Game: DaVinci's Challenge

Thread: Re: User Review

MrMoto — 2008-08-13T02:47:23+00:00

I've never played the game, but off the top of my head I have a simple idea that would break a mirroring strategy: allocate the patterns to the players, so that any given pattern only gives points to one or the other.

It would remain only to find a fair way to choose who gets what. This could be done before the game begins, or there could be a "first come, first served" approach where the first player to create an as yet unclaimed pattern would get the rights to it, as it were.

Thoughts?

Thread: Re: Abstracts in Review #6: DaVinci's Challenge

nitromob — 2008-05-06T10:16:49+00:00

I think this game is quite fun and very brain burning. Also in some parts it is hard to see every move that can be made and you may give away some higher point items. Plus you have to play defensively and offensively... Quite a great Christmas present from my gf...top abstract for sure!

Thread: Re: Abstracts in Review #6: DaVinci's Challenge

steadym — 2008-04-14T15:33:58+00:00

The game is indeed handsome and fun. I wish it had found a wider audience.

Please consider giving my alternate board design a try. It's in the files section, downloadable in two parts.

Thread: Re: Abstracts in Review #6: DaVinci's Challenge

reapersaurus — 2008-04-13T07:20:57+00:00

Excellent review, and I'm no fan of abstracts.

But you got across many comparative descriptors/analysis that were very helpful to this reader.

Thread: Re: Abstracts in Review #6: DaVinci's Challenge

Gamegrunt — 2008-04-12T20:37:31+00:00

Excellent review of a game that is truly underrated!

I found my copy in a thift store. I was happy to find a game I had often looked at on the shelves of Toys R Us, but I wasn't convinced that it was a very good game.

I played a shortened game with my wife and thought, meh!

I showed it to my granddaughter and she fell in love with DaVinci Challenge. We've played the game 3 times and it's the kind of a game that really grows on you. We found that the Pyramid shape is the most difficult to appreciate and use tactically.

Thanks again for the fine review.

Gg

Thread: Abstracts in Review #6: DaVinci's Challenge

banyan — 2008-04-12T18:36:26+00:00

This is the sixth in a line of reviews of abstracts. I originally planned on doing six or seven reviews, so I plan on doing at most one more. I really wanted to do Shogi or XiangQi, but I those games seem a little too big for me to learn and get good enough to review in less than a month. So this may be the last one before I compile all the results in a Geeklist and go back to doing regular reviews.

DaVinci's Challenge seems to be a somewhat underrated game. Only 192 have rated it, and its rating is quite low. I think this is very unfair, and I hope this review will give it some extra attention.

Abstracts in Review

It is my opinion that abstracts are fundamentally different from other types of board games. People play them for other reasons and people like them for other reasons. Therefore I thought it was time I set down the priorities that I feel make a good abstract game, rather than a good board game in general, and saw how various abstracts measured up to them.

The qualities which I think make a good abstract are Strategy, Aesthetics, Solvability, Emergence, and Other Considerations, each of which will be explained in greater detail in the rating section for this particular game.

Game Play

DaVinci's Challenge is a two-player game, with one player taking white and the other black (or cream-colored and charcoal gray, really). The board is a depiction of the "Flower of Life," which is a beautiful and ancient pattern composed of a bunch of overlapping circles and semicircles.

This pattern can also be seen as composed of triangles, whose sides are concave curves rather than lines, and ellipses, whose sides closest to the foci come to sharp points rather than curves, and so these shapes are what the players will be using as pieces to play onto the board.
]]>

From here on, I will refer to the playing pieces as "triangles" and "petals." Each player has 45 petals and 27 triangles in their color. This is exactly enough pieces for each player to fill half of the available spots, and the number of pieces is quite important, because, unlike some other abstracts, if you run out of one type of piece then you cannot play any more of that piece even if doing so is your best move.

A turn consists of playing one piece onto an empty spot on the board and tallying all of the relevant shapes made by that piece on your little tally sheet. There are nine relevant shapes, each of which will be worth a certain number of points at the end.
]]>

The rules specifically state that the shapes cannot be tallied later, meaning that if you don't notice them when you place the piece, you don't get the points for them. Frankly, I think this rule is crap. I can understand that it could be used to prevent a player from accidentally (or otherwise) scoring a shape more than once, but it gives the impression that this game is not so much about playing strategically and reading ahead as it is about playing haphazardly and seeing if you can notice shapes that are right in front of you. Serious abstract players will not find that aspect of the game attractive, and so I recommend ignoring that rule entirely unless there is some ambiguity as to whether or not the shape was actually scored earlier.

During your first few games, you may play to try to sneak in one of the 25 point shapes, but as you get better these shapes should become practically impossible for either player to successfully pull off. Their existence, however, is quite useful, because it can allow you to set up situations where your opponent has to block on of them and thus allow you to complete one or more smaller shapes. I'll get more into that in the strategy section.

The game officially ends when no more shapes can be made. Effectively, I find that the game ends when both players agree that they will not be able to make any more, not because it is impossible, but because their opponent will easily be able to block them. Regardless, almost every space is likely to be filled by the time the game has ended. After that, just add up the values of your tallies and calculate your score. Games usually take about an hour or slightly less.

Ratings

Strategy:

A good abstract should have as little luck as possible. It should take a long time to be good at it, to the point where being the best in the world should be something very prestigious, and it should be possible to easily differentiate between skill levels. Unlike other board games, if an abstract does not suffer from analysis paralysis, it's probably not strategic enough.

