especialmente, em turnos de jogo (queima dois turnos) permite passar para a mão e recolocar um tile que não esteja em condições ideais para suportar a estrutura a construir.

MECÂNICA/TEMA
Tal como em outros jogos de Knizia, o tema não está muito presente. Aliás, depois de começarmos a jogar apercebemo-nos que podíamos estar a fabricar bolos ou mesmo a limar unhas, desde que houvesse leilão e alguma (pouca) estratégia não dependente de sorte. Tal como em Ra ou até em Tigris e Euphrates (títulos superiores), o tema desaparece à medida que vamos entrando dentro de jogo.
Com Palazzo podemos contar com um jogo em que cada jogador tem o seu display e pode seguir uma linha de estratégia distinta, mas sempre dependendo um pouco do factor sorte. Os tiles que vamos retirando e, principalmente, o dinheiro que vamos conseguindo ao longo do jogo, tornam-se determinantes para o seu sucesso.

CONCLUSÃO
Não sendo um peso-pesado para gamers, bem pelo contrário, Palazzo encontra-se naquela faixa de jogos entretidos, para menos de uma hora de alguma diversão com interacção, meia dose de sorte misturada com alguma dose de estratégia e, principalmente, uma boia de salvação para alguns caloiros que se queiram aventurar no mundo dos spiel, ou até, no submundo de Knizia.
A desilusão que o jogo, na minha opinião encerra, prende-se com o facto de ser demasiado seco em termos de jogabilidade, já que nos prende unicamente e ao longo de turnos e turnos, na possibilidade de acrescentar um ou outro tile, na decisão única de fazer leilão ou comprar directamente. Quem esperava, em 2005, poder contar com um verdadeiro Knizia de fazer suspirar, não se retenha muito tempo a observar Palazzo. Porque da mediania não passa.
Palazzo pode ser adquirido por cerca de 18 a 22€, não sendo, portanto, um jogo muito caro, servindo com propriedade e honestidade o objectivo a que, certamente, se propôs - puro entretenimento despretensioso.

Classificação: 6.5

Paulo Soledade

Thread: Re: Another Gem from Knizia and Rio Grande

wyldeoak — 2006-09-03T11:18:39+00:00

Thanks for the very helpful review. That you both show and discuss components and game play, I feel I have a reasonable sense of the game. That is what I hope for in a review, as from that understanding I can judge whether it will work for my circumstances.

Thanks again.

Thread: Session Report

Zirak — 2006-08-05T01:54:00+00:00

Players – Kim, Duncan & Jason

It was good to see Duncan & Kim after a long absence from the gaming table. We decided after a bit of catching up, to start the evening with a game of Palazzo. This was a new game to both of them, so I quickly explained the rules. They were quick to catch on so after about 5 minutes we were starting our first game of the night.

As my lovely wife was not playing, my chances of winning the game were dramatically increased.

We started of with each of us playing rather conservatively and mainly gathering cards, and buying building tiles very slowly, but after our hands were starting to fill up, the game began to move very quickly.

We were all building matching buildings & Kim looked as though she had a good lead. When we started building tiles off the third stack, the end game tiles were revealing themselves quite early. Both Kim & I needed to reconstruct our buildings to ensure we had some more four or five story buildings by the end of the game. Unfortunately, we were both foiled by the early finish. I was fortunate to have a 26 point building which even though I got stuck with two single level buildings; I was still able to pull out a victory.

Both Kim & Duncan enjoyed the game immensely, & even stated that it might be a game they would purchase themselves if they came across it in a local games store.

Thread: Re: Session Report

caltexn — 2006-07-29T16:37:37+00:00

I find this game to be underrated. I don't know if its the theme or its simplicity, but it appeals to me more than others. If it had an Egyptian theme, the rating might be higher - I don't know. Hope you get up to speed with your wife soon.

Happy gaming
caltexn

Thread: Session Report

Zirak — 2006-07-29T08:19:23+00:00

Players – Andy, Michelle & Jason

My wife had come home and finally decided to join us for a game of Palazzo. This is another nice light/medium game from Knizia which I enjoy, with the bonus being that it is one of the few games my wife enjoys – and usually wins.

I explained the rules to Andy, which I find are nice and simplistic – in a nutshell you either take some money, build or auction, or reconstruct your buildings.

The game started well for Michelle and she started two buildings quite cheaply. Andy got off to a slower start, but I started at and extremely slow craw only having two 2 story buildings by the end of the first phase. This was basically how the rest of the game progressed, including some rather highly contested auctions, of which Michelle & Andy were able to reap the rewards. In one case Andy bet me to a rather lucrative auction I initiated with an exuberant amount of cash, something like almost 40 cash – very intense and fun.

