Game: Manhattan

Image

garygarison — 2008-08-08T19:29:42+00:00

Custom Poohzilla version.

Thread: Re: Godzilla variant question

Sharga — 2008-08-04T17:45:36+00:00

kevruth wrote:
Sharga wrote:
Thanks for the info, I didn't get the Godzilla variant rules with my version so this is very helpful. One more question: where does the monster start at the beginning of the game?

He starts in the center of any city. We randomize it by drawing a card.

Awesome, thanks!

Thread: Re: Godzilla variant question

kevruth — 2008-08-04T11:46:48+00:00

Sharga wrote:
Thanks for the info, I didn't get the Godzilla variant rules with my version so this is very helpful. One more question: where does the monster start at the beginning of the game?

He starts in the center of any city. We randomize it by drawing a card.

Thread: Re: Godzilla variant question

Sharga — 2008-08-04T03:34:26+00:00

Thanks for the info, I didn't get the Godzilla variant rules with my version so this is very helpful. One more question: where does the monster start at the beginning of the game?

Thread: Re: Obsessed Board Gamers Episode 24: Video Introduction and Review of Manhattan

PimpMC — 2008-07-17T19:42:04+00:00

Yeah, you are right. I didn't do a very good job of explaining that rule. I just went back and gave that part another watch.

Thanks,
Colin

Thread: Re: Obsessed Board Gamers Episode 24: Video Introduction and Review of Manhattan

skrebs — 2008-07-17T19:37:42+00:00

Thanks for another great review and glad to see you back.

It's funny that I really like the game and our negatives pretty much match (in addition to the "theme" - "You think that's your skyscraper? Well watch this. I just built three more stories on it and now it's mine, dammit!).

This game generated more animosity than any other we've ever played in our group. I was in the lead after the first scoring, so there was a very loose agreement to take me down. When another player decided to benefit himself at the expense of another, and not me, all hell broke loose and a fragile peace was only restored about an hour later. However, I'd still play the game anytime, just not with one particular friend.

And I agree, the start marker is lame. I use a Chris Webber bobblehead doll.

Thread: Re: Obsessed Board Gamers Episode 24: Video Introduction and Review of Manhattan

dbarree — 2008-07-17T17:56:12+00:00

Colin,

I enjoy you video reviews but this one is flawed. I don't know if you misunderstood the rule or just didn't explain it properly but when you place a piece on top of someone else's tower your total number of stories in that tower must equal the total number of stories of the previous owner's color. That very often means there will be more than one piece of the previous owner's color that gets added together and quite often more than one of your own pieces further down the stack. It look like you're only considering the top piece of the tower in your example.

Thread: Obsessed Board Gamers Episode 24: Video Introduction and Review of Manhattan

PimpMC — 2008-07-17T06:06:05+00:00

Finally! I'm back from being sick and able to post a new podcast. Here is episode 24 of Obsessed Board Gamers in which we provide a video introduction and review of the game Manhattan.

Try the new streaming version... http://obsessedboardgamers.blip.tv/#1090899

or

Download it to your computer...
http://m.podshow.com/media/15871/episodes/118894/obsessedboa...

Let us know what you think. Is this a game for you?

Colin
Obsessed With Gaming

Image

dumarest123 — 2008-07-02T03:13:10+00:00

sample game as played on my re-designed linear board of the island of manhattan. unintendedly seems to make scoring districts easier

Thread: Re: A BROG Threepeat: MANHATTAN, MODERN ART, SETTLERS

NJames — 2008-04-18T14:14:20+00:00

sundaysilence wrote:
BROG wrote:
Again, a review obviously dated. but only in terms of age . . .

Is there any other parameter?

Often when people say something is date they mean that it is not relevent. So I think dated could be in age or in relevance.

Thread: Re: First Play

TVis — 2008-02-29T21:02:35+00:00

I am a rare person who speaks against Settlers as a first-ever exposure. I have two particular reasons to think it better as a second or third step:

1) it can run a bit long (wearying), considering someone who does not know what to expect.

2) it is too easy for one person to have unfavorable dice rolls and get left behind ... and become discouraged in a greater sense.

In Manhattan, even the loser can get excited about the back-and-forth exchange of power.

Thread: Re: First Play

Jpwoo — 2008-02-29T20:14:34+00:00

I agree. we talked about this a little bit after the game. Mike said that he could see playing the game with his parents.