DaVinci's Challenge has no luck, and it is easy to differentiate between skill levels. Unfortunately, at this point, I am not aware of any serious competitive play, and I have not seen any attempt at programming AI to play DaVinci's Challenge. Nonetheless, this is a very strategic game.

After several games, I still do not have a good grasp on opening strategy. If I go first, I usually play a triangle somewhere near the middle and start working towards setting up multiple diamonds and one or two pyramids. If my opponent plays first, I play as near to him as possible so that later blocking moves might threaten something and give me the initiative.

During the midgame, strategy is quite different. I try to have some pieces present all over the board, so that I can play multiple threatening moves that do not give my opponent any opportunities. Ideally these should work towards threatening a circle or flower which, when blocked, allow me to get several smaller shapes. I always try to set up a situation where I will be one move away from two different circles or flowers and my opponent can only block one of them, but so far I have not pulled this off successfully. During the midgame, there is a lot going on, and it is during this time that the game can be a real brain burner. Until you have most of the shapes memorized, you will have to constantly make reference to the scoring sheet.

The end game tends to be much more tedious and mechanical.

Aesthetics:

In abstracts, the substitute for theme is beauty. A good abstract game should look good sitting out on a coffee table, and, at least theoretically, be able to be replicated with deluxe materials, even if deluxe materials are not the default. Minimalism is generally preferred.

The Flower of Life is an awesome shape, and seeing it evolve in black and white is really attractive. However, the pieces are plastic and the board is cardboard. The marketers had to paste a theme onto the game in order to make it more sell-able, and this has detracted from its abstract beauty as well. Hopefully the rights will be sold and people can start getting more abstract versions in nicer materials.

I especially am encouraged by this comment left in Tom Vasel's review of the same game: "The pieces in his original game were hand-carved soapstone and the board was an etched copper plate. It was really beautiful." Now that is something I would love to play on.

Solvability:

Because a good abstract will have little luck, they may suffer from solvability, meaning that strategy will be supplanted with simple mathematics or logic. Although it is acceptable for an abstract to be theoretically solvable, a good abstract should be practically impossible to solve. There should not be too many "correct" moves or standard sequences which must simply be memorized. Computers should not be able to beat the best human players every time.

I cannot see this game ever being practically solved. There are nine completed shapes and an uncountable number of potential good shapes to help set them up. On top of that, each of these may be overlapping with others to keep your strategy flexible. I do not know how a computer would fare against a human, but it seems that it would be a staggering programming challenge to get the AI to examine every group of pieces on the board and see how close they are to each of the nine shapes.

Emergence:

The traditional adage for abstracts is "minutes to learn, a lifetime to master" meaning that basic rules result in a plethora of emergent qualities. For example, in Go a player is as likely to consider eyes, tiger's mouths, and cutting points (abstractions not referenced in the rules) as they are to consider liberties and ko (which are rules terms). As the name suggests, strategic thought should be at the abstract level.

Technically, all of the shapes made by the pieces in DaVinci's Challenge are emergent. Emergence is there, but ultimately I have not yet seen a lot of real emergent strategy. There are shapes which will guarantee one or two tallies and shapes that will help you achieve those shapes, but pieces do not radiate influence the way they do in Go, and pieces do not attack or control areas the way they do in Chess. One really emergent quality in DaVinci's Challenge is initiative and how well moves help you keep it.

Other Considerations

Abstracts are too big and too diverse to fit into any one rating scheme. Every game will have unique elements both positive and negative which do not easily fit in with the other important criteria listed above, and they must also be considered.

Positives: This might be the best "geometrical thinking" abstract, where others would include Blokus or Ubongo.

Negatives: The shapes need to be memorized to play well, which presents a learning barrier similar to how memorizing the rules for each piece is a barrier to learning Chess. A common complaint about this game is the artificial point values for the various shapes. The ten-point shapes in particular do not seem balanced against each other at all. These somewhat oversimplified and pasted on point values betray an otherwise elegant game system.

Overall Rating:

DaVinci's Challenge is an impressive abstract. It is highly geometrical, and so if you find you like Blokus but want something deeper and more strategic, DaVinci's Challenge is the way to go. This game has been underrated, and I think it is because people are trying to play it like a light abstract, when it is much more heavy than it initially lets on, especially because of that rule that if you don't notice it you don't get the points for it. Play this game like a serious abstract, and it might become one of your favorites.

Thread: Re: Variable quality, count your pieces!

Gamegrunt — 2008-03-20T06:29:27+00:00

I picked up a thrift store copy of DaVinci Challenge and it was all there: 45:27 two point to three point ratio in both black and white.

Gg

Thread: Re: Variable quality, count your pieces!

Frubgarde — 2008-02-09T01:52:09+00:00

Hmm, lets's see....

( one bout of counting later )

White: 29 triangles, 46 petals
Black: 27 triangles, 46 petals

So that's all right then. I did worry when I happened across this thread as my copy was a used one from a local charity shop.

Only cost me £2.50 and it's all there! Brilliant!

Frub

Image

concertbandie — 2007-11-01T19:32:34+00:00

My problem with the game, symetric play will always result in either a tied score for the second player or a win if the the second player sees a shape that the first player missed. In this game I lost by a point!

