Game: Euphrates & Tigris Card Game

Thread: Two Questions: Connecting Kingdoms and Victory Points

didaskalos — 2008-08-05T19:46:23+00:00

1. When a connecting card is played, the rules state that the card is to be placed face down. If necessary, an external conflict ensues. My question is: In a two-player game, suppose I attempt to join two kingdoms, both of which feature the blue marker. As the attacker, I lose the conflict. Do the kingdoms still connect, or do they remain separate because my attack (and attempt to join the kingdoms) failed?

2. When I play the fourth card of the same color in a column (kingdom), do I immediately replace the four cards with a ship? If so, may I first take a victory point for the fourth card (provided I have the appropriate color card in my hand)? May I take victory points for the ship on the same turn it comes into the game?

Thanks for the help!

Thread: Re: About VP...

dshortdesign — 2008-08-01T22:31:27+00:00

No, you only score by discarding cards from YOUR OWN HAND into your score pile. This occurs when you have a leader in a kingdom and a card of the same color is added to that same kingdom AFTER your leader is already there.

So, using your example...

If you placed your blue leader in that kingdom and then played a blue card to that same kingdom in a later turn, then you would have the opportunity to collect VP. You can only take advantage of that opportunity if you can then play ANOTHER blue card from your hand and place it in your score pile.

The only time a card goes from the "board" to your score pile is after an external conflict or if you pick up a treasure card.

Thread: About VP...

pipeman — 2008-06-30T08:37:42+00:00

A little confused about collecting VP. If there is a column in the following sequence:
Treasure-blue-blue-blue-black-black
There is a red leader on the treasure card. Now, I place a blue leader on the second blue card. Can I score (take away) the third and forth blue card to my VP stack in the next turn?

Thread: Re: Summarization of rules you most likely play wrong

garryj99 — 2008-05-15T15:38:42+00:00

Orski wrote:
I'm far from an rules expert for this particular game. What it's worth, I've always played that you can place leaders freely to a card of any color (including treasure cards) but not onto a ship. But this is only because I've read rules translation here on geek and trusted that one to be correct.

Actually Rio Grande has English rules available as a download on their site and there it also says that "... leader need not match the color ...". So I'd say that one French translation probably contains error in that particular rule.

As a bonus: (I went through the trouble to write that before I realized RG might have their rules on net.)

If anyone is interested in what "official" (original german) rules say about it, here goes: "Die Farbe des Anführers muss nicht mit der Farbe der Karte überinstimmen, ..."
But don't ask me how that translates as I don't know too much of a German. :-)

The color of the leader must not agree(correspond) with the color of the ticket(map)- from reverso.net

Thread: Re: Summarization of rules you most likely play wrong

Orski — 2008-04-17T20:51:49+00:00

I'm far from an rules expert for this particular game. What it's worth, I've always played that you can place leaders freely to a card of any color (including treasure cards) but not onto a ship. But this is only because I've read rules translation here on geek and trusted that one to be correct.

Actually Rio Grande has English rules available as a download on their site and there it also says that "... leader need not match the color ...". So I'd say that one French translation probably contains error in that particular rule.

As a bonus: (I went through the trouble to write that before I realized RG might have their rules on net.)

If anyone is interested in what "official" (original german) rules say about it, here goes: "Die Farbe des Anführers muss nicht mit der Farbe der Karte überinstimmen, ..."
But don't ask me how that translates as I don't know too much of a German. :-)

Thread: Re: Playing the leader

Rygel — 2008-04-17T20:46:44+00:00

I have not played this game for a while, but if memory serves me correct you can. If another leader of that color is present in that kingdom it will cause an internal conflict though.

Thread: Re: Summarization of rules you most likely play wrong

montcalm44 — 2008-04-17T16:40:16+00:00

Hi!
Since you seem to know this game a lot, another rule question for you: can you put a leader on a card of the same color or does it have to be different? According to different translations of the rules I read,the color can be different (French, translated by Loic Boisnier, English,BGG files) or has to be different from that of the leader
French, translated by Cylmoryl 2005)...
Do you know what to official rule says?
Montcalm

Thread: Playing the leader

montcalm44 — 2008-04-16T20:07:48+00:00

Hi,
Some thing that is not clear to me, even after reading some translations in French and English is this: can we play a leader on a civilization card of the same color? Is there an official translation of the German rules?:what:
Thanks
Montcalm

Thread: Re: Use disaster card to create a ship?

asmiles — 2007-11-26T19:05:44+00:00

no_where_dense wrote:
Suppose one column contains the cards in following order.

treasure*-blue-blue-black-blue-blue

Is it possible to play disaster card to remove a black card, then create a ship using 4 blue cards there?

If not, is it possible to add a 5th blue card below it after removing a black card, then create a ship there?

You can only build a ship by playing a civilization card, not a catastrophe card.

After playing the catastrophe card, you could build a ship by playing a 5th blue card. This of course assumes that there are no other cards between the 4 blues and the 5th blue you just played.

Thread: Use disaster card to create a ship?

no_where_dense — 2007-11-26T18:40:45+00:00

If it is already asked here, I am sorry. (I couldn't find it so far)

Suppose one column contains the cards in following order.

treasure*-blue-blue-black-blue-blue

Is it possible to play disaster card to remove a black card, then create a ship using 4 blue cards there?

If not, is it possible to add a 5th blue card below it after removing a black card, then create a ship there?

Thanks,
Ken

Thread: Re: Better for 2 than the boardgame?

no_where_dense — 2007-11-26T18:07:24+00:00

I played this as 2-player game and I thought it works better than boardgame for 2. I don't know why. Maybe the battlefield is smaller? I would definitely like to try it again with 2.