I think as an intro to people who have the potential to becomes 'gamers' I would still prefer Catan as a gateway. somehow that game just sparks peoples minds. For people who are never going to become gamers, family or whatever I think that games like this, or colloretto are both great choices.

Thread: Re: First Play

TVis — 2008-02-29T10:47:23+00:00

Jpwoo wrote:
This is strictly family fare. It is strikingly different from the classic childhood titles sold at mass merchandisers. So when combined with the accessibility, I've found that it makes both a comfortable and eye-opening introductory choice for non-illuminated adults (i.e, Gateway), also.

Thread: First Play

Jpwoo — 2008-02-29T00:41:10+00:00

Madmike and his girlfriend Anne invited me over for grilled cheese, tomato soup and a new game Manhattan.

The soup was Amy's organic tomato, and it was very good. the Grilled cheese was also excellent. Everyone loves comfort food.

Manhattan won the 1994 SdJ, so I was surprised that I hadn't heard of it. The rules were pretty straight forward and quite easy to learn and play.

You play a card, this allows you to to place a piece of a skyscraper on the board. The card indicates which of 9 areas in a city you may build in, You pick which city and what size building to put there. before each scoring round you have to pick which building pieces you are going to use from a limited stock. You may build on top of your opponent (or yourself) and only the top floor matters for claiming a tower. you score 1 point for every building you own, 2 points for a majority in one of the six cities, 3 points for having the tallest building.

The first game we started off a little tentatively. A big tower was made. some majorities were established. As the rounds went on we saw that going first was a pretty big disadvantage. Anne was in the lead for a while, with me in second and mike in third. We picked on mike some and ran our points up leaving him in the dirt. At the end I had a big round and won the game.

The second game was much the same. Though Anne tried the strategy of just getting as many majorities as she could. This worked until her lead was apparent and Mike and I took her points away. Eventually I fell way behind and Anne and Mike were duking it out. In the last round I was down something like 12 points. Anne and mike concentrated on blowing each other up, and in my final play I took big points from Anne. Anne ended up winning by one point over mike, who was one point over me. So it ended up close.

This game is well balanced, it has some clever mechanics, but the actual game play itself seems pretty tactical and doesn't leave any room for anything clever to happen. You play on top of an opponent if you can, establish a majority if you can, build onto the big tower if you can. If not you spread yourself out and establish a new majority. The choices were never too tough. You can calculate the point swings pretty easily in your head, it largely breaks down to which player do you wish to damage.

I can see where this game would win the SdJ, it is accessible, easy and well balanced. But I can also see why I didn't hear anything about this game here on the geek. It isn't meaty enough and the game play isn't compelling enough to be a good gamers game. This is strictly family fare.

I do really like the vertical component to the game. The board looks really cool, and stacking things actually matters to the game play in establishing majorities. Though more than a few times the towers were knocked over and putting them back together was a bit of a pain. The temptation to smash them is high.

I think this game is a solid 6. I wouldn't buy it, but I would play it.

Thread: Maximum Saturation...

Oxotnik — 2008-02-23T00:28:45+00:00

Four of us played Manhattan last night. Here's how it went...

The Skyscraper Moguls

The contestants were Troy, Dave, Knepper (also a Dave, but we usually call him Knepper to distinguish them), and me, of course. Three of us had played Manhattan previously, a couple of times, but Dave was a newbie to the game, though an experienced gamer. We taught him the rules, as well as giving him some thoughts on some basic strategies.

Synopsis of the Game

For the first round, I was last in turn order. Thus, I knew that I'd then have to be first in the final round. Being first in turn order is a horrid position. So, I decided upon a basic strategy of trying to saturate the board with buildings, hoping to be very strong, going into the final round, so that I could hopefully survive being first in turn order in the final round.

Initially, we all dropped into open cities. The first hostile move was me, capping Knepper’s building in Manhattan. Knepper immediately retaliated, taking one of my buildings in Sao Paulo. The sky scraper building soon began in earnest in Sidney, the two Daves in stiff competition. I believe that it was in the first round that I managed to end with the tallest skyscraper (built as the final building placed during Round 1). Knepper captured the tallest skycraper honor for the remaining three rounds. At the end of the first round, I had a slight lead, only by a building, maybe two, with about 10 pts total.