Image

Capitaine Grappin — 2007-10-25T13:44:54+00:00

Metal box edition (back)

Image

Capitaine Grappin — 2007-10-25T13:44:27+00:00

Metal box edition

Thread: Re: Review from Gameblog

steveoliverc — 2006-10-19T17:44:35+00:00

This game plays much better as a 4-player partnership game.

Thread: Review from Gameblog

msaari — 2006-10-18T10:05:22+00:00

DaVinci's Challenge is yet another game trying to milk the popularity of Dan Brown's books. Once again, any connection between this game and Leonardo Da Vinci is fairly thin and based on art alone (and even the art is mangled: let's just say the Vitruvian Man is less of a man in this game's art).

That's not a fault of this game, though - it's all marketing. The game is about laying pieces on a Flower of Life, a pattern formed of overlapping circles. Players take turns placing ellipses and triangles on the board, trying to form different patterns. Harder patterns take more time and are worth more points. However, blocking them is quite easy for the opponent.

]]>

Simple, but dull

The game play is simple, but dull. We found it very hard to recognise the patterns you create. Sometimes you create several patterns at the same time, some of them accidentally, and that can be pretty tricky to notice. Practise helps, I believe, but for now it's a challenge that I feel is quite unnecessary. I want the challenges to emerge from the placement of the pieces, not from trying to notice all your scoring patterns.

When the game begins, it's kind of awkward: players start patterns, perhaps block bigger patterns from their opponents. Then, the middle game is the best part, when the board has lots of opportunities to score, while you have to keep an eye on your opponent. The end falls flat, it's simply boring cleanup, filling the empty spots.

Overview

The game is not bad, just really uninspiring and a bit clumsy. The components were nice, but nothing exceptional; I'd preferred clear black and white pieces, instead of cream-ish and kind of dark gray. The Flower of Life pattern is unique as far as I know and the rules are definitely simple enough: most of the small slip explains how you can score more than one pattern with one placement.

I sort of feel I'm being a bit too harsh on the game, but then again, when we played it, it was simply no fun at all. I have no desire to play it again. I didn't enjoy it, and there are many similar games I really enjoy - Ta Yü is a good example of a similar, yet much better game.

Thread: Re: Session Report: DaVinci's Challenge

gschloesser — 2006-06-29T14:57:35+00:00

Sexy Amy wrote:
I haven't played this game in a while, but I do remember liking it. However, I think the endgame becomes tedious as scoring possibilities become infrequent or impossible. I would suggest removing some pieces (I don't know exactly how many ... some experimentation is in order) so that the end comes before the board is completely filled.

In my games, we've reached a point where it became obvious that no further points can be scored. We halt the game at that point.

Thread: Re: Session Report: DaVinci's Challenge

Sexy Amy — 2006-06-29T14:52:48+00:00

I haven't played this game in a while, but I do remember liking it. However, I think the endgame becomes tedious as scoring possibilities become infrequent or impossible. I would suggest removing some pieces (I don't know exactly how many ... some experimentation is in order) so that the end comes before the board is completely filled.

Thread: Session Report: DaVinci's Challenge

gschloesser — 2006-06-28T21:47:17+00:00

Editor’s Note: My full review of Davinci’s Challenge will appear in Knucklebones Magazine.

Pre-dating the movie, but still happy to ride its coattails, DaVinci’s Challenge from Briarpatch is a 2-player abstract game that actually has nothing to do with the famous book’s plot. Rather, it focuses on the ancient Flower of Life, a pattern of circles whose design is over 6,000 years old. Throughout the ages, the mesmerizing pattern has been studied intently by philosophers, artists and architects, including Leonardo da Vinci.

The game board depicts this Flower of Life, and players take turns placing oval and triangle-shaped pieces onto it, attempting to form various geometrical shapes and patterns. Nine different patterns can be formed, ranging from the relatively simple triangle to the complex circles and flowers. Points are awarded for each pattern formed, with more being earned for the more difficult designs. Points are tallied on a handy scoring pad, with the player earning the greatest number of cumulative points emerging as the master of the Flower of Life.

Abstract games can sometimes be quite dry, but DaVinci’s Challenge is an exception. The process of forming various patterns is quite intriguing and challenging, and while extremely tactical in nature, it avoids the excess analyzing and down-time present in many abstract games. The game flows along quickly, and while it can be frustrating to have your opponent place a piece that thwarts your planned design, there is a sense of sneaky accomplishment when you successfully form a complex pattern.

The game packs some nice tension and challenge in a compact 30-minute time frame. While it won’t help you uncover centuries old mysteries contained in famous paintings, it does provide you with one of the better two-player games available in mainstream toy and game stores.

Gail introduced Rhonda to the game, and continued her winning streak. She is far superior at such “spatial recognition” games than me, and she used these skills to top Rhonda.

Finals: Gail 113, Rhonda 81

Ratings: Gail 7, Rhonda 6.5

Image

Boomer — 2006-06-11T16:28:42+00:00

Score Sheet

Image

Boomer — 2006-06-11T15:58:29+00:00

Image

Boomer — 2006-06-11T15:58:23+00:00

Thread: Re: [Review] Davinci's Challenge

jkschlitz — 2006-05-11T02:36:32+00:00

Actually the game has nothing to do with the novel The DaVinci Code. Paul Micarelli and I were fellow graphic design majors in college. This game was his senior project, and we graduated in 2001.