Thread: Two players in search of a strategy

tritone — 2007-10-20T06:09:36+00:00

My wife and I played for the first time tonight, and I´m surprised (but pleased) how well it went. Although we own the board game we´d never played it. I dunno, it just seemed kind of daunting somehow? I spotted the card game version at my FLGS, and with our preference for good card games over board games, bought it on impulse.

I won´t bore everyone with a lot of details of a game they already know how to play! I suppose the game played out like most players´ first. The early game was pretty much grabbing the easy victory points on ¨our side¨ of the table. Then we each grabbed a ship, later I grabbed the third ship. I was doing ¨fine¨ in every color except red, so I tried twice (and failed) to win an internal and then an external conflict (with red leaders), so I lost a TON of red cards as attacker that I COULD have just played for the easy victory points under my red leader! Ultimately I lost the game, not surprisingly, because I came up 1 short with my (5) red cards to my wife´s (6) black.

We made some (probably typical) beginner mistakes, which leads to my first question (if anyone is listening - yawn). Because of the huge/sprawling layout we had a tendency to leave too-little room between columns for a merger, which made it difficult at times to tell whether two kingdoms were actually merged or not. It didn´t help matters that one of the merger cards was red! Anyway, my wife moved a blue leader to the leftmost ¨leg¨ of a kingdom that was merged with its neighbor. Neither of us spotted that the two kingdoms were merged, let alone that the rightmost ¨leg¨ already had a blue leader. It wasn´t until several turns later that we spotted the mistake. We did the only obvious thing we could think of... and resolved it the instant we noticed it. Of course, by now several turns later, who knows how the original conflict would have turned out? I wonder if there should have been a ¨penalty¨ of some kind for an overlooked internal conflict?

Another problem we had was with claiming a treasure card. During an earlier external conflict resolution, neither player had a green leader in the new kingdom, so no one claimed a treasure card. However, in a later turn I placed a green trader in that kingdom and claimed one of the treasure cards. Was that legal? The rules only mention claiming treasure cards as part of resolving an external conflict. So maybe those treasures should go unclaimed until that large kingdom is merged yet-again?

Despite being our first time with this ¨controversial¨ game, it went very fast (probably 40 minutes?) with only a moderate dose of brain-burn. We both had our share declaring ¨now what?¨ a few times, but my own self-advise of ¨let your card distribution guide your decision¨ made the game flow very smoothly. Hey, anyone can play chess if they just know how the pieces move, right? We both look forward to playing again.

Thread: Euphrates & Tigris: Contest of Kings [Review]

seawolf — 2007-10-17T16:14:57+00:00

Euphrates & Tigris: Contest of Kings
From: Rio Grande Games
Reviewed by: Ron McClung

Euphrates & Tigris: Contest of Kings is a new Card Game from Rio Grande Games.

Euphrates & Tigris: Contest of Kings is a card game version of the board game, Euphrates & Tigris. I had not played the board game, so I came at this with an unbiased mind. This game, like many of Rio Grande Games is a fairly abstract strategy card game.

Game setup is fairly easy. You separate out the specialty cards - Treasures, Ships and Catastrophes, and then layout the starting playing area of 8 Treasure cards. Each player has four color-coded leaders, which also correspond to the four color types of cards. They are black for Kings/Population, blue for Farmer/Agriculture, green for Trader/Market, and red for Priests/Temples. The Treasure cards are like temple cards but with a golden dragon head in the corner, and they make the starting place for each kingdom. A kingdom is a set of cards

Each player takes their turn by choosing 2 of 3 options for actions - play a civilization card, move a leader or play a catastrophe card (which you can do only once per game). The game is a series of turns where the player builds Kingdoms from the Treasure cards by placing civilization cards vertically down the playing area (up to 8 cards) or horizontally connecting two Treasure cards. You place leaders on the cards to help you gain victory points. You gain points as you place the colored cards where the matching leaders are. However, you must have a second card in your hand to gain that victory point. There are several ways to gain more points including gaining ships and connecting treasure cards (thus connecting kingdoms). There are also special abilities that some of the leaders provide to gain more points.

Abstract games like these commonly are simple races to see how many points you can get in the limited amount of time. However, this does have the head-to-head confrontational aspect of it through conflicts as well as the catastrophe cards. Conflicts occur when leaders of the same color end up in the same kingdom either through movement (internal conflicts) or joining of kingdoms (external conflicts). Both are resolved by playing a certain number and type of cards and the results can be fairly devastating (the price of war).

I played the two player version of the game, which takes out 30 of the civilization cards. It ran rather smoothly as the first several rounds were simply victory point grabs. As the kingdoms grew, the more chance for conflict came up and the strategy of card play became more critical. Playing four of the same type in a row gains you a ship, but there are a limited number of ship cards (3). So you have to watch where your opponents could gain one while at the same time try yourself to gain one. Once those are gained and you have the leaders in the right place, your victory points can blossom considerably. I can see this game being very fast paced and even cut-throat at times with more than two players.

In conclusion, this game itself is very entertaining and has strong replaybility value as most card games do. My wife noticed several editing problems with the rulebook, but that is the only real problem we found. The cards are small and not bulky. The art is well done and clear. It is a good game for a good price. I would highly recommend it.

For more details on Rio Grande Games and their new Card Game “Euphrates & Tigris: Contest of Kings” check them out at their website http://www.riograndegames.com, and at all of your local game stores.

