Game: Robber Knights

Thread: Re: Its a good strategy to reserve knights/tiles for the end part of the game?

Scherzo — 2008-10-26T18:21:40+00:00

Good point. Maybe only its good to reserve at most around 8-10 knights for the last two castles (I think one is in forest and one in plains), especially if your opponents have lack of knights in the last part of the game, but not to center too much in this last part because you can miss some valuable points in the beggining and middle part of the game.

Scherzo

Thread: Re: Its a good strategy to reserve knights/tiles for the end part of the game?

Drew1365 — 2008-10-26T17:03:02+00:00

I haven't played it enough to give a definitive answer, but I'll offer this: Knights are only deployed when you place a castle tile. You can only deploy up to five knights at a time. And the stacks of tiles are set up such that Castles will appear at regular intervals.

So it's sort of set up that Castles and Knights will come out regularly and can't really be reserved successfully.

You could hang on to a Castle tile until late in the game, but you can't hang on to more than one. (You always play one of two in your hand.) So it seems that you just can't accomplish a late-game blitz to overcome good play by opponents in the earlier part of the game.

Thread: Its a good strategy to reserve knights/tiles for the end part of the game?

Scherzo — 2008-10-26T16:53:26+00:00

Hi, I don't know if this post should be here, because is a question about an strategy, not an strategy itself. Sorry if don't.

I like to know your opinion about reserving knights and tiles for the last part of the game, trying to take advantage over your opponents (in the case they are using tiles/knights at a normal rate) with some extra knights/tiles in the final movements that maybe give you some points that can't be "counter-attacked".

What do you think?

Thanks

Scherzo

Thread: Re: Which one is better?-robber knights or Buccaneer?

Drew1365 — 2008-10-26T16:09:23+00:00

Robber Knights is a neat, tactical abstract that fully engages the brain-pan.

Buccaneer is a light game with a slight memory mechanic that appears to have evolved from a pub game. (Think "stacking bottle caps")

Buccaneer is very chaotic, but not luck-driven. The only random factor is the order in which the cards turn up, so the chaos, then, is player-created. But it really does feel hard to control anything.

Robber Knights has random tile-draws, but it's minimized quite a bit by the fact that each player uses identical sets of tiles, and that they're ordered in small groups so that the same types of tiles come out at regular intervals.

I have both games. I prefer Robber Knights for some quick, thinky gaming, and Buccaneer for a light, opening or closing filler.

Thread: Re: Which one is better?-robber knights or Buccaneer?

Scherzo — 2008-10-26T15:46:46+00:00

In my opinion, both are great games, I think "Robber Knights" is a more tactical game than "Buccanneer". Buccanneer is a more lighter game that involves some memory aspect (to remeber the pieces stacked) and a bit less tactical than "Robber Knights".

Both have simple rules, but I think "Robber Knights" has more deep strategies than "Buccanneer".

Scherzo

PD: excuse my english

Thread: Win a copy-- european chain of generosity (27th october 2008)

cube — 2008-10-25T11:03:01+00:00

Please have a look here :
http://boardgamegeek.com/geeklist/34018

Thread: Re: Robber Knights: My thoughts after playing the 1st time

longagoigo — 2008-06-13T08:22:27+00:00

I enjoy most tile games and of course can't help comparing them all to Carcassonne.
My initial thoughts were that it was a lot like Othello, as the knight on top kept changing.

Image

ricardochriste — 2008-06-12T05:17:55+00:00

Some people cannot visualize the "virtual grid limits" on a tile game. Fortunately, the publisher provides handy borders in the box!

Image

ricardochriste — 2008-06-12T05:15:16+00:00

First turn on a four-player game

Image

felo — 2008-04-12T22:09:40+00:00

Blue (my wife) win :-(

Thread: Re: Hey you - get off my tile

Longshanx — 2008-03-13T07:44:44+00:00

for the title

Thread: Hey you - get off my tile

Paul Mackie — 2008-03-13T00:07:31+00:00

Unless I’m missing a game, this one popped up with the remaining Byzantium players after Neil M. left at the conclusion of that game. Results recorded are close approximates (guesses) only:
Ed (red): ~33. Richard (green): ~28. Neil F (blue): ~26.

Although this was packed up afterwards, inclination and timing led us back after Neil F. and Brad left (after Goa). The other three (Richard, Ed and Pat) had all played Robber Knights before, and a quick rules explan was enough to get me to understand the basics of how to play. But, apparently not enough to arm me with how to play well. I reckon it was on about my last turn before I started to see some of the more clever ways to be playing tiles and tokens. Mind you, long before that stage the tile array boundaries were well-known, and these provide an additional feature to make meaningful plays around.

According to the box, one game is supposed to run for half an hour, making it a good candidate for future game session fillers. However, our session took twice that. Certainly as a newbie I contributed to some of the down-time (but not all of it!), and I can imagine, the time drag being reduced significantly with further plays. I look forward, therefore, to another play soon.
5 mins rules; 55 mins game time.
Results: Richard (yellow): 33. Ed (red): 27. Pat (blue): 26. Paul (green): 24.

(Originally posted in The Mine Shaft Gap.)

Image

Paul Mackie — 2008-03-12T23:56:35+00:00

Robbers at close range. (Originally posted in The Mine Shaft Gap.)