I only just recently discovered that the game had been mass-produced thanks to a story in our alma mater's alumni magazine. After hearing the reviews, I can't wait to buy it!

Btw, the pieces in his original game were hand-carved soapstone and the board was an etched copper plate. It was really beautiful.

Thread: Re: Card game is a great supplement!

Nazhuret — 2006-04-16T17:47:28+00:00

Yes it's very simple.

When you complete a pattern on your turn, draw a card from the deck. If it matches what you just completed you get extra points

OR

If you can complete the pattern shown on the card by placing one extra piece on the board you may do so and record those points as well.

OR

If you draw one of the daVinci cards you may remove any one of your opponent's pieces and replace it with one of your own. If this completes a pattern for you you may record those points.

That's it.

I also was thinking something along the lines of the tickets in Ticket to Ride. Keep some in your hand and if you complete them you get extra points. If you don't complete them it's negative points. You may draw more whenever you like but can never discard.

There's all kinds of ways you could use them I would think.

Thread: Re: Card game is a great supplement!

S.K. Lator — 2006-04-16T17:16:12+00:00

Could you describe in a few words the rules part concerning the board game expansion?
Thank you!

Stephan

Thread: Re: Card game is a great supplement!

steveoliverc — 2006-04-15T18:28:27+00:00

That's interesting that this is both a stand-alone game as well as an expansion. I've got the Challenge game and agree the end-game is a little weak so I'll look for this card deck and try it out. Thanks for the heads-up!

Thread: Re: [Review] Davinci's Challenge

Nazhuret — 2006-04-15T15:45:51+00:00

Great review.

I know from your podcasts which I love by the way... they get me through my work night on graveyard shift mixing dough in a bakery) that you dislike print and play stuff. However I would highly reccomend you take a few minutes to print out the larger board one of the folks here made up. I can't remember who it was but it's in the files section of the game.

It really really improves the game as that whole end-game-blah thing is removed. Since there are more spaces than there are peices you have opportunities to make scoring shapes right to the very last turn. It makes a great game that much better.

On the same note I recently picked up a copy of the Davinci's Challenge card game. The card game is boring but if you use it as a supplement to the board game it's fantastic and addresses the end game thing in a way. There are a small number of cards that allow you to remove / replace opponents peices which would more than likely change the end game such that it is more dynamic. There are not enough of these cards to be out of balance but just enough to make that part of the game interesting.

Thread: Card game is a great supplement!

Nazhuret — 2006-04-15T15:31:38+00:00

I recently picked up the Davinci's Challenge card game. It's only four bucks at the store I got it from.

As a stand alone it's pretty blah but it's great to use as a supplement for the board game!

It really reinvigorates a great game that may have gotten a little stale. Even if you don't think the original has lost its lustre I would reccomend trying it with the cards.

I usually play on the larger board (i can't remember who made that but thanks, it's great!) but I think with the use of the cards you could use the original board easily as there are some cards that let you remove / replace opponents' pieces thusly allowing for completion of the smaller board while still providing a challenge in the end-game. I will hopefully get to play with the cards and small board soon and will post my thoughts on it.

Go get it for cheap and have some fun!

Thread: Re: User Review

Lasivian — 2006-03-11T12:53:43+00:00

I am happy to mention that I have created a game very similar to this using the new board style that has automated scoring.

You can find it here: http://slurl.com/secondlife/Warmouth/240/11/108/?x=405&y=310...

Thread: Re: Symbol completion...

steveoliverc — 2006-02-20T19:08:31+00:00

Correct. The Eye does not include the triangles. So you can play an oval, and if that completes an Eye (all ovals which are all in your color), you can disregard any triangles.

Note that the triangles within the Eye can be your color, your opponent's color, or missing altogether.

Thread: Re: Symbol completion...

amandasean — 2006-02-19T19:38:44+00:00

Does that mean that the "eye" symbol does not include the 2 triangles on either side of the iris? In other words the "eye" can be made up of 5 pieces all one color (excluding the triangles) or any combination of color as the triangles as long as the ovals are all one color?

Image

ZiggyZambo — 2006-02-05T20:56:20+00:00

Image

Albireo — 2006-01-26T07:12:35+00:00

Charles plays DaVinci`s Challenge. And wins...

Image

Albireo — 2006-01-26T06:15:38+00:00

Image

Albireo — 2006-01-26T05:46:40+00:00

A finished game

Thread: Re: What if a player runs out of one of the piece types

pdclose — 2006-01-05T22:39:32+00:00

There are enough pieces for each player that you can fill half the board with yours, and your opponent can fill half the board with his. No more, no less.

One problem that I reported in the game's listing area is that Briarpatch doesn't seem to be good at counting as it took me three store returns before I found a game with ENOUGH pieces to play -- two out of the three were short on both sides. So count your pieces carefully. You should have 72 pieces of black and 72 pieces of white (or grey and beige as is the case for my copy), divided into 27 triangles and 45 petals for each color.

Part of the challenge of the game is to play your pieces in a strategic manner so that you maximize your points before you run out of pieces. If you run out of triangles, then you're out of luck with those scoring opportunities! Maybe after a few more plays you'll see the advantage of planning a "big score" and holding back, instead of playing every single piece just because you can.

It's a strategy game, and part of the strategy is to utilize your pieces efficiently when choosing to play and score.