My wife built three matching building which gave her the game (one of these days I will best her) and Andy clinched second place from me by one point - another enjoyable game had by all.

Thread: Re: Auction with 4 tiles > can you discard the tile?

johnf — 2006-07-08T10:15:48+00:00

Glad you concur on the need for clarification. We actually looked at the situation again and didn't like that someone could be forced to build a tile if they were the last player to choose. This was mentioned in the original post, but for me that's definitely not in the spirit of the game. I enjoy the game because of the degree of control that the player has, even with seemingly limited choices. Also games are so tight, -5 is unreasonable to get stuck with near the end.
(After I chose and discarded the tile my opponent needed I went on to win 67-66, another tight game!)

Thread: Re: Auction with 4 tiles > can you discard the tile?

EyeInSky — 2006-07-08T09:31:36+00:00

I believe the intent of this rule is to be able to discard the tile. Even though this piece was not technically gained by an *auction* (nor a *purchase*), it was still obtained during the auction/purchase PHASE.

Gaining this tile is virtually like multiple winners or a purchase for zero money. It also appears the strategic disadvantage of being forced to build a collected tile should equal the strategic advantage of voluntarily taking a tile (and discarding it) to prevent another player from improving - if we assume the interpretation of this rule was opposite.

Secondly, if this wholesale "free-for-all" event caused an exception or ambiguity of this rule, I really think the rules would have stressed this point in italics.

And finally, if you break down the 2 sentences of this rule...

Part A: "When a player buys or wins a tile at an auction, he must immediately build it."
... Taking this section would literally mean the player is NOT mandated to immediately build it because it was NOT purchased or won in an auction.

Part B: "However, he may, instead of building the tile, return it face down to the box."
... Taking this section would literally mean a player always has the option to return a tile face down to the box instead of immediately building the tile. As normal, once the tile is built it's too late to immediately be able to place in box (and will have to be done during a renovation instead).

Given all of these circumstances, I'm guessing the likelihood is greater towards discarding vs. forced to play/build. An official answer from Jay @ Rio Grande would be great.

Cheers,
Sheldon

Thread: Re: Auction with 4 tiles > can you discard the tile?

johnf — 2006-07-08T07:23:41+00:00

Actually the rules (mine at least) say "When a player buys or wins a tile at an auction, he must immediately build it. However, he may, instead of building the tile, return it face down to the box..."

There's a hole in the rules here in my opinion (which is a shame because it's my favourite board game!).

Under "b) Auction Tiles" it states:
"Exception: if there are four or more building tiles on the quarry with the master builder, these are not auctioned. ... the player whose turn it is takes one of these tiles and builds with it. Then, the others follow in clockwise order, each taking one of these tiles and building with it."

My interpretation as the rules are read (and the rules are written very well in general) is that when you take one you must build it, because it's explicitly not an auction and it explicitly tells you to build it.
This doesn't suit me in the game I'm playing right now however!
It's possible that "player buys or wins tiles at an auction" is intended to cover this scenario, but an official ruling would be great (as there doesn't appear to be an FAQ for this game).

Thread: Re: Tao of Gaming Review

Bankler — 2006-07-07T22:23:09+00:00

generalpf wrote:

As for the 30-45 minute play time, that sounds about right, but what is your group(s) used to playing in that time?

I normally play with a fast group (I self-select out of slow gamers), but each time we've played someone has been new. We'd get it down quickly to 20-30, I imagine. As to what that compares to ... two hands of Fairy Tale? 1.5 games of Roma (typical games, it's high variance).

gola wrote:
If I'd never played Palazzo before, I'd have gotten the impression from your review that it was a simple set collection game where players had no control over what was auctioned and that the only decision to be made was whether to take money or hold an auction. I think there are lots of significant decisions to be made, however, particularly if players are competitive and are aware of each others' positions, and I don't feel that the game "bunches up" the players.

I do say that players have control over the auctions. It could be emphasized more, I agree. And I state that "If you play carefully ... I suspect Palazzo has nice depth."

I don't think it's toothless, per se. But a bit gummy.

Thread: Re: Tao of Gaming Review

Gola — 2006-07-06T13:04:23+00:00

Bankler wrote:
Every single mechanism smooths out differences and bunches the players together...so what decides the game are gross mistakes and butterflies flapping their wings.
If I'd never played Palazzo before, I'd have gotten the impression from your review that it was a simple set collection game where players had no control over what was auctioned and that the only decision to be made was whether to take money or hold an auction. I think there are lots of significant decisions to be made, however, particularly if players are competitive and are aware of each others' positions, and I don't feel that the game "bunches up" the players.