Image

Garry — 2007-09-25T15:41:55+00:00

Box, showing nice castle details

Image

Garry — 2007-09-25T15:41:13+00:00

Tiles

Image

Garry — 2007-09-25T15:40:49+00:00

Box contents

Thread: Re: Castle with Forest

Auzette — 2007-08-19T14:52:15+00:00

Thanks for the reply. That clears up the issue for me.

Thread: Re: Castle with Forest

Fledermaushaus — 2007-08-18T05:15:05+00:00

The English (and German) rules state:

'...the player must leave behind knights on each tile as they move on from it, including on their knight's castle. According to the type of landscape...a different number of knights must be left behind.'

You first place up to five of your knights on the castle but the number that are left behind on the tile is decided as the stack leaves the tile. Since the knights are left behind as you leave the tile, the original castle is dealt with exactly as any other tile.

Thread: Re: Castle with Forest

Drew1365 — 2007-08-18T02:14:02+00:00

I'd like to know the answer, too, but I presume you still have to put at least two knights down on the space.

Thread: Castle with Forest

Auzette — 2007-08-18T00:06:07+00:00

If I put down a castle tile that is surrounded by forest, do I have to keep two knights on it when placing my "up to five knights", or not?

If I were crossing over the tile, it'd be obvious that if it has forest, two knights are required, but I was wondering if it required two knights to even put down on the castle when it's first played.

Thread: Re: Robber Kights and The Happy Wife

kentreuber — 2007-08-08T00:50:14+00:00

A risque title if there ever was one.

[q="Lerner & Loewe"]....
KNIGHT 1
Ah, but to burn a little town or slay a dozen men
Anything to laugh again

ALL
Oh, fie on goodness, fie
Fie, fie, fie, fie, fie

KNIGHT 1
When I think of the rollicking pleasures that earlier filled my life
Lolly lo, lolly lo
Like the time I beheaded a man who was beating his naked wife

ALL
Lolly lo, lolly lo

KNIGHT 1
I can still hear his widow say
Never moving from where she lay
"Tell me what can I do, I beg, sir, of you
Your kindness to repay"

ALL
Fie on goodness, fie
Fie on goodness, fie

KNIGHT 2
Lechery and vice have been arrested

KNIGHT 3
Arrested!

KNIGHT 2
Not a maiden is evermore in threat
Virgins may wander unmolested

KNIGHT 4
Unmolested!

ALL
Lolly lo let
Gad, it's a sweat
Oh, fie on goodness, fie
Fie, fie, fie, fie, fie

KNIGHT 5
How we roared and brawled in Scotland
Not a law was e'er obeyed
And when wooing called in Scotland
We'd grab any pasing maid
Ah, my heart is still in Scotland
Where the lasses woo the best
On some bonny hill in Scotland
Stroking someone's bonny...

CHORUS
Fie on Scotland, fie
Fie on Scotland, fie
....

Thread: Robber Knights and The Happy Wife

the1jugg — 2007-08-07T18:35:31+00:00

For starters, if you are not familiar with the rules of Robber Knights please refer to cggritt's excellent review at http://www.boardgamegeek.com/thread/114452 for a detailed rules breakdown.

THE INTRODUCTION

Assuming you came back to this review after reading the other (thank you), I feel a little bit of backstory is necessary. Feel free to skip ahead to the next paragraph if you just want to get to the meat of the review. The games I buy and play are primarily for quality time between my wife (heretoforth known as The Happy Wife), and therefore must be quality 2-player games with little confrontation (we'll call it the F-U Factor), a little luck, and some light strategy. Some games that make The Happy Wife smile are; Settlers of Catan, Carcassonne, and Alhambra. My "Happy Wife" series of reviews is to present to you my experiences with these games based on those crieria.

I realize that this review has not been submitted in a timely manner, as proven by the fact that the first reviews for this game were published over a year ago. I have been eyeing this title since then, but was always weary of it (see F-U Factor above). After a year of buying all of the other games in the isle first, and having birthday money sitting in my pocket waiting for a Caylus Magna Carta to arrive instore, I finally broke down and bought Robber Knights.

THE SETUP
I read through the rules quickly. They are well written and made clear what the goal of the game was. After arranging the tiles B through E, and setting aside pile A, for The Happy Wife and myself (setup takes about 2 minutes) we settled in. At the start, from pile A you choose which 2 tiles to keep in your hand, and which 2 to lay as starting tiles. This caused some confusion, since The Happy Wife DOES NOT, under any circumstances, read rules. I tried to convey the basic goal of the game, in order to help her decide which pieces to choose, but in the end we decided that learning by playing is the best method.

THE PLAY (the Technical Bits)
Since you have 2 tiles in your hand at all times, you are afforded a very small amount of planning. Each time you play a tile, you pick up another, and you may do this 3 times per turn. We found that using all 3 turns often left one of us with fewer tiles at the end of the game. The 3 tile limit is a nice way to make sure that the first player isn't just laying tiles for the next player to control.