Thread: What if a player runs out of one of the piece types

dirtdevil — 2006-01-05T04:24:59+00:00

I just recently purchased DaVinci's challenge, and enjoy the game, but many times I have encountered an end-game condition that is not explained in the rules. Basically, I have run out of triangles even though there are valid (scoring) moves remaining. What is the correct way to handle this situation, or is there no "offical" rule thus it becomes a house rule?

Thread: Re: Symbol completion...

steveoliverc — 2005-12-30T04:22:05+00:00

No, only symbols made entirely of your color.

Thread: Symbol completion...

gamesmstr — 2005-12-29T22:28:28+00:00

If you complete a symbol that has both colors in it, do you get points for it? The rulebook is unclear about this.

Thread: Re: Variable quality, count your pieces!

steadym — 2005-12-27T17:24:17+00:00

I had a similar problem with my set. I found Briarpatch to be very responsive to email - they responded within a couple of hours and I had the missing parts in two days.

For what it's worth, being short a few pieces isn't really a game killer. The last few moves of the game are usually just filling in empty spaces since all the scoring moves have been taken or blocked already.

You could laminate your board and play with two colors of dry erase markers/ grease pencils. No pieces to lose!

[shameless plug] Try my modified board! [end shameless plug]

Thread: Variable quality, count your pieces!

pdclose — 2005-12-26T21:13:59+00:00

I purchased Davinci's Challenge on sale at Target after Thanksgiving. The box contained black and white plastic pieces all lumped in one bag, but not enough of either color to play the game -- there's supposed to be 72 pieces of each color and I had 65 white and 68 black. I returned the game for exchange and got another that was one piece short. This time I wrote Briarpatch, but when I hadn't heard by Christmas, I decided to take the game back for one more try at exchange.

This time I got one that contained grey and beige plastic pieces, separated in two bags! There were 74 pieces in one bag and 75 pieces in another. I guess having extras is better than being short! This box also contained an extra score pad.

I don't think very much of Briarpatch's quality control at this point, but at least I'm now "ahead" instead of saddled with a game I can't play due to being out parts.

What should be in the box is 72 pieces of black and 72 pieces of white, divided into 27 triangles and 45 petals for each color. Be sure to count your set.

Thread: [Review] Davinci's Challenge

TomVasel — 2005-11-09T07:14:38+00:00

With the furor raised by the controversial novel The Davinci Code, it's certainly not surprising to see several games on the subject. One of them, DaVinci's Challenge (Briarpatch, 2005 - Paul Micarelli) caught my eye when browsing the internet, so I requested a copy. When I received the game, I noticed that it used the so called "Flower of Life" symbol - but that was pretty much the extent of the theme. DaVinci's Challenge is basically an abstract game in which players alternate laying down pieces, attempting to score points when they form different patterns.

I found DaVinci's Challenge extremely fascinating. It's a game in which player's must watch what pieces they play (don't want to miss any scoring opportunities), as much as those that their opponent plays (don't want to allow them to set up any major scoring patterns). The rules are incredibly simple - just lay a piece down on your turn - but the possibilities are tremendous. The only negative things I would say is that scoring may be a chore for some people and the endgame is a bit anticlimactic (it feels more like a "mopping up" operation). Still, these don't detract me from what has become one of my favorite abstract games - a visually pleasing game that fascinates throughout.

In a written review, it would be hard for me to properly explain the board, but it's made up of several triangle and ovals, formed into different patterns (flowers, circles, etc.) Each player takes seventy-two pieces of their color (ovals and triangles), and one player is chosen to start the game. On a player's turn, they simply place any of their pieces onto any open matching space on the board. If this placed piece, along with prior placed pieces, forms one of nine patterns (triangle, diamond, gem, eye, pyramid, hourglass, star, circle, or follower), the player scores the matching points for that pattern (ranging from one to twenty-five). It is possible for a placed piece to score multiple patterns at the same time; and a player can, with clever placement, get a lot of points with one piece.

When a player scores their patterns, they simply put a tally mark for that particular pattern down on a specialized score sheet. At the end of the game, the tally marks are multiplied by the score for each pattern, and the player with the higher sum is the winner! The game is over when neither player can make a pattern on the board.

Some comments on the game…

1.) Components: The board composed of an orange/brown circle centered on a smoky gray background. It's a little drab, I guess, but fits in with the Davinci theme, as well as a couple smaller circles (to hold a player's pieces not yet played)) with a few of DaVinci's more famous drawings on them. The pieces are made of molded dark gray and beige plastic; and while they look good on the board, it's slightly marred by white marks on the pieces where one can tell that the pieces were cut off of sprues. Still, once a game is in full session, the board looks pretty impressive - with varying patterns spread across the board. The score sheets included are nice; because with the large point totals (a recent game I played was 249 to 221), it's almost essential. Twenty-five double-sided scoring sheets are included, which I imagine will last a player a decent amount of time. Everything fits into a large square box with ample room to hold all the pieces.

2.) Rules: The game rules are only on two sides of a small sheet of paper. They're extremely simple - not much to mess up here - and simply consist mostly of how placing a single piece can score multiple patterns. Both the score sheets and the rules show diagrams of the nine patterns, which should be in front of players at all times (you'd be surprised at how easy it is to forget certain patterns.) The game is incredibly easy to teach people; I played it with some junior high boys, and they picked it up in an instant.