In the second round, I moved to strengthen a hold on Manhattan and Hongkong. Frankfurt lay mostly ignored with only one building in it, Troy went after Sao Paulo and Kairo, and Dave and Dave slugged it out for Sidney and Kairo. I abandoned tall skyscrapers during this round, though I did add onto my tallest building, making it impossible for anyone else to cap it. But, otherwise, I focused on saturating Manhattan and Hongkong with buildings. At the conclusion of the second round, my lead increased a bit. I dominated Manhattan and Hongkong and controlled ~8 buildings. My lead over the others increased by about 4 pts. Troy was in second, followed by Knepper, and Dave.

In round three, I continued to saturate Manhattan and Hongkong. The other three were on to my strategy by now and openly discussed targeting me, but actually left me pretty much alone, as they slugged it out with each other. At the end of the round, I believe that Knepper had Sidney. Dave had Frankfurt. But Kairo and Sao Paulo changed hands so frequently, I can’t remember who held them at the end of rounds 3 and 4. I ended the round with 11 buildings; Troy had 10 or eleven; the two Dave’s held around 6. My lead increased by a few more points, and I had a total of 22 points, if I remember correctly.

In round three, the consensus was that I was going to win. I, of course, denied this vehemently, trying to avoid becoming a target, but I was pretty sure that I could hold onto the lead. However, I was worried, since I was first in turn order for this round. Knepper, in true Knepper form, came after me in Manhattan and Hongkong. Luckily, I was able to counter him, pretty much move for move. Troy had conceded the win to me, and was playing for second place. Dave was annoyed at being last or close to last. So, Troy and Dave slugged it out in Kairo. I was smiling on the inside. I knew that the Troy/Dave battle would definitely seal the win for me. Knepper was visibly annoyed at Troy and Dave, but what could do? So, at the end of the round, I continued to hold Manhattan and Hongkong and had 12 buildings. I believe that Troy dominated two cities, as well, and Dave and Dave each dominated one city. Troy had about 10 buildings. Knepper had around 8 buildings. Dave had about 6.

Final score: I had 51, Troy had low 40-something (just a little ahead of Knepper), and Dave in last.

Some Strategic thoughts

Owning the biggest skyscraper is nice, but you have to be careful. Building up comes at the cost of building out. 3 pts is a nice bonus, but it often isn’t worth the struggle, especially if you can apply those building resources to dominating cities and getting your building count up.

If you can lay low, slowly getting buildings on the board, while others slug it out, you can often emerge in a stronger position, often winning. But, if you’re going to pick on someone, try to pick on the dude, or dudette, who plays before you in turn order. It’s harder for him or her to retaliate. :-)

If you can massively dominate a city, it’s usually a deterrent to others trying to move in. Moving in, means that they’re probably forfeiting control of that city and are a mark for losing their building(s) to the dominating power in that city.

Paying attention to turn order is a really, really good idea. Going last, rocks! It’s often easiest to grab the tallest skyscraper on this last turn. Being first in turn order, however, really bites. So, it’s important to have as many buildings as possible because you can expect to get picked on during the final building placement in that round.

If someone else reads your strategy book, be prepared to make up a new one. :-)

Note: Edited to fix text size

Thread: Re: A question about the original box

RoamDog — 2008-02-08T14:11:59+00:00

Yes, I have one.

dcorban wrote:
So far, every image I have seen of the original Hans im Gluck edition has the SDJ logo on it. Did this game win the award before being printed? I am curious if there is an edition without the SDJ logo.

*edit* I found this image on Funagain. Maybe it is from a prototype or something. No logo.

*edit* It should be noted that Funagain has changed the image I linked to. It used to be an image of the original Hans-im-Gluck edition without the SdJ logo. Now it appears they have prepared for the upcoming Rio Grande reprint by placing an image of the later edition with an RGG logo.

Thread: Re: A BROG Threepeat: MANHATTAN, MODERN ART, SETTLERS

sundaysilence — 2008-01-27T17:48:37+00:00

BROG wrote:
Again, a review obviously dated. but only in terms of age . . .

Is there any other parameter?

Thread: Re: Godzilla variant question

robrizob — 2008-01-22T15:17:06+00:00

Thanks a ton. This was very helpful to me and I'm sure it will be to others as well. A geekgold for you, sir!

Thread: Re: Godzilla variant question

kevruth — 2008-01-21T01:48:47+00:00

Hopefully, I can explain things a bit better using this picture:

]]>

Imagine pushing the four outside cities so they line up with the two inside cities so that you now form a two by three city grid. Now imagine the city maps each being attached along their edges. This would now form a board with squares of six by nine. This is how Godzilla moves from one city to another.