The main goal of the game is: lay down towns and villages, and take them over with knights that originate from your castles. To occupy towns and villages, you must place a knight on it. Each castle produces up to five knights, and all of the knights from that castle must travel in a straight line. Up to 4 knights can occupy a space when you are finished moving them, meaning that any space with 4 knights on it becomes impassable from that time on. This is one way to guarantee a tile will remain under your conrol. However, it is often possible to weakly control up to 4 tiles (plus the castle) by only leaving 1 knight behind. This, however, leaves your territory more vulnerable to your opponent. If they can place a knight on top of your knights, they now control that tile. This see-saw of control can (and often does) continue until there are 4 knights on the tile, or until terrain or board-size limits, make it impossible to play more knights to a tile.

Terrain is used to hinder your opponent as each tile needs a certain number of knights left on it as you continue onto the real target. Plains add a little distance, while little difficulty (only need to leave 1 knight behind). Mountains take a lot of knights (3 knights) to pass, so are often only worth the expendature for the most worthy targets. Lakes cannot be passed. As the game progresses, you realize that "useless" terrain tiles that you played early on only to draw more useful tiles, are now obsticles that you will need to contend with. As a side note, forest terrain is used to make a town, village, or castle more costly to control (2 knights), and I thought that a separate terrain piece would have made a nice addition, if not an uncessesary one.

One interesting factor of the game is the "board" size that changes based on the number of players. In a 2-player game, your play area may only be 7 tiles high by 7 tiles wide. In our first game, we neglected this rule as we were getting a feel for the game, but imposed it in our following games. Playing without the limit allowed for a Carcassonne style "you build over there and I'll build over here" sort of effect. With the 7 tile board size, the game begins to take on a rather claustophobic environment where every tile can effect many plays to come, and it is near impossible to play unwanted tiles out of way. We really enjoyed that aspect of the game and welcomed it, although may use no-limit as a variation in future games.

THE WIFE, F-U FACTOR and DREADED STRATEGY
The pseudo-randomization of the tiles allows for a little bit of luck to creep into the game, but never much. You know that AT LEAST every 5 tiles, you are going to find a castle. Starting with one is a nice touch too. The strategy is light and satisfying. You feel silly for making a less-than-optimal move, but never feel like you've lost your chances to win. In the same manner, since the see-saw control aspect of the game is such commonplay, you never feel slighted when an opponent takes control of your tiles. In many instances, I chose to control several tiles, rather than place 4 knights on 1 tile to gaurantee conrol, and therefore I allowed my opponent to take it. There is litte, or no F-U involved. Since it is easy and simple to take control, you dont much care that you lost control. Through the game, it was never obvious who was going to win, and the spread at the end was never was never more than 5 or 6 points.

As for strategy, I have made it a point to mention to my wife when she might make a "better" placement than she is going to. She'll often use this advice to make more informed choices later on. We play much happier together because of it.

AND FINALLY.... THE CONCLUSION
What started as a "quick little review for a quick little game" became as deep as the strategy for the game itself. The game took us 5 minutes to learn the basics, but every time we play we learn how to optimize the terrain, and our pieces. We have also noticed that with each game, our combined score keeps going up, which seems to indicate that we are utilizing our tiles and knights better as we learn. At 15 minutes per person, per game, Robber Knights can easily be used to fill small amounts of time with a lot of enjoyment. I think that adding more players would create an even more challenging enviroment with many more opportunities to control or be controlled, at the cost of the game taking longer to play.

The Happy Wife score: 7 smiles out of 10. We enjoy the game quite a bit, but can think of other games we would rather play for an afternoon. As a filler, its an 8 or 9.

NO REALLY... IT'S OVER
Beyond that, I hope that you will post and let me know what you think of The Happy Wife series of reviews. Let me know if there are things that you think that I should have mentioned within the confines of the criteria I am using. Also, if you have a game that you want to know the Wife's opinion on, let me know and I'll see what I can do.

Thanks for reading

Jugg

Thread: Re: Robber Knights- another great Queen small-box game

Sardukar — 2007-07-25T12:56:57+00:00

Great Review. I just bought this game and your review convinced to play it this weekend instead of placing it on the pile of unplayed games.

Image

DavemanUK — 2007-05-13T19:23:17+00:00

End of a 4-player game, victory for Red.

Image

Werbaer — 2007-03-13T09:09:52+00:00

German edition (box cover, flat image)

Thread: Re: Rule question

snakes_alive — 2007-02-24T00:31:57+00:00

Fledermaushaus wrote:
The space being referred to is a forest space. The minimum number of knights that you can leave on a forest is 2, and the maximum number allowed on a space is 4. So, by leaving 3, no-one else can enter that forest.

sorry - that was me not thinking correctly!!!

Thread: Re: Rule question

Fledermaushaus — 2007-02-23T13:00:54+00:00

The space being referred to is a forest space. The minimum number of knights that you can leave on a forest is 2, and the maximum number allowed on a space is 4. So, by leaving 3, no-one else can enter that forest.

Thread: Re: Rule question

snakes_alive — 2007-02-22T21:29:03+00:00

Can I just clarify somehting - if you leave only three behind would that not allow someone else to put one more knight on top, therefore control the space - if you left all four there then nobody would be allowed to place a knight on top, the scoring position?

Thread: Re: Robber Knights -- Session Report

SkipM624 — 2007-02-01T02:58:46+00:00

Have yet to play this with more than a single opponent and all four times, my opponent was learning for the first time. I have lost all four games. Obviously, I have a lot to learn about this game, but it sure is fun playing. Quick but far from easy.