Euphrates & Tigris: Contest of Kings
From: Rio Grande Games
Type of Game: Card Game
Game Design by: Reiner Knizia
Developed by: Reiner Knizia
Number of Pages: 8 page foldout rulebook
Game Components Included: 193 cards, 16 wooden leader chips, 4 catastrophe cards, 3 ship cards
Retail Price: $ 19.95 (US)
Number of Players: 2-4
Player Ages: 12+
Play Time: 45 minutes
Website: www.riograndegames.com

Reviewed by: Ron McClung

Thread: Euphates & Tigris In Review

Blademaster777 — 2007-10-07T07:02:03+00:00

Euphrates & Tigris is close to a re-implementation of arguably Knizers greatest creation. Many people who have gone from the board game to the card game have been disappointed. I on the other hand went the other way, playing the Euphrates & Tigris before Tigris & Euphrates.

Mechanics & Game Play:
The game begins with eight kingdoms. Players will take turn taking actions to attempt to gain the greatest influence for their dynasty.

Much like its bigger brother each player has four leaders, one corresponding to each of the four spheres of influence. They are.....

Black: The King: The King's sphere of influence is population. The black cards that are played in the game represent settlements. The King has the ability to score any colour when it is played.

Blue: The Farmer: The Farmer's sphere of influence is agriculture. The blue cards that are played in the game represent farms. The Farmer has no ability.

Green: The Trader: The Trader's sphere of influence is trade. The green cards that are played in the game represent markets. The Trader has the ability to score treasures in joined kingdoms.

Red: The Priest: The Priest's sphere of influence is religion. The red cards that are played in the game represent temples. The Priest has no ability.

Each player has a hand of eight cards, the cards are all of one of the four colours. Each player has two actions per turn. The actions they can take are as follows.....

Place A Card: Play one of your cards underneath one of the eight kingdom cards. If you have a leader of that colour (or the King) in that kingdom you may then play another card of that colour from your hand into your score pile. If two adjacent kingdoms have at least four cards in them the card may instead be played to join the kingdoms.

If the resulting kingdom has more than one of any type of leader external conflict erupts. For the conflicting colours each player, starting with the attacker, may play any number of cards from their hand. These cards must be the same colour as the leader in conflict. Both players add the number of cards of their colour on their side of the card used to join the kingdoms, and may add an additional one if they are on a card of their colour. The player who scores lowest is removed, along with all cards of the leaders colour on that side of the card used to join the kingdom. All of these cards are scored by the winner along with one of the cards used from hand.

Place A Leader: Take a leader from in front of you and place them onto a card in play.

If there is already a leader of that colour in play in that kingdom (column of cards) internal conflict erupts. Each player, starting with the player who placed the leader, may play any number of red cards from their hand. If the player's leader is on a red card they may add 1 to the number. Whichever player scores lower is removed from the board. The winner may score one of the red cards used in the conflict.

Play A Catastrophe:
Each player may play their catastrophe card to remove any card in play that does not have a leader on it.

After the player has finished their two actions all players refill their hands to eight cards and the game continues.

Strategy:
The strategy of Euphrates& Tigris is fairly basic, most strategies form around creating the biggest kingdom possible and then removing (by force) other kingdoms.

Similarities To Tigris & Euphrates:
As has been said by a number of people before, the game is very similar to its big brother and is actually a fair primer for playing Tigris & Euphrates. Many of the concepts still exist and the game is easier to teach.

Components:
There are sixteen wooden discs that represent the sixteen leaders from the four factions, as well as a horde of small cards. The cards are of moderately good card stock.

Number Of Players:
The game caters for two to four players. Two player games can be very bloodless, while four player games can be brutal affairs.

Play Time:
Generally most game last between thirty minutes and an hour.

Overall:
Before I played Tigris & Euphrates I would have said that this game is fantastic, and in some ways it still is. However if I have the time I would prefer to play the board game. What this game does do very well is lessen the learning curve to playing Tigris & Euphrates.

Thread: Re: Never played T&E -- and I really like E&T.

Felkor — 2007-07-16T13:54:25+00:00

I agree with David. I have played both the card and the board version once now, and I found that the board version has the theme slapped on sloppily, and just got in the way, making it harder to see the shape of what was going on. The card game doesn't try so hard to attach a theme (and in not trying so hard, the theme came through much clearer to me,) and thus I found it easier to understand and more fun to play.

Thread: Re: Never played T&E -- and I really like E&T.

dwrigley — 2007-04-09T20:32:34+00:00

MattShepherd wrote:
That's probably true. The point of this review, though, is that for somebody that's never played the board game, the card game is better than fine; perhaps when I play the board game, I'll prefer the card game as it'll be the board game that has the "strange twists."

I have played both board and card games (and own the card game).
I find I just cannot see the shape, the pattern of the play with the board game - but can see what is going on with the card game - hence I prefer the card game.

However I cannot get my family to play T&E anymore after the first few goes ... sigh :cry:

Thread: Re: Never played T&E -- and I really like E&T.

SteveBl — 2007-04-09T17:01:03+00:00

MattShepherd wrote:
for somebody that's never played the board game, the card game is better than fine
I can agree with that.

Thread: Re: Never played T&E -- and I really like E&T.

MattShepherd — 2007-04-09T12:24:40+00:00

That's probably true. The point of this review, though, is that for somebody that's never played the board game, the card game is better than fine; perhaps when I play the board game, I'll prefer the card game as it'll be the board game that has the "strange twists."

Thread: Re: Never played T&E -- and I really like E&T.

SteveBl — 2007-04-09T03:41:51+00:00

wmshub wrote:
In fact I'd say that the #1 complaint is that it is too much like the board game.