3.) Pattern scoring: It's very easy to miss certain patterns when scoring, especially patterns that are smaller and part of the large patterns, like the triangle and the diamond. The rules state that a player can't score points for previously laid patterns, so a player must catch them when placing them down. It's annoying to notice that you've placed something earlier in the game and not have received points for it. I saw a comment on the 'net that DaVinci's Code would be great with computer scoring, and I agree. Still, once players learn to watch out for these different patterns, scoring isn't as big of a problem.

4.) Patterns: The strategy comes in two different forms - in which players attempt to set themselves up to score lucrative patterns and at the same time foil their opponent's efforts to do the same. The highest scoring patterns, the flower and the circle, each take six pieces to fulfill and are rather difficult to put down without the opponent noticing. The optimal way would be to set up multiple patterns so that an opponent can only block one of them, but this is much more difficult to do than say - Connect Four, where the same basic principle applies. Most of the time, when a player scores a Circle or Flower (25 points each) in the games that I've been a part in, it's because either they distracted their opponent with other scoring options, or their opponent was so wrapped up trying to score a pattern of their own that they ignored the other player's moves. This balance between setting up their own patterns and blocking opponent's patterns is what I most enjoy about the game. My only quibble about this part is that the Star and the Pyramid (each worth ten points) don't seem to have the same difficulty to complete. The Pyramid happens in every game I've played - multiple times, but Stars are easily blocked (they require two more pieces). I wonder if the Star should be 15 points, causing players to attempt it more than the Pyramid. Of course, it could be my inexperience with the game speaking here…

5.) Beginning to the End: I would submit that the beginning of the game is the most important part, in which player's set up their initial patterns or place pieces to strategically block future patterns by the opponent. In the last fourth of the game, the game almost goes on autopilot, as players attempt to scrape up any last patterns that they can find (all the spots for the bigger ones are gone), and is a little less dramatic than the middle, in which players must be constantly on their guard. Still, the game only takes about an hour, which is constantly engrossing for the entire time.

6.) Fun Factor: Most of the fun in the game is from making patterns and scoring points (it's a little reward along the way to the big finish). At the same time, blocking an opponent from achieving multiple patterns by placing only one piece is just as satisfying and fun. Both of these are rather easy; the only parts of the game that are "heavier" are the scoring and the fact that a player must be watching dozens of emerging patterns at the same time. I really enjoyed this game - due to the simplicity.

I'm really glad I got DaVinci's Challenge. I can take or leave the theme; it just doesn't match up with the game - it's simply an abstract strategy game. But it's one that seems as if it will hold up over multiple plays. I really enjoy abstract games that allow a player to set up their strategies in advance, and DaVinci's challenge allows such forward planning. Like the Gipf series, a simple action is taken each turn; but the choices are great and varied, and the end result is a smooth, fascinating game.

Tom Vasel
"Real men play board games"
www.tomvasel.com

Thread: Re: User Review

steadym — 2005-10-29T19:39:16+00:00

I think that the first player has a slight advantage in either case. Adding a rule which punishes Player 2 for doing something that is perfectly legal within the original rules seems fiddly to me.

Changing the board geometry actually seemed a bit more straightforward than adding a rule or rules as a patch. The rules don't change at all to accommodate the revised board, and the board automatically eliminates the possibility of using the morroring trick.

Thread: Re: User Review

wmshub — 2005-10-29T07:39:30+00:00

Wouldn't the mirroring problem be more easily solved by saying that ties go to the player who moved first? That way, the second player can mirror all they want - but if they mirror every single move, they lose at the end, guaranteed.

Yes, this gives player 1 a slight advantage. But chess has an advantage for player 1 as well, and people still seem to find the game enjoyable, so you can probably live with it.

Thread: Re: User Review

steadym — 2005-10-14T15:08:42+00:00

Indeed.

Thread: Re: User Review

GreedyAlgorithm — 2005-10-13T20:09:41+00:00

With equal numbers of types of pieces, Player 2 cannot force a win. Proof: Player 1 begins. If Player 2 always mirrors, the game is a draw. On some turn, perhaps the first, Player 2 decides not to mirror. Now since the only empty spot on the board with a non-empty mirror is the very spot in which Player 2 did not play, Player 1 may mirror until Player 2 plays in the skipped location. At that point the game is back in a state equivalent to one reachable by continuous mirroring.

Thread: Re: User Review

steadym — 2005-10-13T19:19:10+00:00

Sorry this reply is so long in coming; things have been hectic at Steady HQ.

As for theory, I should not have called the strategy "mirroring"; player 2's moves are actually 180 degree rotational symmetries. There is nothing that Player 1 can do to prevent Player 2 from mimicking every move in this way and forcing a draw, *provided that the pool of available pieces is identical for both players*. With an extra piece of either type, player 1 saves the extra piece for last, using it to complete a scoring pattern and leaving player 2 unable to mimic.

Whether Player 2 has a way to force a better result than a draw, however, remains to be seen.

As for the number of pieces, I believe the intent was for the pieces to completely fill the board and for the sets to be equal. My set also had unequal numbers of the triangle and oval shapes. I emailed Briarpatch, and they promptly sent me the required pieces to equalize the light and dark sets.

Thread: Re: User Review

GreedyAlgorithm — 2005-09-02T16:54:01+00:00

Correct me if I'm wrong, but at least from a theoretical perspective, I think mirroring does not result in a draw. In my set, light had one more triangular piece than did dark, and dark had one more oval piece than did light.