Thread: Robber Knights -- Session Report

gschloesser — 2007-01-31T19:38:01+00:00

One of Kevin Bender’s favorite designers is Rudiger Dorn, so he has been itching to play several of his designs that he owns, but has not yet played. He requested Robber Knights (Raub Ritter in Deutsch), and I was happy to teach it. This is one of the better Queen games, and it had been awhile since I’d last played. Folks new to the game can consult my 12/29/05 session report on the Boardgame Geek website, or my full review in Counter magazine.

As always, players are a bit timid on their first few placements, fearing that their opponents’ subsequent plays will overrun any conquered territory. This is the nature of the game, as it is difficult to protect territory early in the proceedings. As the board develops, it becomes a bit easier to arrange the terrain for better defense, but this isn’t foolproof.

Rhonda seemed to have the early lead, spreading her knights across vast amounts of territory. Kevin and I seemed to be regular victims, as our knights seemed more interested in relaxation than defense! Late in the game, however, Jim managed to overrun some of Rhonda’s territory, and confiscate fresh cities and villages that remained in his control.

Finals: Jim 38, Rhonda 27, Greg 24, Kevin 14

Ratings: Kevin 7, Rhonda 7, Greg 7, Jim 6

Image

Tycho — 2006-12-30T22:45:29+00:00

Thread: Re: Clarifications

andyl — 2006-11-29T12:06:49+00:00

For the starter tiles we take it in turns to place our first tile and then place the second in the same order.

Thread: Re: Clarifications

SkipM624 — 2006-11-28T17:28:17+00:00

Thanks. . I'm checking with the Publisher about the ordered placement of starter tiles. Initial response was that they'd "find out."

Thread: Re: Clarifications

andyl — 2006-11-28T17:14:36+00:00

SkipM624 wrote:
Your response to the 'two castle tiles on a turn' question is unclear. If I choose to hold two castle tiles until a subsequent turn, can I lay them both down on that subsequent turn and place/move knights from both. I would be, in this case, maintaining the rule of placing knights only on tiles I have laid down.

Yes that is the way I play it. As you can play three tiles in a turn you might if you had the castle tiles in your hand and if you wanted play three castles in a turn.

Thread: Re: Clarifications

cymric — 2006-11-28T17:13:36+00:00

My apologies, I misread you completely. Yes, you can place more than one castle tile on the same turn, but if you do not immediately place knights on that tile, you forfeit the right to do so---even if you add more tiles from your hand in that turn. The sequence is: place tile---add / move knights---place tile---add / move knights, and not: place tile---place tile---add / move knights---add / move knights.

Thread: Re: Clarifications

SkipM624 — 2006-11-28T16:47:05+00:00

Your response to the 'two castle tiles on a turn' question is unclear. If I choose to hold two castle tiles until a subsequent turn, can I lay them both down on that subsequent turn and place/move knights from both. I would be, in this case, maintaining the rule of placing knights only on tiles I have laid down.

Thread: Re: Clarifications

cymric — 2006-11-28T16:25:13+00:00

SkipM624 wrote:
Is the placement of knights on castle tiles compulsory?
No.

In a game situation, an opponent in a 2-player game laid two castle tiles and did not place knights in one of them. He would not elaborate the reason. I saw no rule indicating that he would be forced to do so. That said, would I, as his opponent, be able to take advantage of this opportunity and put knights on that tile?
No, you can only place knights on tiles you yourself placed on the same turn.

I am assuming that it is possible and in certain situations desireable to lay two castle tiles during the 'first action' phase, allowing placement of two separate sets of knights. Is this correct?
No, for the above reason.

Is there a turn order for placement of starter tiles? Player A places one (colored letter up), Player B places next, Player C places, etc. While the rules indicate that what order the colors are in doesn't matter, it would seem that one might want some control over the placement of one's own first two tiles. One might, for example, want to utilize the mountain in a way that would immediately inhibit opponents, but you wouldn't want to use it as a starter tile if it was going to be in your own way. Clarification, anyone?
Good question, I don't know, really. I collect the tiles which should be placed on the table, shuffle them, and form them into the appropriate geometrical shape before turning them over. I've never encountered the situation where someone wanted this tile to be placed there.

Thread: Clarifications

SkipM624 — 2006-11-28T16:00:52+00:00

Is the placement of knights on castle tiles compulsory? In a game situation, an opponent in a 2-player game laid two castle tiles and did not place knights in one of them. He would not elaborate the reason. I saw no rule indicating that he would be forced to do so. That said, would I, as his opponent, be able to take advantage of this opportunity and put knights on that tile?
I am assuming that it is possible and in certain situations desireable to lay two castle tiles during the 'first action' phase, allowing placement of two separate sets of knights. Is this correct?
Is there a turn order for placement of starter tiles? Player A places one (colored letter up), Player B places next, Player C places, etc. While the rules indicate that what order the colors are in doesn't matter, it would seem that one might want some control over the placement of one's own first two tiles. One might, for example, want to utilize the mountain in a way that would immediately inhibit opponents, but you wouldn't want to use it as a starter tile if it was going to be in your own way. Clarification, anyone?

Thread: Re: Robber Knights: My thoughts after playing the 1st time

ufemism — 2006-10-21T19:09:02+00:00

Thank you for noticing...I've made the correction. I guess that's what I get for writing my first game review after midnight!