Choosing whether to hold an auction or buy from the supply can be an important decision, because one must keep in mind what the other players need; if there are tiles two spaces away from the master builder pawn that are very valuable to another player, calling an auction will be doing him a big favor. You might instead buy from the store and hope that the quarry in question gets overfull and the tiles are split amongst the table. One must also decide whether it is worth it to buy tiles which one will later have to insert into an existing structure, thus eating up an additional turn (and a money card). Additionally, choosing money is more than simply getting two cards for the one that everyone else receives; one gets the first choice of the pool. That player will be able to choose cards that match his strong suits or make melds of fifteen; the player to his right will simply be getting handed the leftover card. Finally, bidding up your opponents is an important part of the game, and I don't think that players will generally have the same number of cards at all times unless they just don't really care how much other people are paying.

I think you're absolutely right that it is a very subtle game, and I can understand how it might not grab everyone, but I think it's not quite as toothless as you're making it out to be.

Thread: Re: Tao of Gaming Review

generalpf — 2006-07-06T03:57:17+00:00

Hi, great review.

I've played Palazzo a dozen times and I wouldn't say there's as much luck in it as, say, Alhambra. Players are indeed free to choose various strategies (build pure palaces, build mixed palaces, go for lots of windows, etc.) depending on what everyone else is doing.

As for the 30-45 minute play time, that sounds about right, but what is your group(s) used to playing in that time?

I pegged Palazzo at a 7.5. It's somewhere between light-medium and medium once you really get into it. I doubt it will be replayable past 20 plays but the first dozen have been excellent!

Once again, well done. This is exactly what I like to see in a review.

Thread: Tao of Gaming Review

Bankler — 2006-07-05T23:47:52+00:00

[This was written in Feb '06]

Palazzo is a good game, theoretically. We played Princes of Florence later, and I got the same feeling. Palazzo doesn't have that 'multiplayer solitaire' vibe. It just feels ... subtle. An undercurrent of evaluation, drafting money, working out timing issues. There's no big "Aha" here. No tactical cut. Consider the money. Values range from 3-7, but with Alhambra style suit management. Wild '2s'. Playing three different colors with the same rank is worth 15. Money enters the game for all players at the same time, but it's drafted with the active player getting two cards to everyone else's one.

Every single mechanism smooths out differences and bunches the players together. The highest value card slightly doubles the worst, except for the card that can be used in any auction (it triples that). If you pull a triplet, you can ignore the rank, which helps the low value cards and hurts the high value cards. When you get money, everyone gets money. So, unless one player spends everything for one auction, everyone will have roughly the same number of cards. And it's tough to spend everything because you can only use one suit at a time (barring wilds and triplets).

Now, there's certainly luck in how buildings appear. But the aspects that deal with purchases and auctions, which the players are control, all push players together.

If you play carefully, counting cards (for drafting) and tracking tiles, I suspect Palazzo has nice depth. But at 30-45 minutes, I'm not doing that and neither is anyone else. So what decides the game are gross mistakes and butterflies flapping their wings.

For some, a deep subtle game. For me, something I break out rarely, admire, and put back in the box. It just doesn't move me.

[As a description] "Alhambra done right" strikes me as fair. Palazzo doesn't claim numbers that don't work (say, five or six players). But mainly, Palazzo has less luck of the "Hey, that tile/money is just what I need." [Since some of the tiles that appear are auctioned and money is drafted. Getting good money usually meant you spent an action. But you can still get lucky.]

Thread: Re: Alhambra vs Palazzo

Favre4MVP — 2006-06-28T14:50:54+00:00

The games seem quite similar on the surface, but they're really quite different.

They each use various types of currencies to buy building pieces which you must then fit together to build your personal area. The 3 options in both games are to take money, building pieces, or restructure. While everything there makes it sound like they're the same game, each of those similarities is handles completely different in each game.

For me personally, Palazzo is 10 times the game Alhambra is. I like Alhambra, but I love Palazzo. Palazzo has player interaction, gives you more options on your turn, has more strategy, and plays in much less time.

Alhambra was one of my wife's favorite games, but after playing Palazzo once she told me to trade Alhambra away. While they are quite different, they're similar enough that we could never see ourselves playing Alhambra again with Palazzo on the shelf.

Thread: Re: Alhambra vs Palazzo

jtakagi — 2006-06-27T21:27:33+00:00

I agree - they're not very similar at all. They only really share the building theme, different currencies, and a communal tile purchase location.