Yep. Speaking for myself, that's it in a nutshell. I love Tigris & Euphrates and while I also enjoyed the card game, I just couldn't justify recommending it when the board game version is readily available, arguably better, and certainly deeper. If the card game offered any new twist on the game then I'd have felt differently but the card game offers nothing significantly new and falls short of its big brother in almost every way.

If you prefer the card game then more power to you. I certainly won't begrudge you that preference. But I also certainly don't share it.

Thread: Re: Never played T&E -- and I really like E&T.

wmshub — 2007-04-09T03:27:55+00:00

MattShepherd wrote:
Reading through most of the negative reviews, it seems that the #1 complaint about Euphrates & Tigris is that it, well, isn't Tigris & Euphrates.In fact I'd say that the #1 complaint is that it is too much like the board game. People were hoping for something like San Juan - reminicent of the original, but a new game. Instead they got basically the same game, tweaked to use different components. I can see how that would be a disappointment (e.g., "You mean I just bought a new game, but it's not a new game, it's a game I already had???"). If the game were different enough to not be T&E, then I think it would probably have gotten a better reception.

Thread: Re: Never played T&E -- and I really like E&T.

booned — 2007-04-09T02:36:02+00:00

Thanks for this review.

I bought the game on sale as well, having never played T&E. The idea appealed to me over its big brother because:
- cheaper
- faster
- smaller (in package at least)
- art style (I don't much like the look of the Mayfair board)

MattShepherd wrote:
Reading through most of the negative reviews, it seems that the #1 complaint about Euphrates & Tigris is that it, well, isn't Tigris & Euphrates.

You raised a very good point -- that many people who knock the game are comparing to the boardgame. They seem to say, "I love the boardgame. This seems to play OK, but why would I play it when I could just play the original?" I found people who hadn't played the boardgame seemed to like it, generally, and it appears you agree.

Since buying the game I have played its big brother, and even still, I think I prefer this. I don't much like long games, and the fact it was less than half the price of the boardgame made me feel better about my purchase.

My only complaint about the game is, I wish the fun in the game was a little easier to get at, if you know what I mean, since as you point out it takes patience to like the game. I would have preferred that the designer try to make a different, lighter version of T&E (e.g. San Juan from Puerto Rico) instead of trying to duplicate the big-box experience in a small format (e.g. Razzia from Ra, which works because Ra is an already light game). Not sure how possible that would be, but I still like Contest of Kings for what it is.

Thread: Re: Never played T&E -- and I really like E&T.

Spire — 2007-04-09T00:54:16+00:00

Nice review.

One tiny note: You might want to avoid using the order of the initials in E&T and T&E to distinguish the card game from the board game. The board game is also informally known as E&T, since the name of the original German edition is Euphrat und Tigris.

Thread: Never played T&E -- and I really like E&T.

MattShepherd — 2007-04-08T22:30:56+00:00

Reading through most of the negative reviews, it seems that the #1 complaint about Euphrates & Tigris is that it, well, isn't Tigris & Euphrates.

And fair enough. If you loved the original, I can see how you'd be let down if "little brother" doesn't match up.

But never having played T&E, and having picked E&T up on a crazy sale, I sat down with two friends and gave it three solid plays today.

The first time through was the "getting to know you" phase. I imagine that the game was designed for people approaching it with some solid ground in the original, because the concepts come fast and furious -- a compact eight-page manual that left our heads spinning, with tight rules descriptions and no space or verbiage spared for extra hand-holding. We worked through the rules in about half an hour, playing all of the examples on the table, and it was still about 20 minutes into our first one-hour game before the lights started coming on.

Once the game began to click, though, everyone enjoyed it. Well, two of us really enjoyed it -- it didn't exactly hit home for the third person until partway through the second game.

The GOOD:

Light and fun. The rules are a headache, and it takes a bit of brain-stretching to snag all of the concepts the first time through, and even the second. But once you've got the basics down, the game is surprisingly fast and fun. It's strategically heavier than a "standard" board game, but not as brain-burning as a serious strategy game -- I'd compare it in weight to Through the Desert or Metro, two of our other favourites, and also about on par with Settlers but with a much less social element.

Fast. By the third game we were breezing through our turns, playing with strategy but without agony. Once you've got the rules down, the game clicks along briskly, and analysis paralysis doesn't seem to set in too badly even once the depth starts making itself apparent.

Depth. There's a lot going on here under the surface that we probably still haven't scratched yet. In the first game, ships seemed to be the strategy of choice, in the latter two green leaders and treasure won the day. We shifted from building strengths and attacking each other to building kingdoms to force enemies to battle -- before building a second bridge for our own assault. Fascinating stuff.

Compact. It's a great little box that you can toss in your backpack, and even 2/3 of that is air. This game could compress into a large pencil case if you had a mind to do it.

The BAD:

Compact. I know I just said "good," but those teeny little cards are... annoying. Fiddly and hard to keep a handle on, especially when you're picking them up and putting them down and they're sliding back and forth across the board.

Big footprint. For a game with business-card sized playing cards, this sucker takes ROOM. We were amazed to find it sprawling across the kitchen table -- until now, Colossal Arena won the "small scale/large footprint" award, but E&T now takes the cake.

A headache to learn: We were about to give up halfway through the rules. Seriously. It was a rewarding experience once we slogged through and put the time in, but for the first fifteen minutes of rules-reading, we felt lost and a little frightened. And these are veteran players, who have negotiated the rules for FFG games with impunity.