Thread: Re: Robber Knights: My thoughts after playing the 1st time

andyl — 2006-10-21T09:04:11+00:00

ufemism wrote:
Only tiles with buildings on them are actually scored.

Castles=1 point
Towns=2 points
Villages=3 points

Just a little correction. You have the Towns and Villages the wrong way around here. Towns score 3 points, villages 2.

Thread: Robber Knights: My thoughts after playing the 1st time

ufemism — 2006-10-21T05:20:09+00:00

Tonight, my non-gamer husband, my 10 year-old daughter and I played Robber Knights from Queen Games for the first time. I think we all enjoyed it, but for different reasons!

The set-up is simple: Each player chooses a color and then gets all of the components of that color (30 knights and 24 tiles lettered A-E). The tiles are divided into stacks and then the stacks are shuffled and placed upon each other in descending order (B-E). The knights are kept by each player until they are deployed onto the tiles during gameplay. There are 4 tiles labled A. Each player takes the castle tile from the A stack plus another tile of their choice. Their remaining A tiles are placed face-down in the playing area and arranged to form a rectangle. The tiles are then turned face-up and the players begin play, starting with the A tiles that they had previously chosen and then moving on to the face-down stack in front of them. The oldest player begins and then play continues in a clockwise manner.

The rules are simple, with clear diagrams to show you what to do, and what NOT to do. It's a tile laying game, but the deal is that you have your own stack of tiles to draw from in a face-down pile in front of you. You can play up to 3 tiles per turn, but are only required to place ONE. If the tile you reveal is a castle tile, you can then play up to 5 of your knights moving in a straight line from that space immediately after placing it. This is the only time you play the knights. They are small disks that stack on top of each other, and the tile's terrain determines how many knights you are required to leave there (kind of like a breadcrumb trail), although you can choose to leave more then the required amount. Once a knight has been played it doesn't move again.

Plains=1 knight
Forest=2 knights
Mountains=3 knights

The catch is that the maximum a tile can have on it is 4. You can stack your knights on top of other peoples knights as you pass by them, but you can't overfill the tile. When I tile is full, no more knights can be placed there, and you can't skip over tiles. At the end of the game (when the last tile is placed), the points are only awarded to the person who's knight controls the space by being on top of the stack. The other tile-component is that as well as having terrain indicated on each tile, many of them have depictions of castles, towns, and villages. Only tiles with buildings on them are actually scored.

Castles=1 point
Villages=2 points
Towns=3 points

There is also one lake tile per player which cannot have a knight placed on them.

I enjoy most tile games and of course can't help comparing them all to Carcassonne. I do tend to get bored with Carc about 2/3 of the way through a game. As that game progresses, there seem to be less spaces you can place some of the tiles based on terrain and prior meeple placement. I often have to place tiles in areas where I would rather not just because of the placement rules. Also, it seems that player's turns take longer as the game goes on due to analysing the best tile placement. This game seems much less paralysing, as there are more choices of where to place each tile. The edges of the tiles of this game do not have to match the terrain of the tile next to them, but they do blend nicely and make a nice bit of scenery when you're done. It's a lot easier to score than the aforementioned game, as well, so it's less confusing when teaching the game to newbies. Although it's very easy to grasp the concept of the game and begin playing right away, there is a bit of strategy involved: Do I want to play extra knights on a tile to control it, or should I just play the required amount? Should I play another tile and hope that I can protect my holding with a piece of terrain that nobody would find worth traversing in order just to thwart me? Should I play less knights earlier in the game to save some for the end, or go ahead and just control as much as I can as early as I can? Should I play a second or third tile or stop now to allow more buildings to spring up from other player's placements in case I draw a castle tile next and have to deploy knights over a sparsely populated area? If so, should I then play all 3 (if need be) next turn in order to deploy some knights to capture the holdings of my opponents?

The only disappointment of the game component-wise is that the tiles, although nice and sturdy and of good quality, are rather smaller than I expected. The knights are each about the size of a thick dime and plain on both sides. I wish they at least had a knight stamped onto them in keeping with the theme of the game. Other than that, I have no complaints. The box is small and doesn't take much shelf space, and the game even comes with extra plastic bags to separate the color coded tiles into before placing them into the box for storage.

Overall, I found Robber Knights to be what I consider a fast, light-weight, enjoyable filler game that is quick to teach/learn. (We played a game in under 30 minutes and it was our first time.) It's simplicity disguises the layers of strategy involved as you try to plan future moves based on as yet unseen tiles! My husband liked it because there weren't a lot of fiddly game mechanics he had to understand in order to play, my daughter enjoyed it because she could hold her own in this game against two adults (She actually won), and I liked it because it's not so simple as to become boring after playing a few times. I predict this one will see a lot of table-time, both at home and with my gaming group. The grid-size if the playing area is determined by the amount of players, so it should scale well from 2-4.

Thread: Re: Initial Thoughts on R. Dorn’s Latest.

rayito2702 — 2006-08-26T02:46:33+00:00

verive wrote:
I wouldn’t be at all surprised if a future game from him incorporated the two main mechanics (the semi-preordered tile stack and the knights movement) into a more intricate and rich design...

Like Goa.