Let's imagine you have these two cards in your hand and you are sitting at the bottom of the board pictured above:

]]>

In this example, Godzilla is sitting in the middle city at the bottom in the middle space in the left column. If you played the card on the left, Godzilla would move one space to the left entering the bottom left city in the middle square of it's right column.

Let's use the same starting postion as in the last example but use the right card instead. Godzilla would move diagonally upper left moving into the bottem left hand city on to it's top right square.

Now lets start Godzilla in the bottom left city in it's upper left square. If you played the left hand card, Godzilla would leave the left edge of the board and re-enter on the right side of the board in the lower right hand city in it's upper right square. In other words, the board wraps around like it was globe.

Using this same starting position as in the last example but now using the the right hand card. Godzilla leaves the city, wraps around the board and enters the top right city in it's lower right hand square.

Finally, if the card played is one with a center square, Godzilla doesn't move at all.

What you have to think of each time is the eight squares surrounding Godzilla. He will move into one of those squares based upon the card played and the direction of the card of the person who's turn it is.

I hope this explains things. I know it was tough for me, too, although I couldn't understand the two by three city grid until someone told me to push the four outer cities towards the middle of the board. It then became pretty easy after that when always considered the eight squares surrounding Godzilla just as it looks on the card played.

My friends and I prefer the Godzilla variant over the regular game. You can make some pretty mean plays if you look to see where Godzilla will move before you play a card. You could top someone else's building while Godzilla destroys another putting the hurt on two opponents at once. This really adds to your strategy.

Thread: Godzilla variant question

robrizob — 2008-01-20T22:21:26+00:00

I wanted to try the godzilla variant, but we were confused about how godzilla would move from his current city to a new one. Would anyone care to explain the rules for this variant in a bit more detail?

Thread: Re: A BROG Threepeat: MANHATTAN, MODERN ART, SETTLERS

Stradk — 2008-01-17T18:47:21+00:00

Wow this was fun to read... The european invasion indeed! I was not around at the time of this but I can understand just how revolutionizing the german games must have been back then and it would take some degree of courage to invest heavily in them.. Today wargames are considered the "riskier" investment I would bet.

All in all I would say this is a good age for gaming of all genres though.

Thread: A BROG Threepeat: MANHATTAN, MODERN ART, SETTLERS

BROG — 2008-01-17T11:38:40+00:00

Again, a review obviously dated. but only in terms of age . . . interesting to read the opening comments vis a vis today's market.

THE GERMAN INVASION

THE SETTLERS OF CATAN by KLAUS TEUBER
MANHATTAN by ANDREAS SEYFARTH
MODERN ART by REINER KNIZIA

from MAYFAIR GAMES

Reviewed by RICHARD H. BERG

About five years ago I made my first trip to Europe to attend a Euro-game Con, a guest of the don of the Dutch Gaming world, Michael Bruinsma. Aside from the interesting week ogling the women from outdoor cafes, listening to Winston Hamilton insult everyone not American, and trying to figure out where Kevin Zucker had wandered off to now, the most interesting aspect of the convention was how many “German” board games were not only available for sale but were being avidly played by the attendees. The games were generic and abstract, although many, such as Reiner Knizia’s Quo Vadis, had a tenuous connection to some historical or real life event.

Upon returning to the states, I tried to interest several companies in licensing these potentially viable games for play in the US. No such luck … and their loss. However, the Casey Jones of Mayfair Games, Puffin’ Darwin Bromley, with his background as a licensing attorney, knew a good item when he saw one, and Mayfair is now putting out a host of German (and other Euro-) games over the next few years. That this was a sagacious move was instantly obvious to anyone attending the Columbus Con and wandering through the open gaming rooms. For every wargame out and about, there were a half dozen - maybe more - games of The Settlers underway. Some of the more flush attendees even went so far as to cough up $90+ for an item entitled El Grande, which looked like an overblown version of Risk set in Medieval Spain. Darwin’s got that one, too, but not right now.

What he does have right now are three games of varying interest for this audience, and I qualify that because, while each of the three is a nice little item in its own right, many of you (but not a great many) may find at least two of the three a bit “thin” in terms of what you want from a game.