Fiddly within fiddly: As the cards are tiny and finicky, so is some of the play structure. I don't know how much of this is just carryover from the board game, but every main function of the game seems to have some sort of subfunction that also has to be taken into account. Again, this compounded the "headache to learn" element -- we were looking at the rules even into the third game on occasion, trying to work out small subsets of the rules that sneak up to bite you.

On the whole: We all really enjoyed this one. It took some blood, sweat and tears to get it under your belt, but -- never having played T&E -- we enjoyed this immensely. Maybe we're thrilling to a buggy ride because we haven't discovered the car yet, but for a quick couple of games on a lazy Sunday afternoon, this fits the bill nicely. 7/10.

Thread: Re: English rules p. 8 re. farmers (blue) and ships

booned — 2007-04-08T22:30:35+00:00

MattShepherd wrote:
or can a black leader and a blue leader (f'rinstance) both "mine" a black ship?

That's my understanding. A black ship can potentially generate one black and one blue; a player who has the corresponding farmer in that kingdom can add a blue card from his hand to his VP stack.

Thread: English rules p. 8 re. farmers (blue) and ships

MattShepherd — 2007-04-08T22:16:24+00:00

I think we understand everything about the game. I read through some of the other questions in the Rules forum and we seem to have avoided a lot of the obvious stuff.

Except what happens with ships and blue leaders. If you have a ship with a black bottom and the black leader, you can collect black; ditto red, ditto green. But does the blue leader collect blue from ALL ships or NO ships? The text on page 8 runs through the black example, then says "As soon as a farmer arrives in this kingdom, the player of the dynasty represented by the farmer may place one blue card from his hand on his victory point stack." Which is good, but is that some one-off effect, something else based on the specific example in the rules, or can a black leader and a blue leader (f'rinstance) both "mine" a black ship?

Thread: Re: OK, so now my head hurts.

Orski — 2007-03-27T09:24:22+00:00

I'd think it works as a primer in that sense if you like the card game you'll probably like the boardgame as well. This might not work other way around. I've only played the card game once but in the boardgame there are some extra strategies available which make it better imho. Card game seems to have all the elements there to be mini-boardgame but it seems too limited somehow. Yes, I have been thinking I need to play it again but this was my initial feeling.

Don't worry if rules for the card game seem complex. I'd say boardgame isn't really any more complex. It is about the same amount of rules and the hardest ones (internal / external combat resolving) are very much the same. Only after the first game I really seemed to "get" how you should play in E&T (boardgame) so I'd say it is pretty complex game to learn. First game therefore might not give the best picture of the game. If you don't like the card game I would still suggest trying boardgame when you get the chance because at least I find the boardgame much better than card game.

Thread: OK, so now my head hurts.

MK-Ultra71 — 2007-03-24T21:24:37+00:00

So maybe solo'ing a 4 player game while listening to Crimson Tide play in the background wasn't the best of ideas as a way to learn the rules.

I was blown away by the different strategies available and different paths to victory and while I have always been interested in E&T it seemded to complex for the group I play with.

My main question is does E&T the card game compare to E&T the boardgame the same way San Juan comapres to Peurto Rico? Is E&T the card game a good primer for the E&T the boardgame or are they two different games?

If I like the card game will I love the boardgame or is it not always cut and dry?

Mike

Image

samoan_jo — 2007-03-24T20:38:50+00:00

'Euphrat & Tigris - Wettstreit der Könige' - Hans im Glück - German box back

Image

Nodens77 — 2007-03-18T17:55:37+00:00

Game Components out of the box

Thread: Fun game

johnclark — 2007-02-19T21:13:50+00:00

Me, Jeanette, Dan and Ben played E&T card game. I had played once before and others never. We decided that the factions needed names, so here they are:

Me (lions): Justice League of America
Dan (bulls): Stormtroopers
Ben (bows): Elves of Lothlorien
Jeanette (vases): The Baptist World Alliance

As you can tell, we got right into the theme of E&T.

Anyway, I began with Batman (black lion) for some quick points. The others placed their leaders too. I initiated the first internal conflict ('revolution' is a better descriptor) when The Flash (red lion) entered Haldir's (red bow) territory and beat him away. From then on, the Elves played a very aggressive game, starting several wars (external conflicts) and losing as many as winning. The Green Lantern grabbed some sneaky green points, while the Russian Baptists (red vase) surprised everyone with a clever unexpected revolution, knocking out Darth Maul (red bull).

I had a big advantage in this game, because I sat to the right of the Elves, I was always the defender, so won several wars by tie-ing on the cards. Superman (blue lion) beat off Legolas (blue bow) three times (as he should).

As the kingdom got bigger and bigger, by the end there were only four leaders on the 'board'.

Final scores:

4 Justice League of America
3 Stormtroopers
3 The Baptist World Alliance
2 Elves of Lothlorien

Image

dipdragon — 2007-01-21T09:18:18+00:00

ETC Treasure Card

Image

dipdragon — 2007-01-21T09:17:22+00:00

ETC Temple Card

Image

dipdragon — 2007-01-21T09:16:28+00:00

ETC Red Ship

Image

dipdragon — 2007-01-21T09:14:50+00:00

ETC RG Opening The Box

Image

dipdragon — 2007-01-21T09:14:10+00:00

ETC Market Card

Image

dipdragon — 2007-01-21T09:13:03+00:00

ETC Leaders

Image

dipdragon — 2007-01-21T09:12:25+00:00

ETC King Card

Image

dipdragon — 2007-01-21T09:11:30+00:00

ETC Grey Ship

Thread: Re: English rules?

agashamirv — 2006-11-29T12:01:06+00:00

Never mind. They're in the files section. For some reason the files banner was showing up, but no files were listed under it, so I didn't think their were any until I actually clicked on browse.