The auction component alone in Palazzo makes it more satisfying to me. It also depends on how many players you might have. Alhambra can accommodate more players, but I would hesitate to play it with more than 3 or 4. 6 is just no fun at all, at least for me.

Thread: Re: Alhambra vs Palazzo

generalpf — 2006-06-27T19:25:47+00:00

They're only similar on the surface. They're completely different games. In Alhambra you're trying to get majorities in the 6 different colours of tiles. In Palazzo you're trying to build palaces out of the same material with the most windows as high as possible.

If someone tells you they're the same game, they haven't played both games.

I prefer Palazzo.

Thread: Alhambra vs Palazzo

bobm174 — 2006-06-27T17:40:57+00:00

Having never played either of these games I am curious to
hear from players that have played both and here how they compare
and which you prefer.

Bob

Thread: Re: 2-Player Game

mlvanbie — 2006-06-20T18:02:43+00:00

The high scores were due to rebuilding excessively, so we had mostly single-material buildings of size 4-5. We did forget to pay for the rebuilding, but our hands were so huge that it wouldn't have mattered. (I only did a couple rebuilds, but Alex did a lot.)

Thread: Re: 2-Player Game

generalpf — 2006-06-20T16:26:40+00:00

The highest 2-player score I ever saw was 103. With 3, we score in the 70s. With 4, the 40s.

Thread: Re: 2-Player Game

Brian Sinclair — 2006-06-20T12:18:12+00:00

I have played a few two player games and had both players in the low to mid 70's. This is a fun light game that I have played several times lately.

Thread: 2-Player Game

mlvanbie — 2006-06-20T05:02:05+00:00

Alex and I decided to play a 2-player game of Palazzo after the other Njet-players left. Alex punched the copy (one tile required a knife) while I reviewed the rules. I discovered that in my previous play, the rules-explainer had missed that groups of 3 cards were worth 15 (if played at once) and that rebuilding cost a currency card. We managed to forget the latter rule.

With two players there was limited pressure on us. We amassed huge hands of cards and were able to build large buildings of single materials. Rebuilding happened a number of times, something that was quite dangerous in a multiplayer game. The material supply was often neglected unless it contained tiles that we wanted to get right away. Auctions, when they happened, saw winning bids in the 25-40 range (due to our huge hands). Towards the end, I started taking materials more often to bring the game to a close, but I couldn't stop Alex from thoroughly rebuilding some formerly mixed-material buildings into single-material buildings. We got to the last three tiles and I drew both of the painting tiles, ending the game. Had the game not ended on that tile, I would have won an auction for a single tile that would have added 4 VP (height bonus plus one window).

In the end, Alex had more buildings than I, but I had many more windows. The scores were 83-80 in his favour.

I found the tension to build much more satisfying in my previous 3-player game.

Thread: Re: Rebuilding costs money!

mdp4828 — 2006-06-07T16:00:23+00:00

I've never played with this rule either. It hardly matters though, much worse than paying a pittance of money is losing your turn when you rearrange. Sometimes it's necessary but it's an evil necessity even when it's free.

Thread: Re: Rebuilding costs money!

Favre4MVP — 2006-06-07T15:57:51+00:00

Heck, we didn't realize the paintings in Modern Art cost money. We were just randomly passing them around the table.

I think the Palazzo thing is an easy rule to miss. I know a few people have forgotten it at times in our games.

I'll trade you my Lite Metal for a Karl Gitter and a Stink Bean...

Thread: Re: Rebuilding costs money!

Moviebuffs — 2006-06-07T15:28:04+00:00

jan2926 wrote:
I don't know how, but in the original reading of the rules we missed the part of:

If the player chooses this action, he may rebuild one of his currently
built tiles. This costs one Money card of his choice, placed in the
discard pile. If he has no money, he may not choose this action.

So - for us rebuilding was free! We only found out near the end of a recent game so have not played with the correct rules yet - looking forward to it

Feeling very daft...

Feel daft, but don't daft feel alone

We managed to do the same thing.

We also forgot to pay for stations in Ticket to Ride Europe in the same fashion .... seems to be a bit of a blind spot with us

N.

Thread: Rebuilding costs money!

jan2926 — 2006-06-07T15:25:08+00:00

I don't know how, but in the original reading of the rules we missed the part of:

If the player chooses this action, he may rebuild one of his currently
built tiles. This costs one Money card of his choice, placed in the
discard pile. If he has no money, he may not choose this action.

So - for us rebuilding was free! We only found out near the end of a recent game so have not played with the correct rules yet - looking forward to it

Feeling very daft...

Thread: Re: who chooses color in an auction?

Werbaer — 2006-06-03T19:26:57+00:00

Each player may choose a money color for himself, not one for all.