Take Manhattan (but not the Bronx and Staten Island, too …). This game, featuring lots of plastic buildings of various height, a deck of cards which says where you can build, and a mounted board with six actual Manhattan neighborhoods, each comprising a tic-tac-to-ish grid of nine possible building sites. This is a handsome game, for sure, far more attractive to the eye and touch than the usual wargame. However, like most wargames, it is not without its innate stupidities. Here the dumbing is from the graphics department and one Ramon Mascareñas who, based on his game board, has about as much knowledge of Manhattan Island as I have of Bulgarian literature.

There are six different Manhattan “neighborhoods” you can build in, from SoHo to the Upper East Side. Each such block of building sites is superimposed over a map. One would think that the graphics folks involved here would use maps of the titled neighborhoods. That sort of design acumen, however, seems to have eluded those involved, for, instead of a map of SoHo for that box, we get a map of eastern Queens and Long Island. It gets worse. Midtown gets the Bushwick section of Brooklyn, a place no developer would venture into without a police escort, and Downtown Manhattan and the upper West Side are represented by Bloomfield and the Oranges; that’s New Jersey. Not one of the neighborhoods has a background map of Manhattan. Granted, this has little to do with the game, but it does make one wonder exactly where all those German tourists that land in Miami are really heading. Maybe Ramon is running the rent-a-car service there.

Alas, the game isn’t that much more interesting, probably the weakest of the three. The rules are short and breezy; 7 big-print pages. Players will understand the mechanics after about 2 rounds; the game takes, maybe, 45 minutes to play. the object is to get the most points by building the tallest or the most buildings, and variants thereof. While the game does require a bit of foresight and planning - do you start big, or wait to see what the others will do - it has only that one thing going for it. And, despite the randomness of the card draw, the game is really for those people who like to have their little plans, and very little interference thereunto, thank you. I would say that those wargamers who love stacking units might get a kick out of the piles created here. Then again, when was the last time anyone got a kick out of piles.

Knizia’s Modern Art is a card game that uses auctioning as its premise. Auctioning seems to be rather popular with the Euro-crowd, as there are several games in that ilk being played hither and yon. I, myself, have little empathy for this sort of thing. Players sit around with a handful of rather dreadful art - which, admittedly, is not the point - trying to corner the market on a certain artist each hand. They do this by buying more of his paintings than the other players, while bidding up their worth. There are various ways to sell/buy the cards, and there is some good strategy decisions on how to apply this. However, as with Manhattan, this is a one-trick pony. All you do is auction and bid. That’s it. And we found, in our two plays - these games don’t take long to play, which is a major plus in the Euro market - that the player who jumped out to the lead had a great advantage, mostly because of all the cash he accumulated when he sold his paintings at the end of each turn. Maybe it was us, but this was not a game we would come back to.

The direct opposite is true for the extremely popular Settlers of Catan, perhaps the single most played game at both Origins and Avaloncon! Our Crack Playtest Crew has now spent three separate weekends playing this at least twice. Now this is something I rarely do; but since I’ve won three times (two more than my usual yearly allotment of victories), the game must have something going for it.

Settlers is a game which requires a plan, but the plan is usually a prisoner of the randomness of dierolls. The premise of the game is that the players are settling a newly discovered country, and the one who does best in building his little fiefdom is the winner. The “map” is composed of huge, puzzle-cut hexagons, which represent several types of “terrain”, each one providing material (wheat, sheep, wood, etc.) from which you build towns, cities, roads, etc., all of which garner you victory points. The catch is that each of the hexes is randomly assigned a DR #, those numbers being controlled statistically. You place your villages and roads along the edges and corners of the individual hexes, and, if that DR# for that hex is rolled, every player with a settlement tangential thereunto gets a product card. Amass certain numbers and types of product cards and you trade them in for more settlements, more roads, and a variety of special cards which give you often big advantages, such as armies (not used militarily; this is a German game and such aggressive thoughts are officially verboten these days), product monopolies, etc. As a kicker, any DR of ‘7’ produces a robber, which is placed by the rolling player to block production in a particular hex.

It all plays rather swiftly, with players trying to craftily figure out which scheme will work best for them, making sure they don’t amass too many cards (the robber DR forces you to get rid of half your cards if you have too many), while trying to extend the spidery reach of their domain to the needed terrain types. There is no conflict or interaction between players, although trading is allowed (it is fairly common)’ placing the Robber in a hex populated by an opponent’s settlements is about as aggressive as one gets here.