Go figure.

Thread: Re: English rules?

agashamirv — 2006-11-29T11:55:50+00:00

Does anyone currently have these rules????

Thread: Re: Summarization of rules you most likely play wrong

Orski — 2006-11-08T06:57:58+00:00

AllenDoum wrote:
This would be quite different than the board game, which states that you can score a treasure after any action is complete. Your interpretation would not allow a player to place a green leader into a kingdom with two treasures to claim one. IMO this should be allowed, as it takes place "after two kingdoms are connected", even though it happens on a later action.

Actually I never considered situation where you only later place a green leader into a kingdom after merger. In that case it feels wrong not to let a green leader to trade for treasure card. Rules doesn't cover this one too specifically. IMO there is some point of being strict with this rule since in card game scores are lower and every one point is more valuable. Hmm. :shake: How can this be so hard? :)

Thread: Re: Summarization of rules you most likely play wrong

AllenDoum — 2006-11-07T20:44:58+00:00

Orski wrote:
- Only in two-player game you take out 30 civilization cards before play. (Mistranslation on rules translation here on bgg)
Good to remember, as I probably would have forgotten. Haven't played any two player games.

- Scorepile is face up. You may not look through even your own scorepile! (basic rules)
- Leader may be placed on a civilization tile connecting two columns
- Leader may NOT be placed on a ship
- Leader may NOT be moved out-of-play
This is a change from the board game. Hadn't noticed it. But removing a leader doesn't happen very often in the board game.

- Ships are not of any color and so doesn't count during conflicts. They also cannot be destroyed as a result of an conflict
- You can play a card to scorepile when playing a card that allows you to turn 4 cards in a column to a ship
- Converting 4 cards to a ship causes leaders to return back to their owners
Something that can't happen in the board game when building monuments. May have missed this one myself.

- Catastrophe card may remove civilization card connecting two kingdoms
- Catastrophe card may NOT remove card where leader stands on, a ship or treasure card*
- A column is considered kingdom even without a leader in it.
- You may NOT merge two kingdoms if two adjacent columns doesn't have three cards under treasure card* (= 4 total) (even if kingdoms have more than 4 cards both via connection to other colunms)
- Merging two kingdoms is possible only between two treasure cards*
- Maximum number of cards in column is 9, including treasure card*
- You can score in conflicts by playing a card from your hand even if no cards are played
- Green leader's ability works only when two kingdoms have merged. If s/he doesn't have a red card to exchange with treasure card, then s/he shall wait for next merger involving that kingdom. (This seems only reasonable interpretation of rules.)
This would be quite different than the board game, which states that you can score a treasure after any action is complete. Your interpretation would not allow a player to place a green leader into a kingdom with two treasures to claim one. IMO this should be allowed, as it takes place "after two kingdoms are connected", even though it happens on a later action.

- After two actions you can play cards matching colors on ships to your scorepile if you have matching leader in same kingdom as a ship. Black leader cannot substitute other colors. Then everyone draws cards back to 8.

Finally, I'm not sure on status of this rule:
- If you have two ships in a kingdom with blue leader you only score 1 point

Checking rules translation here, it seems scoring is per leader, not per ship. Maybe someone fluent in German could verify this, please.
On this last point the English rules say "for each leader ... with a ship ... earns 1 victory point." (My emphasis) It also says that "a player may earn several extra victory points". I agree that this is unclear. In keeping with the board game, we have been scoring a point for each leader/ship match in a kingdom.

Thanks for posting.

Thread: Summarization of rules you most likely play wrong

Orski — 2006-11-07T19:34:30+00:00

I collected some of rules that easily are played wrong or were unclear to me at some point. Looking at list makes me feels stupid... Like in rules treasure card* stands for either treasure or red card it was replaced with. This is a summarization of most rules questions here and some of those we had to check in our first game. I hope this is useful to new players. I did this mostly because I hated myself when I was badly prepared and too much of playing time was spent on finding & interpreting rules. :yuk:

- Only in two-player game you take out 30 civilization cards before play. (Mistranslation on rules translation here on bgg)
- Scorepile is face up. You may not look through even your own scorepile! (basic rules)
- Leader may be placed on a civilization tile connecting two columns
- Leader may NOT be placed on a ship
- Leader may NOT be moved out-of-play
- Ships are not of any color and so doesn't count during conflicts. They also cannot be destroyed as a result of an conflict
- You can play a card to scorepile when playing a card that allows you to turn 4 cards in a column to a ship
- Converting 4 cards to a ship causes leaders to return back to their owners
- Catastrophe card may remove civilization card connecting two kingdoms
- Catastrophe card may NOT remove card where leader stands on, a ship or treasure card*
- A column is considered kingdom even without a leader in it.
- You may NOT merge two kingdoms if two adjacent columns doesn't have three cards under treasure card* (= 4 total) (even if kingdoms have more than 4 cards both via connection to other colunms)
- Merging two kingdoms is possible only between two treasure cards*
- Maximum number of cards in column is 9, including treasure card*
- You can score in conflicts by playing a card from your hand even if no cards are played
- Green leader's ability works only when two kingdoms have merged. If s/he doesn't have a red card to exchange with treasure card, then s/he shall wait for next merger involving that kingdom. (This seems only reasonable interpretation of rules.)
- After two actions you can play cards matching colors on ships to your scorepile if you have matching leader in same kingdom as a ship. Black leader cannot substitute other colors. Then everyone draws cards back to 8.