Thread: Re: Rule question

Bernd — 2006-08-25T06:58:58+00:00

upstartcrow wrote:
If for example you are starting on your castle with five knights, you leave one knight there and then move to an unoccupied forest space next to it. Are you allowed to only place two knights there and then move on with the remaining two knights, or are you allowed to place and leave your remaining four knights there?

(Based on your example) You are allowed to leave 2 or 3 or 4 knights on that tile. But leaving all four knights there is wasting 1 knight!
Leaving 2 knights is minimum, leaving 3 knights will block this tile against all other players, e.g. could make sense in certain tactical situations. So, leaving 4 Knights is allowed but doesn't bring any advantage.

Hope that helps
and all the best from germany
Bernd

Thread: Re: Rule question

cymric — 2006-08-25T06:54:26+00:00

You are allowed to leave four knights there.

Thread: Rule question

upstartcrow — 2006-08-25T02:47:36+00:00

If for example you are starting on your castle with five knights, you leave one knight there and then move to an unoccupied forest space next to it. Are you allowed to only place two knights there and then move on with the remaining two knights, or are you allowed to place and leave your remaining four knights there?

Thread: Size of play area

janos_hunyadi — 2006-08-18T09:55:29+00:00

It is important to note that size of the play area for a game with 3 players is 9x9 (and not 8x8 as written in the rules translations files hosted on bgg).

Thread: Re: Initial Thoughts on R. Dorn’s Latest.

dcjackso — 2006-07-25T18:45:24+00:00

Fair enough!

Thread: Re: Initial Thoughts on R. Dorn’s Latest.

verive — 2006-07-25T16:07:08+00:00

Yeah, I went back and forth about including Jambo in the statement about theme richness. But, I think the theme is well integrated in comparison to some other cardgames (Mystery Rummy or Razzia for example.)

It is true that you could easily re-theme the game to an urban setting where the goods are drugs, guns, and car stereos, but it would still be a game about manipulation of the market and that is what I meant by Jambo having a well-integrated theme. The mechanics make sense for the setting.

Thread: Re: Initial Thoughts on R. Dorn’s Latest.

dcjackso — 2006-07-25T02:10:49+00:00

Thanks for the timely review! (I hope to play 2P RR for the first time tonight.) One tangential question: how does Jambo have a "rich and well-integrated theme"? Because the cards have pictures of jungle scenes on them? (That should really be a half-smiley--I'm kind of joking, but I really am interested in the answer.)

For card games, I guess Hera & Zeus, and Caesar & Cleopatra (both of which I really like) have rich themes as well--but all three of them seem pretty abstract to me. Other themes for Jambo and the others would have worked just as well. Or maybe not--tell me why!

Thread: Initial Thoughts on R. Dorn’s Latest.

verive — 2006-07-24T23:09:20+00:00

Recently I was really feeling the itch to bring something new to the (gaming) table, and since I’m a fan of Rodiger Dorn’s Designs (his Louis XIV among my top games) I jumped at the chance to pick up “Robber Knights” (hereafter RR) at my FLGS even though I had only heard the faintest of murmurings about the game. Now, I’ve only played 3-times so this is really more of a pre-review, or at least a collection of my initial impressions, as I still have a lot to learn about the game. And, like many of Dorn’s designs, the game’s depth is proving to becomes more apparent only after a number of games.

The game is among the Queen “small box” line and is a very nice production. Unlike many of Dorn’s other designs which include vast quantities of different bits RR has only 2-types: thick cardboard landscape tiles in four colors that show Castles, Towns, Villages and empty landscapes, and flat wooded disks that represent the title knights. There are enough bits of 4 different colors for a 4-player game, though I have only played the game 2-player. Apart from some spare ziplock baggies the mult-language rules are the only other item in the box, and the rules are very simple.

Each player takes their landscape tiles and divides them into groups based on the letters on their back (A, B, C, D, and E,) and they begin with 2 of the 4 “A” tiles in their hand and place the other 2 As in a rectangle to form the starting positions. The remaining tiles are placed in a stack with the “E”s on the bottom and the “B”s on the top. A turn consists of playing one of the two tiles from your hand adjacent to another tile on the board and then drawing the top tile from the stack. This action must be performed once each turn and can be performed up to three times. If you play a castle-tile you may then place a stack of up-to 5 knights on the castle and then move the stack in a straight-line away from the castle, leaving at least one knight on each tile that you move to. This is the most obviously “Dorn-ish” mechanic of the game and is reminiscent of the tower in Traders of Genoa and the way you influence cards in Louis XIV.

After a modest 3 games I am still unsure of the strategies for this game. The different tiles will score points for who has a knight on the top of the stack on the tile, with villages scoring 3 points. So obviously your aim is to capture the villages while making it impossible (or at least costly) for your opponent(s) to steal them away from you. But the exact methods for this are still somewhat foggy to me. Regardless, the game is highly tactical and the games I’ve played have been about jockeying for the prime locations on the board while keeping a close eye on your supply of knights.

The game plays fairly quickly, and even with a moderate amount of analysis of the board a two-player game can wrap-up in less than 30 minutes. There is very little luck in the game as each player has the same mix of tiles that will appear in a random but predictable order. This adds to the feeling that the game is mainly an abstract with pretty pictures, and I think that what I am most disappointed about. Dorn’s other games, particularly Louis XIV and Jambo, have such rich and well-integrated themes where RR has only the thinnest veil of theme. It almost feels as if the game is a “sketch” of a mechanic that Dorn was developing, and I wouldn’t be at all surprised if a future game from him incorporated the two main mechanics (the semi-preordered tile stack and the knights movement) into a more intricate and rich design.

That said, RR is still an enjoyable game, and its highly tactical nature and very nice production make it a good “snack” to open a session with, or a good pick-up game in along the same “meatiness” of Fjords or the lighter abstracts.

Thread: Re: Question

cggritt — 2006-07-20T09:10:47+00:00

That's correct. The mountains are defensive 'blocking' pieces.

Thread: Question

Jim_P — 2006-07-20T08:52:08+00:00

It appears that mountainous terrain may only ever be occupied by one person, effectively causing a 'block' at a cost of three knights, right?

Once placed, no one may ever move through the mountain tile because they would overstack. Am I reading the rules correctly?

Thread: Re: Entering a tile when the number would exceed 4

Bernd — 2006-07-17T21:54:26+00:00

Goofyboy wrote:
Hi,

I'm looking at the rules and the text and the image seem to differ. So, I'm wondering if I can enter a tile with knights if entering would cause the tile to have more than 4 but leave a max of for on that tile.

Example:
I place a castle with 5 knights.
I leave one there and then proceed to move to an adjacent tile containing 3 knights.

The question: Can I enter that tile with 4 then proceed leaving 1 behind or I just can't enter that tile at all with more than 1?

Thanks

Hi,
in general, enter a tile is not the problem. You can enter this tile with 4 knights, as long as there is enough place for you leaving the proper number of knights.
In other words: You can enter a tile - let's say a plain - which is already occupied by three other knights with a stack of 4 knights. You leave one knight and proceed with the rest of your stack.
But, if that tile is a forest, you cannot move on that tile or the tile behind, because there is not enough space two leave the two requested knights on that tile.
Hope that helps and all the best from germany.
Bernd

Thread: Re: Entering a tile when the number would exceed 4

Fledermaushaus — 2006-07-17T21:49:28+00:00

You can enter with more than 4 but you must be able to leave behind the minimum number of knights (2 in forests etc.) on that tile without the total of knights remaining on the tile exceeding 4.

Thread: Entering a tile when the number would exceed 4

Goofyboy — 2006-07-17T20:33:00+00:00

Hi,

I'm looking at the rules and the text and the image seem to differ. So, I'm wondering if I can enter a tile with knights if entering would cause the tile to have more than 4 but leave a max of for on that tile.

Example:
I place a castle with 5 knights.
I leave one there and then proceed to move to an adjacent tile containing 3 knights.

The question: Can I enter that tile with 4 then proceed leaving 1 behind or I just can't enter that tile at all with more than 1?

Thanks

Thread: Raub Ritter play

db3000 — 2006-06-21T15:14:09+00:00

Finally I recieved my copy of Raub Ritter. It was quite a wait! Anyway, my reactions after 2 plays are positive. The game seems very balanced and the right mix of skill/luck and the game time was about 40 mins. Since your draw pile is balanced, there seemed to be no reason to burn out your Knight chips too early. My opponents did and they paid for it. I won both games as a result. Everything seems right with this game except one minor quibble. I wish they had of included a card for each player which features all scoring tiles. I used the colour Spanish and French rule pages for this and kept the English and German rules intact. It's still only 2 plays so I'm not exactly sure what grade to apply. Likely a 7.5 or 8.0 out of 10. I don't think this game is nominated for game of the year(short list) but it should be. Anyway, Raub Ritter is recommended and should get a healthy amount of table time in the near future.

Thread: Robber Knights- another great Queen small-box game

cggritt — 2006-06-18T20:19:41+00:00

Robber Knights
Rüdiger Dorn, Queen Games, 2005
2-4 players
Playing time: 10-15 minutes per player

OVERVIEW
Robber Knights is a tile-laying game in which players take turns to build a kingdom and try to dominate it by controlling the most valuable habitations with their knights.

Players place 1-3 tiles per turn (Carcassonne-style) and, when they place tiles containing a castle they can place up to five knights (small wooden disks in the player’s colour) in the castle. These are then immediately moved out from the castle in a straight line, leaving knights behind as they travel (like the Merchant in Dorn’s Traders of Genoa). The number of knights left behind depends on the type of terrain they have moved through. If another player’s knight is already on a tile, the active player’s knight is placed on top covering it (although no more than four knights can occupy any one tile). Once a knight is placed it cannot be moved again.

Once all the tiles have been placed the game is over and players score points for all the tiles in which a knight of their colour is on the top of the stack.

COMPONENTS
Robber Knights is a typically lush Queen game packaged in one of the sturdy small-sized boxes (like the Alhambra expansions or Roma). The artwork is pleasing although the tiles, whilst chunky enough, are a little small and the knights can sometimes obscure the pictures. The knights themselves are colourful wooden disks, exactly the same as the priests in Aton or the blocking stones in Inka. The rules are printed in full-colour across four pages and are well illustrated with many examples. The English translation is clear and unambiguous.

Overall, the components are good and certainly worth the price of the game.

MY PERSONAL VIEW
Robber Knights is a tense game with many difficult choices. Terrain can be played offensively and defensively and it takes a few games to get the hang of how to optimise placement. Similarly, when to play and when to pass can be a painful choice. The inherent randomness of tile-laying games is somewhat mitigated by each player having a separate draw pile which is further broken into five piles (A-E) that must be played in order. In none of the games I’ve played has any player complained that “the tiles were against them”.

Although the game plays quickly and tactically, rather than slowly and strategically, it transcends filler status. The depth and richness of the decisions is surprising and the game packs a much larger punch than expected. The game scales really well from 2-4 players and belongs to that “easy-to-learn, difficult-to-master” category that I’m really fond of. Even by the high standards set by the majority of the Queen small-box line, this one really stands out and you’d be hard pushed to find a better game for such a small outlay.

Overall score: 9/10

As I think this will be the first review on the Geek for Robber Knights I thought I’d include a…

DETAILED RULES BREAKDOWN

Game set-up:
Each player starts with a stack of 24 tiles and 30 knights represented by small round disks in each player’s colour (yellow, red, blue, green). The tiles are divided into five separate piles according to the letter on the reverse of each (A-E). There are five tiles in the B, C, D and E stacks. These four stacks are piled on top of each other, with E on the bottom. This is the player’s draw pile.

The four A tiles are taken into the player’s hand. Two of them are played to the table face down and the remaining two form the player’s starting hand. Once all the players have placed two of their A tiles in the centre they are turned over and the game begins.

Rules summary:
Each tile contains one of four types of terrain: lake, mountains, plains or forests. Some of the plains and all of the forest tiles also contain castles, villages or towns. On their turn, a player must play one of the two tiles in their hand to the table, connecting orthogonally with those already played. There is a limit to the overall size of the grid that the players are playing into and as long as the player places a tile within this grid it can be placed anywhere. The size of the grid varies depending on the number of players.

If the tile played is a castle, the player can choose to place a stack of disks of 0-5 knights in the castle. The knights then immediately march from the castle in one orthogonal direction. The player must leave at least 1 knight in every plain the knights march through, two in every forest and three in the mountains. This includes the starting castle that the knights march from. Tiles cannot be jumped over and no tile can have more than four knights in it. If a tile has four knights already it cannot be entered. Similarly, if the player does not have enough knights in their stack to pay the terrain cost for the next tile it may not be entered. No knight can enter a lake.

If a tile already contains a knight belonging to another player, the active player places his knight(s) on top of those currently their. Players are in control of any tile in which they have the top-most knight showing. Once a knight has been placed it cannot be moved again!

Once a tile has been played the player refreshes their hand back up to two tiles. This action (play a tile, refresh your hand) must be performed once on a players turn, and a player can then choose to pass or repeat the action up to two further times. Play then moves to the players left until all the tiles have been placed. The game is then over.

Scoring:
Players score points for all the tiles in which they have the top-most knight in the stack of knights. Castles are worth one point, villages are worth two and towns are worth three. Tiles that do not contain a habitation are worth nothing.

The player with the most points wins. In a tie, the player with the most unplayed knights is declared the winner.

Thread: Re: Which one is better?-robber knights or Buccaneer?

Kalidor — 2006-05-31T14:22:42+00:00

Robber Knights, upon rule reading seemed very good to me. I like the simplicity/tactical options involved.
I plan on getting at least this one...
Buccaneer depends on more reading/reviews...

Thread: Re: Which one is better?-robber knights or Buccaneer?

jobcat — 2006-05-31T14:17:41+00:00

casterman wrote:
Actually, Raubritter is a Knight's theme.

Raubritter plays 2-4 while Seerauber plays 3-5. I have played Raubritter with 2 and 3 and the games were good with both numbers. I have only played Seerauber once with 4 and it was a fun experience. Seerauber has been nominated for Spiel des Jahres so from that standpoint some believe it to be "better".

Both feature tactical play and can play quickly.

Seerauber has treasure chits and money (ducats) and the goal of the game is to have the most money to win. Raubritter is based on points to win.

Both games feature stacking your game pieces on your opponents, however in Raubritter only the player who is topmost earns the points while in Seerauber all pirates in a stack will get some money and/or treasures.

At the moment I could not say one is better over the other since I have only played a few games but I hope the comparisons above will help you decide which game is "better" for you.

-Dan

Dear Dan:

if you want to play these 2 games again, which one of games you would like to play first?
moreover, you think which game is replayable?

Thread: Re: Which one is better?-robber knights or Buccaneer?

casterman — 2006-05-31T02:05:30+00:00

Actually, Raubritter is a Knight's theme.

Raubritter plays 2-4 while Seerauber plays 3-5. I have played Raubritter with 2 and 3 and the games were good with both numbers. I have only played Seerauber once with 4 and it was a fun experience. Seerauber has been nominated for Spiel des Jahres so from that standpoint some believe it to be "better".

Both feature tactical play and can play quickly.

Seerauber has treasure chits and money (ducats) and the goal of the game is to have the most money to win. Raubritter is based on points to win.

Both games feature stacking your game pieces on your opponents, however in Raubritter only the player who is topmost earns the points while in Seerauber all pirates in a stack will get some money and/or treasures.

At the moment I could not say one is better over the other since I have only played a few games but I hope the comparisons above will help you decide which game is "better" for you.

-Dan