Thread: Re: User Review

steadym — 2005-08-04T00:44:23+00:00

Thanks, Amy! I'm a designer who doesn't get to be terribly creative at his day job, so your positive feedback on this little project is a real breath of fresh air.

Take care,

Matt

Thread: Re: User Review

steadym — 2005-07-28T17:06:03+00:00

The larger board should help with that problem as well. I look forward to hearing your feedback. Enjoy!

Thread: Re: Session Report

steadym — 2005-07-13T01:32:53+00:00

Yes, we each tend to see what the other is working on and nip it in the bud. In our several plays so far there have only been a handful of the highest-scoring configurations.

If you have a chance to try my original board, I'd love to hear you comments!

Best wishes,

-steadym-

Thread: First two games I played of DVC

bluebehir — 2005-07-11T05:45:01+00:00

This is not a true account of play, as I did not take any notes.

The first game I played of this was againts the owner of the game, Alex.
He had played once before, and was all too keen to play again.

We started off very simple, blocking each other's plays but scoring simple diamonds and triangles. Alex was scoring quite a few gems, but I was working on bigger things. I tried for a couple flowers, but they were all blocked. I did manage to sneak in a circle though. 25 points! Yes! Although in that time, he had made at least a pyramid and three gems, so we were still very even on the score.

During the late game (and we had a fair sized crowd by now) I was working on my second circle, and being particularly subtle about it. Alex was playing very haphazardly, it would seem. Everybody else could see exactly what was going on, and we were both playing on the same part of the board, so it was a very tense moment. Will he see my circle? Will he see it?

he didn't see it! I played the sixth piece and exclaimed emphatically "YES!!! I GOT A CIRCLE!!" So he played his piece and exclaimed emphatically "YES!! I GOT A CIRCLE!!!" We both looked at what had just happened - our circles actually interlocked!!!!

I couldn't see his circle, for fear of Alex spotting mine, and Alex, in turn was so focused on his own circle that he could not see mine! The funniest part was that we both dilly dallied around our circles in a similar manner, so that our opponent would miss our play, and we finished our circles at exactly the same time. We both burst out laughing at the extremity of our game.
Alex won the game by about 12 points.

The second game was against Jean, who talked herself down from the beginning. I think that there was a shark in the waters.
I gave her the first gem, I didn't feel like being cruel to her from the get-go, although we both believed at the time that I would win the game. I was working on three circles at once, trying to be tricky and clever. Jean was seeing all too clearly, and placed three perfect pieces at exactly the right moment to block each circle and the flower in the middle. Ah well, I changed tactic and was scoring well with pyramids and diamonds, not to forget the occasional hour glass.
Right from the get-go, I saw Jean was working on a circle. She had laid four pieces down, and I mentioned to her (flippantly?) that she wasn't going to get that circle.
So Jean moved off into other sections of the board, and worked on other patterns, as did I. Mid-game, I saw that where I had worked on my three circles had inadvertantly given me four parts of a fourth circle! How could we both have missed that???? I began working on it, without working ON it. Because, what I've noticed is that whenever you play a piece to almost finish the pattern is when the pattern is spotted. So, build patterns right up to that part of the board, and then you'll place the fifth piece "by accident" finishing a pattern, the opponent goes "ah well" and goes back to their plans.
I didn't see at this stage, but Jean had somehow built four parts of a flower, which I deem the most points effective pattern in the game.
Jean on the other hand was watching me place my pieces "in the middle of nowhere" and KNEW I was up to something. She studied and scrutinised. She KNEW I was up to something. Couldn't see what it was, but there had to be SOMETHING. "I could just be working on nothing..."
yes, that's true, but she doubts it. I'm up to SOMETHING. Ah well, she couldn't see it, so she kept her eyes keen for a while but continued her patterns. Finally, I built an hourglass/twin eye option, where you could block the eye but not the hourglass, or vice versa. One of those pieces just happened to be the fifth piece to my circle. Jean saw the eyes much easier than the hourglass, and blocked that. I played my hour glass piece, which was the fifth piece of the circle. I was excited! Jean didn't see it, and I built it. Jean wasn't particularly impressed, but commended me on fine play.

We continued. And jean placed her piece down to be the fifth piece of that flower that I hadn't noticed. I saw it straight away, of course, and blocked it. What I didn't see was that this piece was ALSO the fifth piece of her circle. What she had set up was "Give me a circle, or give me a flower!" She would be in a better position if I gave her the flower, but she was happier to get the circle, because I had distinctly expressed my opinion that she wouldn't get it.

Ah, it was a good game. In the end, my three hour glasses and (four?) pyramids made the difference, and I won the game by about 18 points or so.

Thread: Re: Session Report

bluebehir — 2005-07-11T05:24:51+00:00

You guys must play a very tight game, because you don't score very high at all!!
I played this for the first and second time on Friday, (man I loved it a lot!) and my scores (and opponents scores) were always exceeding 150.

Even if you get a pyramid, and three gems, you should be up for 28 points - half your score!
Throw a few eyes in there (an eye is worth 7, because it is worth 5, plus has two triangles) and that's maybe 14 or 21 more.

And diamonds are often a dime a dozen

Thread: Re: User Review

steadym — 2005-06-22T15:25:09+00:00

After several playings of DVC, I discovered that the game is susceptible to mirroring (player2 imitates player1 with a 180 degree rotation about the center point of the board, which results in a draw.