However, it is lots of fun, and there is just the right mix of Planning and Fate so that play does not become stereotyped. I do note, with some interest, that Settlers has received somewhat less than glowing notice from our British brethren for just the same reasons that we liked the game: not enough control, too much randomness. Long explanations and much commentary has been batted around, back and forth, in the estimable “Sumo’s Karaoke” magazine about this situation. The BROG Game Gods (my wife’s most recent, printable appellation for the crew of usual suspects that gathers weekly) were universal in their failure to understand why the lack of control was an issue, as it was the one feature that we felt made the game most enjoyable. Must be a societal thing.

We don’t usually dwell too long on non-historical games. However, the obvious popularity that these games are garnering, and the fun we had in playing them, was enough for us to say that you ought to give one of these a shot, preferably Settlers. Remember, now, these are multi-player games, with no value solitaire. But if you do have a group that’s looking for something new, some fun that can be resolved in about an hour or so - even while you let Elwood, over there, move all those Hube’s Pocket counters - we recommend this series of Mayfair Euros quite highly.

Image

kevruth — 2008-01-06T23:48:50+00:00

Oh, no! There goes Tokyo! Go go Godzilla.

Thread: Re: Session Report from a 10 Year Old Girl

ChukLife — 2007-12-28T14:53:42+00:00

Thank you very much for your review. I hope to see more reviews from you in the future.

Thread: Re: Session Report from a 10 Year Old Girl

Xaykev — 2007-12-25T18:34:15+00:00

Ha ha, I liked your review

Thread: Session Report from a 10 Year Old Girl

Alex Rose — 2007-12-25T00:14:36+00:00

This is my first session report.
My daddy brought this game out to play with me, my mommy, and my 7-year old brother, Hayden.

I didn't really know how to play or what to do, but my daddy explained it a little bit and we got started.

My brother went first because he always has to go first. We both took a lot of our bigger buildings for the first round. I concentrated a lot into Sao Paulo and I didn't think anyone could be me there. I was also working on the tallest building, which was in Frankfurt.

At the end of the first round, my mommy was WAY ahead and my daddy said we all needed to take her out.

In the second round, my mean brother started taking buildings in Sao Paulo, so I had to move around to some other cities. My mommy and daddy were fighting it out in Kairo and Sydney, while my brother had Manhattan. So I was mostly in Sao Paulo, Hong Kong, and Frankfurt with that really tall building. I was still in second place after the second round.

The third and fourth rounds went pretty much the same way, but by the end of the fourth round, my brother was so mad at all of us for taking his buildings that he left and decided to stop playing the game, and to stop talking to us.

The end of the game was a little surprising. My brother was in last place, my daddy in third, my mommy in second, and I won first place.

I really liked the game after that.

Image

m_hamburg — 2007-12-21T23:23:37+00:00

Looking down on the plastic buildings.

Image

m_hamburg — 2007-12-21T22:54:48+00:00

Plastic bits close up

Thread: Re: Tiebreaker

davedanger — 2007-12-18T16:30:28+00:00

...no wait!... let me guess..the player with the MOST bunnies?!

Thread: Re: Tiebreaker

davedanger — 2007-12-17T17:09:45+00:00

and the tie breaker for that is?

Thread: Re: Tiebreaker

skrebs — 2007-12-11T06:03:42+00:00

The tallest player.

Thread: Re: Tiebreaker

davedanger — 2007-12-10T17:20:56+00:00

and the tiebreaker for that is?

Image

m_hamburg — 2007-12-10T06:01:33+00:00

The tower pieces

Image

m_hamburg — 2007-12-10T05:28:52+00:00

The towers of Manhattan soaring into the night sky.

Image

kathn — 2007-12-08T21:45:15+00:00

Manhattan...Godzilla strikes. Don't you feel sorry for all those poor people who can't go to work.

Image

kathn — 2007-12-08T18:21:11+00:00

My new Manhattan with the free Godzilla figure I got when I preorder this from Thought Hammer.

Thread: Re: Tiebreaker

skrebs — 2007-12-07T22:16:26+00:00

Player who is seated closest to Manhattan at that moment.

Thread: Tiebreaker

davedanger — 2007-12-07T17:53:36+00:00

is?
Of course, my 2nd teaching game results in one.

Thread: Re: Good for 2 players?

Liumas — 2007-12-04T16:30:22+00:00

We find this horrible with 2. And we are typically very open-minded regarding playing games 2 player that were not intended for 2 (we claim that the box is wrong). The game plays fantastically with 3 and 4. Occasionally fun to balance out the 3 player turn sequence, but not essential. This is one of our favorite games.

Thread: Re: So when does this thing come out?