Finally, I'm not sure on status of this rule:
- If you have two ships in a kingdom with blue leader you only score 1 point

Checking rules translation here, it seems scoring is per leader, not per ship. Maybe someone fluent in German could verify this, please.

Thread: Re: Exchange of treasure cards

booned — 2006-11-05T23:10:35+00:00

My understanding is that, if you as the owner of the green leader do not have a red card in your hand, you cannot claim the treasure at that time. Only after a new merger will you have another chance. So if, after a second merger, there are (for example) three treasure cards and you still have your green leader there, you can replace up to two of them with red cards from your hand... if you have them, of course.

Thread: Re: Exchange of treasure cards

Orski — 2006-11-05T22:51:18+00:00

There was something we missed in rules when playing this game first time. What happens in situation where two kingdoms merge and there is green leader and two treasures but no red card in hand of green leaders' player? When he will be able to claim treasure to himself? Right after someones turn when he refills his hand with one red card? Only when it's his turn again? Only after new merger involving that kingdom?

I'd appreciate some information on this subject, thanks!

Thread: Re: Better for 2 than the boardgame?

themore5@earthlink — 2006-10-31T05:57:18+00:00

I've played this game many times, and the majority of these games have been 2-player. I find it plays very well with two. I'm not sure that two is the best number, but it's actually one of my top five games for two.

Is it better for two the boardgame? I haven't played E & T for two, so I couldn't say. The card game plays very quickly (about 30 minutes) when two players already know the rules and get right into it. Just remember to take out 30 cards before beginning.

Thread: Re: Better for 2 than the boardgame?

silvers211games — 2006-07-21T08:50:01+00:00

If you own the boardgame, and enjoy a game now and then, what reason, if any, is there to own das karten spiel?

I would own it if it played better with 2 than the boardgame for some reason. From what I've read, I would agree it plays too similar at 3 or 4 to warrant owning. I have heard very little about 2 player though.

When we first got this game, we tried it a few times with 2 players. After the second time, we said, "This doesn't really work as a two player game."

Maybe this is why? Given how similar it is to the boardgame, I guess it is a safe assumption if I feel the boardgame lacks at 2, than the card game will as well.

Thread: Re: Better for 2 than the boardgame?

cymric — 2006-07-21T08:22:38+00:00

Gamegrunt wrote:
If you own the boardgame, and enjoy a game now and then, what reason, if any, is there to own das karten spiel?
Weight restrictions when going on holiday, for example...? Lunch time game?

Thread: Why own the card game if you own the board game?

Gamegrunt — 2006-07-21T04:04:49+00:00

If you own the boardgame, and enjoy a game now and then, what reason, if any, is there to own das karten spiel?

I think I know the answer to this question...there is none. But those of you who have both versions of Herr Knizia's masterpiece, is there really any reason to own both?

Gg

Thread: Re: Better for 2 than the boardgame?

silverpenny — 2006-07-21T01:12:28+00:00

When we first got this game, we tried it a few times with 2 players. After the second time, we said, "This doesn't really work as a two player game."

I don't remember exactly why...

Thread: Better for 2 than the boardgame?

silvers211games — 2006-07-20T20:14:27+00:00

For 2-players is this better than the boardgame? I find the boardgame to be merely OK with 2, especially when compared to similar weight games like Reef Encounter with 2. Is the card game any better? I've read comments that some think the card game is better with 3 than 4, so I would guess not.

Thread: Comparativa entre el juego de cartas y el juego de tablero

Niyes — 2006-07-20T05:52:46+00:00

En la actualidad el juego Tigris & Eufrates, se nos presenta en dos formatos:
- Como un juego de tablero
- Como un juego de cartas

Ambas versiones, además de compartir el nombre y su diseñador, tienen en común muchos elementos de juego, no solo en componentes, si no también en reglas.

En este artículo haré un estudio comparativo entre ambas versiones del juego, señalando tanto las diferencias como las similitudes.

El primer gran punto de encuentro es su diseñador, Reiner Knizia, que firma ambos juegos.

Formato y componentes
La diferencia de tamaño de las cajas es notable, el juego de mesa presenta un volumen de unos 5550cm3 y la caja del juego de cartas, tan solo ocupa unos 1650cm3, es decir algo menos de la tercera parte.

Dentro de las cajas, lógicamente, se guardan los componentes.

En el juego de cartas nos encontramos con unas 200 de ellas, los 16 discos de madera que representan a los líderes de cada dinastía y el manual de reglas. A parte de esto, no se necesita ningún elemento más para poder jugar.

La versión de tablero del T&E, tiene como componentes, el tablero en sí, las fichas, unas 180, los 16 discos de madera para los líderes (idénticos a los del juego de cartas), unos 150 cubos en diferentes colores, cuatro "pantallas" (una por dinastía), una bolsa de tela para guardar las fichas, un manual y un libreto de introducción.

Como vemos, las diferencias son notables. Un detalle a tener en cuenta es que pese a que el juego de cartas es muchísimo mas portable, cuando se va a jugar necesita mucho espacio, yo diría que incluso más que en la versión de tablero.

La jugabilidad
Las reglas de ambos son muy parecidas y no voy a entrar a explicarlas.

En los dos juegos nos encontramos reinos que crecen y desaparecen, los conflictos internos y externos, etc. etc.

La diferencia más importante es como se puntúa.

El mecanismo que produce el ganar un Punto de Victoria es idéntico en ambos juegos, colocar una ficha/carta del color de un líder que poseas en ese reino.