However, other aspects of the game are very enjoyable, and I wanted to salvage it without writing a complicated set of rules for avoiding/ outlawing the mirroring strategy (Ever heard of Renju? Yikes!)

I designed a modified board that makes the mirroring strategy impossible while preserving the essence of the game. The board has been sumbitted in two parts under Files; print each on 11" x 17" paper (each half of the board is 15" x 7.5" at 150 dpi, with a little extra for bleed), cut and mount to taste. This larger board allows for more pieces than the game provides, but we have only played with the standard amount.

The rules are exactly the same. If anyone tries this, I would love to hear feedback. MrsM seems to think it works pretty well, but I'd appreciate all the input I can get.

Take care,

-steadym-

Thread: Re: User Review

Hisst Ka — 2005-06-02T13:38:18+00:00

My wife and I looked at this as well (ever since reading that book, anything with DaVinci on it appeals to her), I may just get it myself.

Thread: Re: User Review

Hisst Ka — 2005-06-02T13:15:12+00:00

My wife and I looked at this as well (ever since reading that book, anything with DaVinci on it appeals to her), I may just get it myself.

Thread: Session Report

steadym — 2005-05-04T14:49:41+00:00

Two more plays the other night, and MrsM and I are learning each other's moves (and coming up with new ones). Scores have been both lower and tighter as we allow each other fewer freebies (like not seeing that nearly-completed circle and failing to block it). We are also discovering a hand management aspect of the game: since you have limited numbers of the two piece types, you have to play them in a balanced way so as not to run out of either type too early.

Game 1: steadym 83, MrsM 66
Game 2: don't remember the exact count, but MrsM snuck in a circle toward the end and whooped me.

Thread: Re:User Review

FranklinT — 2005-04-29T20:44:06+00:00

steadym (#483686),
Glad to see a review for this game. If this game sells well enough, Toys R' Us might consider expanding their collection further. In any case, I was waiting for a review before I picked up a copy of my own, so I guess I'll be heading to TRU soon.

Thread: Session Report

steadym — 2005-04-29T18:54:50+00:00

MrsM took the dark pieces and went first. After some initial close-contact plays, we started giving ground and trying to start larger scoring structures to use as threats. I had 5/6 of a circle before she saw it; from that base I was able to make a few small scores. Toward the end of the game, she got on a roll with using threats to link up her scattered triangles, resulting in some nice pyramid scores. As the board filled up, she kept finding ways to be two or three steps ahead of me (so lucky am I to have her...)

Final score MrsM 52, steadym 42

Thread: User Review

steadym — 2005-04-29T13:22:50+00:00

Overview:

Players take turns placing dark and light pieces of two shapes (concave triangles and elongated "footballs") in an effort to create scoring patterns and disrupt the other player's patterns.

The equipment:

A quad-folded playing board that folds out to 20" square. The board graphics are classy looking; the round, reddish playing area is illustrated to look embossed in the "Flower of Life" pattern (intersecting circles and arcs that create an array of triangles). Images of some of Leonardo's famous drawings grace the four courners of the square board. They are superfluous to the play of the game, but look nice and fill the dead space on the board. A molded board with raised lines to keep the pieces in place a la Blokus would have been nice; see comment below about the pieces.

Dark and light playing pieces. The concave triangles and elongated footballs (the rules refer to the as "ovals") are molded from dark charcoal- and cream-colored plastic with a slate texture. The light pieces are slightly veined with a bit of the charcoal color to give a marbled appearance. They look great on the board and are pleasant to handle, though they could stand to be a little heavier as they tend to slide around a bit during play.

Rules and Score Pad Points are scored by getting your pieces into one of nine configurations, i.e. three oblongs in a triangle scores 1; six triangles arrayed around a central point (a star) scores 10; 6 oblongs radiating from a point (a flower) scores 25. It is possible to place a piece such that it completes two or more patterns at once; don't forget to score them all, as the rules specifically prohibit going back and scoring them later. The pad is illustrated with diagrams of the nine scoring patterns for reference, and is a nice touch.

The Play:

Players choose colors and decide who will start. The starting player places a piece on the board, then players alternate.

When you put that first lonely piece out there, there doesn't seem to be much to it. "I'll start building a pattern, you'll block it, etc.", one might think. However, as the board fills up the opportunity for some nice tactics emerges. "If I play this triangle here, you'll be forced to block my potential star - giving me a free play to make a diamond!" The nature of the grid makes it possible for players' scoring patterns to intersect themselvs and one another's, so vigilance is a must. By halfway through the first game, MrsM was reminding me to score things I missed fairly often - and still whooping me.

There are more ovals than triangles in your piece supply. As the game winds down and the room for making patterns diminishes, you have to be choosy about what to try for lest you run out of something. The game ends when no more patterns can be made, and players tally their scores.

In Conclusion:

Some games that bear the Mensa sticker leave one to wonder what they base the award on. IMHO, this is not one of those. The game is engaging and tricky; you have to look sharp in order to do well. The effort pays off, though, when you figure out how to make that 25-point threat that pays off with 15 points' worth of smaller patterns (Just ask MrsM). Minor quibbles about sliding pieces aside, we found this to be a handsomely produced, challenging, and enjoyable game. If you like abstracts and tile-laying and don't mind a bit of brow-furrowing, this one is worth checking out.