Hedric3248 — 2007-11-10T03:18:22+00:00

Just been released in the UK www.esdevium.com

Image

keith hunt — 2007-10-21T18:41:39+00:00

High rise buildings in Hongkong getting bigger and bigger

Thread: So when does this thing come out?

pwt1997 — 2007-10-12T01:18:44+00:00

I'm eagerly anticipating the release of the new Manhattan - any idea when we can expect this to his the FLGS or the online shops?

PT

Thread: Manhattan In Review

Blademaster777 — 2007-10-09T10:15:16+00:00

Manhattan is a simple city building game focusing on area control.

Mechanics & Game Play
Each player has a hand of four cards as well as twenty-four building pieces ranging from one storey to four. The game board is divided into six 'districts' of nine squares each, arrayed in a 3x3 square. Each card has a location on it that corresponds with one of these nine squares. This diagram is relative to your seating position.

The game is played over four rounds, at the beginning of a round each player takes any six of their building pieces from out of the game and places them in front of them. Beginning with an arbitrarily chosen player and proceeding clockwise around the table each player must use one of their cards and place a building piece on that space. However if an opponent already has a building in that space, you may only play there if the number of floors in the building that you currently own + the number of floors in the piece you wish to place is equal to or more than the number of floors tat any other single person controls (i.e if you have two floors in a building and nobody else has any, an opponent must use at least a piece of two floors. If you wished to build on top of the tower again (assuming they now control two floors out of the four) you could use any size piece).

When each player has placed all six of their pieces a scoring round happens. Players score points for the number of buildings they own the top floor/s of as well as additional points if a player owns the top floor/s of the most buildings in a district. Points are also awarded for owning the top floor/s of the tallest tower. After each scoring round the first player rotates one seat clockwise and play continues.

Strategy:
One of the most strategic elements of the game is the choice of what building pieces you will take into a round. Obviously you need some larger pieces for 'hitting power' but these become more and more vital as the game progresses. Also deciding whether or not to 'cap' an opponents building or start placing in empty districts becomes a major choice. The game can be played bloodlessly or brutally.

Interesting Concepts:
Along with the selection of building pieces for a round I feel that the most interesting concept is that of the cards. Because your position around the table means a great deal to the way you play the game. It is possible to be holding cards to defend your buildings while your opponents hold the cards to attack them.

Components:
There’s nothing fantastic here. The game comes with average quality plastic buildings and a stock standard board. The artwork isn't particularly inspiring either.

Number Of Players:
The game caters from between two and four players. Game play varies depending on the number of players. A three player game for instance has six rounds with three buildings each and with two players each player plays as two different colours.

Play Time:
Manhattan is a quick game and will generally play out within an hour.

Overall:
Manhattan is great when used as a 'wind down' filler. There is not a huge amount of thinking and the game is genuinely fun with a couple of interesting twists.

Thread: Re: Reissue: Manhattan or 6 International cities?

booned — 2007-10-08T06:30:40+00:00

It looks to me like the world version was actually the original German version, and the later American printing used six neighbourhoods.

We can assume that, since this is a Rio Grande reprint, it will be as the German version -- though whether this has changed in its newest release, I don't know.

It's true that this doesn't really matter one whit.

Thread: Re: Reissue: Manhattan or 6 International cities?

DarrellKH — 2007-10-03T12:40:06+00:00

You could call them all "Fred", for all the difference it makes to gameplay. I mean, this is about as "pasted-on" as themes get.

Thread: Reissue: Manhattan or 6 International cities?

Palladin — 2007-10-03T04:51:53+00:00

Looking at the posted images of the game, it appears that originally 6 Manhattan neighborhoods were used and identified on the game board, whereas a latter version used 6 cities from around the world. Is the much anticipated reprint going to use the orignal NYC venues or the globetrotting version?

Thread: Re: English translation of rules?

casperthegoth — 2007-09-03T13:54:13+00:00

Thanks for the link, just found the german edition at a thrift store for .99....

Thread: Re: The King Kong Variant

laserlead — 2007-09-03T04:08:27+00:00

FYI, Thoughthammer is supplying a King Kong figure to those who preorder Manhattan, a cute idea. (and no, I have no affiliation with Thoughthammer).

Thread: Re: English translation of rules?

Norway — 2007-07-21T05:22:40+00:00

Thanks for posting the link. I just bough the game with only German rules, this will make it easier to play.....

Thread: Re: Limitations of Manhattan; Still a fan despite a flaw

Blademaster777 — 2007-07-18T02:02:34+00:00

My regular gaming group are a bunch of agressive, highly-competitive players. We love the way Manhattan can be played in a very aggressive, vindictive manner, trying to claw your way up while pushing other players down.

Thread: Re: A question about the original box

rossum — 2007-07-15T17:42:20+00:00

My Mayfair edition from 1996 has no SdJ logo.

I'm super excited about this reprint- my copy has been getting a lot of table time lately.

MDK

Thread: Re: A question about the original box

dcorban — 2007-06-18T17:31:51+00:00

August

Thread: Re: A question about the original box

dshortdesign — 2007-06-18T17:25:19+00:00

dcorban wrote:
It does seem that finding a German only printing from 1994 may be difficult.

I see that the upcoming RGG reprint is supposedly a straight translated reprint, so hopefully there are few, if any, changes.

When is the reprint suppose to be coming out?

Thread: Re: A question about the original box

dcorban — 2007-06-18T16:30:39+00:00

It does seem that finding a German only printing from 1994 may be difficult.

I see that the upcoming RGG reprint is supposedly a straight translated reprint, so hopefully there are few, if any, changes.

Thread: Re: A question about the original box

jtj608 — 2007-06-18T04:22:31+00:00

Considering that the original printing could very well have been somewhere in the range of 2000-5000 copies and the printing with the SdJ pawn was certainly substantially larger (probably hundreds of thousands of copies), a copy of a version without the pawn is perhaps rarer.

Thread: A question about the original box

dcorban — 2007-06-18T02:21:05+00:00

So far, every image I have seen of the original Hans im Gluck edition has the SDJ logo on it. Did this game win the award before being printed? I am curious if there is an edition without the SDJ logo.

*edit* I found this image on Funagain. Maybe it is from a prototype or something. No logo.

*edit* It should be noted that Funagain has changed the image I linked to. It used to be an image of the original Hans-im-Gluck edition without the SdJ logo. Now it appears they have prepared for the upcoming Rio Grande reprint by placing an image of the later edition with an RGG logo.

Thread: An enjoyable gaming experience w/ players new to the hobby

Brent Case — 2007-05-23T21:17:47+00:00

Recently had an opportunity for some gaming w/ some co-workers during an open-house yesterday. There were a sizeable number of us there, and I brought with me a number of SdJ-winning 'gateway' games--one of them being Manhattan. I find Manhattan to be quite fun with 4 players, with easy-to-learn rules and a good blend of luck and strategy. The players who played with me were new to the boardgaming hobby. These were:

Brent (me)
Valerie
Jerri
Guy

After a brief explanation of the rules, we were off and running. Guy was quick to get the tallest building, which was eventually taken over for the duration of the game by Jerri during Round 2. Valerie had a sizeable majority in a couple of cities, and so did I. Although there were several attempts at taking over others' buildings, this did not detract from the fun, and no one felt like they were being ganged-up on.

It was a close game, and it actually ended in a tie. Jerri and I tied for a win with 68 points each, followed closely by Valerie and Guy.

After the game was over, they wanted to play it again.

Thread: Re: English translation of rules?

rockytony — 2007-05-16T16:10:11+00:00

Jonathon:

Thanks for the handy set of English instructions for the game Manhattan. This'll put me over the top removing an reticence in obtaining this game.

Thread: Re: Good for 2 players?

Eldard — 2007-05-11T20:13:02+00:00

schuwa wrote:
Hey everyone. I've been eyeing Manhattan for a little bit now, since it looks like a fairly fun, light game. Does it work well with 2-players? My wife is really my main compatriiot with board games, so we tend to keep an eye out for games that play with with 2.

Thanks.

I think Manhattan is a great game, but be advised! --- some gamers find it too cutthroat for their tastes. Personally, I don't see their point.

I've never played it with fewer than 3-players, but the two-player variant seems like it would work just fine.

Another game that has been compared to Manhattan is Alan Moon's Capitol, which is a little more complex, but still a fairly easy game to play.

Thread: Re: Good for 2 players?

SkipM624 — 2007-05-11T20:00:15+00:00

While the actual board game suggests that in a 2-player game, opponents take two colors each, the BSW version does not offer this option. That said, I have played MANY 2-player games of Manhattan on BSW and find it to be a good game. Maybe you could jump onto BSW and see how it works with 2 before deciding. I like it with 2. . quick, fun. .