En el juego de tablero coges un cubo del color correspondiente, pero en el juego de cartas, necesitas descartarte de tu mano de otra carta del mismo color, por lo que necesitas, para puntuar, el menos dos cartas de un mismo color en tu mano al comenzar tu acción, para poder puntuar.

En ambas versiones se tiene en cuenta que el líder de color negro, el Rey, se puede usar como comodín a la hora de puntuar.

Los tesoros también están presentes, tan solo cambia su número, diez en el juego de tablero y tan solo ocho en el de cartas. El procedimiento para obtener estos tesoros es prácticamente idéntico en ambas versiones del juego.

En la versión de cartas los conflictos, tanto internos como externos, pierden algo de gracia. El peor parado es el conflicto interno, ya que tan solo te puede contar como apoyo de un solo templo (ficha o carta roja) y solamente en el caso de que tu líder esté colocado sobre esa carta. Por cierto, esa es otra de las grandes diferencias, en el juego de tablero los líderes se colocan es espacios vacíos, adyacentes a un templo, en el juego de cartas, se juegan sobre las cartas, no siendo necesario que sea sobre un templo.

Otra diferencia notable es respecto a las fichas/cartas azules, las granjas. En el juego de tablero solo se pueden jugar en el río, en el de cartas donde se desee. Este cambio también lleva implícito otro, además de bastante importancia, el tema de los templos, que en el juego de cartas pasan a ser los barcos. En ambas versiones, se construyen poniendo cuatro cartas o fichas juntas del mismo color, y se cambia por un templo o barco de un color permitido. En el juego de tablero nos encontramos con seis templos, mientras que en la versión de cartas tan solo hay tres barcos. Su función en ambos juegos es la misma, otorgar PVs.

En la versión de cartas, en lugar de tener dos fichas de catástrofe, pasamos a tener una sola carta para la misma función, y por mecanismos del juego, siendo esta mucho más descafeinada, quedando su uso relegado a la división de un reino en dos partes mas pequeñas.

El último cambio es la supresión de la facultad de poder cambiar fichas que no nos gusten, en el juego de cartas no se puede hacer, juegas con las cartas que te salen, aunque como se utilizan también para puntuar la mano se recicla muy rápidamente. Por cierto en vez de tener seis fichas en la mano, en la versión de cartas, tenemos ocho cartas.

Conclusión
Reiner Knizia ha hecho un excelente trabajo convirtiendo su obra maestra al formato de juego de cartas. Ambas versiones comparten muchas mecánicas, aunque los pequeños cambios realizados al juego de cartas no le quitan la esencia de lo que debe de ser un Tigris y Eufrates, es muy superior la versión de “toda la vida”, la de tablero.

El único punto donde la versión de cartas aventaja a la versión de tablero, es lo fácil que es identificar los reinos, uno de los detalles que más le cuestan a los jugadores en las primeras partidas a este magnífico juego.

Thread: Re: Allow to change your hand as an action?

Jose — 2006-07-02T23:49:28+00:00

That makes sense. I guess we'd have to try it out! :D

Thread: Re: Passing?

steveoliverc — 2006-07-01T00:28:07+00:00

Sandman1973 wrote:
The rules say that you MAY do two actions. So I read that as you may do none!

Agreed!

Thread: Re: Allow to change your hand as an action?

steveoliverc — 2006-07-01T00:11:28+00:00

I've only played a few times but this seems far too powerful. Maybe if it was both of your actions -- so you need to use an entire turn to exchange cards?

Thread: Re: Merger failure?

dchorey — 2006-05-29T07:08:18+00:00

I got clarification from Jay at Rio Grande Games. My examples above are correct.

If Kingdom D and Kingdom E each have 4 leaders. All colors will fight conflicts. After all conflicts D and E will be merged. There is nothing to prevent the merger of TWO kingdoms once they begin.

The other example with Kingdoms A, B and C is true as stated.

Thread: Re: Merger failure?

DougOrleans — 2006-05-20T18:32:23+00:00

I think it's just referring to the scenario you mention, where a connector card gets removed after a conflict causing there to be no more conflicts.

Thread: Re: For Some, Better than the Original

Steerpike.Instance — 2006-05-20T08:01:28+00:00

It strikes me that this game falls in a difficult niche.

To play it well (and not to keep missing out the key subtleties around leaders, catastrophes, ships) you really need to be familiar with the board game. Or at the very least it really helps with the learning curve.

But many people who love the boardgame don't seem to like the twists added by the card game.

I liken it to the "film of the book" syndrome. Sometimes the film has to miss out background material to make it flow. Leaving cinema goers bemused unless they have read the original - but then dissapointed that "it's not as good as the book".
(eg Lord of the Rings :sauron: and now, it seems, the Da Vinci Code)

That being said, I really like this game. I give it a nine against the board games ten.
What can I say ? I'm a T&E nut.

Thread: Merger failure?

dchorey — 2006-05-19T19:25:39+00:00

The rules imply that an external merger may fail during external conflict resolution. I do not see the condition stated in the rules which would cause a merger to stop. Could it be if one of the kingdoms has less than 3 cards after resolution of a particular color, the merger procss stops?

I can see a scenario where kingdoms A and B merge then later Kingdom C merges into A/B. If the first conflict causes the connector card between A and B to be picked up, then any leader conflicts between leaders in the original A and C would not happen.

I am trying to resolve what would cause a merger between D and E kingdoms to fail if each starts with 4 leaders and the max 8 cards under the treasure. Anyone have an idea?

Thread: Re: For Some, Better than the Original

dwrigley — 2006-05-19T18:13:13+00:00

I too loved this game ... but wife and daughter #1 now refuse to play it as too brain-burning.

Maybe one day :shake: