Game: Aton

Thread: Re: Temple 1 strategy

LemonyFresh — 2008-07-30T16:59:41+00:00

Well, if you are going to be doing that much removing of pieces, then the scoring rounds will wrap around pretty quickly, and Temple 1 gives you the worst return on your scoring investment.

I haven't played regularly in a while, but, I remember the last game I played, I defeated a player doing a Temple 1 rush by just holding them at bay, while picking off bigger points elsewhere.

I haven't done any hardcore math on the matter, though.

Thread: Temple 1 strategy

alexd — 2008-07-30T16:44:42+00:00

A strategic claim, that I hope is wrong.

1) Yellow and green wins require building in all four temples. Given that you always want to remove opponent priests (or they may snatch their win condition) and add more of your own, these seem inefficient: you will be forced to spend high cards in cartouche 3.

2) This leaves temple wins in 1 or 2 as the efficient "instant win" approaches. Temple 1, since it makes 1s in cartouche 3 useful, seems to be definitively better. It also seems likely to score more points as you go -- you should often dominate by more than 5.

So: Place highest cards in cartouches 2 and 4, lowest in 3, and what's left in 1 (since you may not get the temple 1 win). Remove as many as you can of opponent's pieces from temple 1, and place as many of yours as you can in temple 1. As a secondary goal, aim for black tile points. Never waste a high card playing in temples 3 or 4, unless to stop instant-win by opponent (and you'll usually be faster, since they spent high cards to get there in the first place).

3) Is there some balancing element that makes "go for a temple win in #1" weaker than it seems to us?

4) I am assuming that countering a temple 1 strategy costs roughly as many high cards and pieces as going for the temple 1 strategy. If an opponent devotes less resources to blocking temple 1 than are spent pursuing it, the temple 1 player may be able to pull a "4 - 4" lucky instant-win too easily.

Thread: Re: Doing something wrong -- a battle for temple 1

alexd — 2008-07-30T14:51:47+00:00

Gamegrunt wrote:
When an opponent attempts a 1st Temple domination, simply play your low cards to the 1st and 3rd cartouche, and drop your high cards into the 2nd and 4th cartouches.

Gg

Which is the Temple 1 domination strategy too -- our concern is that once A starts aiming at:

low high low high (with temple 1 as goal)

B pretty much has to follow suit, and if A gets better cards a couple of turns, A can win pretty easily. It seems that because a temple 1 strategy requires the other player to follow suit, and lets you ignore cartouche 3 (and to a large extent 1, unless B is getting close to points victory), it may be somewhat dominating? No other strategy seems to give you as much ability to simply ignore one cartouche safely (since a 1 or 2 is all you ever need in #3).

Thread: Re: Doing something wrong -- a battle for temple 1

Gamegrunt — 2008-07-30T12:39:15+00:00

When an opponent attempts a 1st Temple domination, simply play your low cards to the 1st and 3rd cartouche, and drop your high cards into the 2nd and 4th cartouches.

Gg

Thread: Re: Doing something wrong -- a battle for temple 1

mogli43 — 2008-07-30T09:35:41+00:00

By concentrating only on temple 1 your opponent is neglecting the other ways the game can be won - points, other temples and getting all the green or yellow squares - this can be very dangerous.

In our games it is rare that is game is won over a temple, let alone a temple one or two.

Thread: Re: Doing something wrong -- a battle for temple 1

UnknownParkerBrother — 2008-07-30T07:51:33+00:00

Yes, letting your opponent get 1 move away from winning is bad, and you should have dealt with the problem already.

That's where turn order can be key, if you are in that spot, you can play a low card and get control and remove more of his stuff before he gets to put his stuff in for the win.

This game is very well balanced, if player A is spending all his time in temple 1, you have lots of opportunities to get a ton of points in the other temples. As long as you spend enough time there, you'll hold him off, and win on points elsewhere.

Basically, you can't ignore any temple.

Thread: Re: Doing something wrong -- a battle for temple 1

alexd — 2008-07-30T07:17:40+00:00

UnknownParkerBrother wrote:
Just from your wording, it doesn't quite sound like you're playing it right. For one, you don't need a 1 in cartouche 3 in order to play in temple 1, any card in the game will allow you to add/remove in temple 1. The rule is that you can work in any temple less than or equal to the card. So all cards allow you to work in temple 1, while only a 4 allows you to work in temple 4.

No, we got that. What I mean is -- if your strategy focuses on temple 1, you can put a low card in cart 3 and still be advancing your plan, which lets you play high elsewhere.

UnknownParkerBrother wrote:
So all you need is one three or four in your hand of 4 cards to put in your spot 2, and you can remove 1 or 2 of your opponents markers from temple 1. Keep some of your own markers in there, and your opponent will always be quite a ways from controlling the entire temple.

We find it's extremely difficult to win a game by completely controlling one temple.

Yeah, that's what it sounds like from reviews and sessions. The thing is -- let's say A gets substantially ahead in temple 1 (by always aiming at it). B can stall by removing 2 and placing, but if A ever gets B down to 2 priests + 2 empty slots, a 4-4 will win. Perhaps B should simply never ever let that happen? Seems to take most of B's actions, though, if A is determined and gets somewhat ahead.

Thread: Re: Doing something wrong -- a battle for temple 1

UnknownParkerBrother — 2008-07-30T07:08:01+00:00

Just from your wording, it doesn't quite sound like you're playing it right. For one, you don't need a 1 in cartouche 3 in order to play in temple 1, any card in the game will allow you to add/remove in temple 1. The rule is that you can work in any temple less than or equal to the card. So all cards allow you to work in temple 1, while only a 4 allows you to work in temple 4.

So all you need is one three or four in your hand of 4 cards to put in your spot 2, and you can remove 1 or 2 of your opponents markers from temple 1. Keep some of your own markers in there, and your opponent will always be quite a ways from controlling the entire temple.

We find it's extremely difficult to win a game by completely controlling one temple.

Thread: Doing something wrong -- a battle for temple 1

alexd — 2008-07-30T06:43:28+00:00

We've only played a few games, but it seems that defending against a temple 1 control win is the focus -- the first two games we didn't appreciate this, and so one player was able to do it. After that, it didn't actually happen, but it was always a heavy threat, forcing plays to stop it -- and in every case, the person attempting it had at least one or two rounds where a pair of 4s would have won the game then and there.

Are we playing oddly, or is this normal -- both spending so much time defending against it (it's very "efficient" to go for 1 since you can drop a 1 in cartouche 3 most of the time) and the outright win becoming a matter of luck at some point?

As it is, we're not enjoying it much (I think we may be advised to stay away from "cards with numbers" in general, even if this turns out to not be an issue -- just not that fun to us, alas).

Thread: Re: Order of Actions / Who Has the Advantage?

Bernd — 2008-07-09T20:59:34+00:00

gamesbook wrote:

When you say "officially", who is it that you represent?
Thanks
Derek

Hi Derek, as a product manager at Queen Games one of the many tasks is to develop the games to a status of series-production readiness.
So, I am neither a publisher nor an author and for developer there is no "official" bgg geekbadge.
Hope that helps and all the best from germany
Bernd

Thread: Re: Order of Actions / Who Has the Advantage?

Colorado_Jeff — 2008-07-09T17:46:41+00:00

and here's a link showing his "official" queens games mailing address:

http://www.queen-games.de/index.php?searchword=Bernd+Dietric...=

Thread: Re: Order of Actions / Who Has the Advantage?

pastabatman — 2008-07-09T17:34:39+00:00

His profile says 'Product manager of german publisher editing board games' and with the 'Q' badge, it's a safe bet that publisher is Queen.

Thread: Re: Order of Actions / Who Has the Advantage?

gamesbook — 2008-07-09T17:18:55+00:00

Bernd wrote:
Ok, officially ...
Bernd
Bernd
When you say "officially", who is it that you represent?
Thanks
Derek

Thread: Re: Order of Actions / Who Has the Advantage?

Bernd — 2008-07-08T22:59:43+00:00

Ok, officially ...

Sungrazer wrote:
I'm playing Aton tonight for the first time and I want to make sure I have the order of actions right. My interpretation:

1) Each player draws four cards and plays one face down to each cartouche.

Correct. Keep in mind, that once in a game each player can discard those 4 cards and draw 4 new cards.

Sungrazer wrote:
2) Once both players have played to each cartouche, all eight cards are turned face up.

Correct.

Sungrazer wrote:
3) Cartouche 1 is resolved.

(note: Due to the comparison of the cards at cartouche 1 this step is played simultaneously.

Sungrazer wrote:
4) Cartouche 2 is resolved.
5) The beginning player removes counters (Cartouche 2).
6) The beginning player places counters (Cartouche 4).
7) The other player removes counters (Cartouche 2).
8) The other player places counters (Cartouche 4).

Correct.

Sungrazer wrote:
After a scoring round:

1) The leader removes one counter from any one temple.
2) The other player removes counter from any one temple.
3) Repeat 1) and 2) until four counters have been removed, each from a different temple if possible.

Correct.

As I may say a damn pretty good summarization

Hope that helps and all the best from germany
Bernd

Thread: Re: Order of Actions / Who Has the Advantage?

UnknownParkerBrother — 2008-07-08T18:22:46+00:00

Do whatever you enjoy, but understand that it's clearly wrong.

The white box in the rule book is very clear, the first player does all his moves, then the second player does all his.

Thread: Re: Order of Actions / Who Has the Advantage?

Franz S — 2008-07-08T09:00:38+00:00

My son and I agree with Daniel's turn order (player 1 removes, player 2 removes, player 1 places, player 2 places). We tried it both ways but feel this way makes the game more strategic. It is still a great game, everyone I show it to just loves it.

Thread: Re: Ignore 40 Point Victory Condition

tomchaps — 2008-07-07T22:48:57+00:00

I think that having a guaranteed second scoring round would throw off the game's balanced assymetry, in particular the scenario where one player is trying to force the second scoring round while the other tries to run out the clock with Cartouche 1 or filling a temple.

I love the fact that the second round (or round 1.5, or whatever) plays so differently than the first.

That said, it can be frustrating if one player is within 2-4 points of 40, and you get a low draw.

Thread: Re: Is Aton by Queen Games that good?

tomchaps — 2008-07-03T19:20:42+00:00

Since I picked this up cheap at a tag sale, I didn't have any expectations about the game. It has surprised me by becoming my single most-played game. It's not brain-burning or overly calculable, but for a game that takes 10 minutes, there is more tactical and strategic depth than I expected. In depth (not gameplay), it reminds me of Ra--each decision is limited in scope and quite manageable, but they feel meaningful nevertheless.

It's also not a game that can be fairly judged after a couple of plays. There are lots of different paths the game can go down, with unexpected assymetries. Frequently one player is trying to fill a temple to win, and sacrificing points everywhere else, while the other player tries to run out the clock and fill the Hall of the Dead before this can happen.

Also, at least two people I've played with have gone out and bought the game, and it's become their most-played game, too.

Thread: Re: Order of Actions / Who Has the Advantage?

gamesbook — 2008-06-29T08:53:18+00:00

pastabatman wrote:
We just played for the first time, and got the order wrong too (I agree with Gamegrunt's interpretation - we just missed the fine points of the 'white box'). The rules could be written much more simply. Having an action sequence spelled out (like in the 1st post of this thread) would have cleared up many of the queries here in the rules forum.
Agreed! Especially as I disagree with the OP's interpretation. Anyone ever tried to contact the publisher/designer to get a final arbitration on the rules?

Thread: Re: Order of Actions / Who Has the Advantage?

pastabatman — 2008-06-29T08:00:21+00:00

We just played for the first time, and got the order wrong too (I agree with Gamegrunt's interpretation - we just missed the fine points of the 'white box'). The rules could be written much more simply. Having an action sequence spelled out (like in the 1st post of this thread) would have cleared up many of the queries here in the rules forum. Despite that, I think it's a crunchy little game, and looking forward to many more plays.

Thread: Re: Order of Actions / Who Has the Advantage?

Gamegrunt — 2008-06-26T00:01:57+00:00

danbuster35 wrote:
Are you are saying that I'm correct or incorrect in how I see the turn order playing out.

Incorrect, at least in terms of the rules that came with my copy of Aton. Your take on the way the cartouches are played out changes the game significantly in that the 1st player loses the tactic of removing and placing pieces that might result in an immediate win through the total control of a temple, or control of all the green or yellow squares.

Gg

Thread: Re: Order of Actions / Who Has the Advantage?

danbuster35 — 2008-06-25T21:04:13+00:00

Are you are saying that I'm correct or incorrect in how I see the turn order playing out.

Thread: Re: Order of Actions / Who Has the Advantage?

Gamegrunt — 2008-06-25T03:18:22+00:00

"Cartouches 2 - 4 determine the order of play and show how many counters are to be removed or brought into play in which temples.

The player whose turn it is assesses cartouches 2 to 4 one after the other, then the other player follows." (White text box near the bottom of page -2-)

Note: Italics are mine.

Clearly, 2nd player does not remove his own or opponent's pieces until after the 1st player completes (assesses) cartouches 2-4.

Gg

Thread: Re: Order of Actions / Who Has the Advantage?

danbuster35 — 2008-06-25T02:29:52+00:00

ekted wrote:
Your order of play is correct.

There are reasons to want to go first: grab specific locations (bonus spaces) or to win an alternate victory condition. There are reasons to want to go last: just before scoring to make the best possible use of your markers, or to remove specific opponent markers. But often, the card you want to play on Cartouche #2 could be so useful elsewhere. Great game!

You and your opponent will be going back and forth removing and placing the same counters if the beginning player gets to remove AND place first. If the beginning player has placed his markers in a prime spot then the second player will just remove them on his turn and place his own markers there (of course this depends on how many markers he can remove)

My wife and I played this for the first time tonight (and quite enjoyed it) and we had the same questions about turn order. The rules are definitely not clear on this but, we believe that removing and placing tokens should be alternated in the round. Thus, turn order should be like this.

1. 1st cartouche resolved
2. 2nd cartouche resolved
3. Beginning player removes tokens
4. Second player removes tokens
5. Beginning player places tokens
6. Second player places tokens

If done this way the beginning player doesn't have the disadvantage of having the tokens he just placed immediately removed in the same round. It also gives the second player some tough decisions on what markers to remove in the next round.

Thread: Re: Playing a 4 value card in position 2 in every turn you can..

Devonelle — 2008-06-21T02:20:53+00:00

The Kingdom of the Dead is a suberb timing mechanic in this game.

Thread: Re: Is Aton by Queen Games that good?

Devonelle — 2008-06-21T01:50:35+00:00

Just finished our first two games. Call me crazy, but I see shades of ystaris-type mechanics here. Mykerinos, Amytitis, even Caylus! But in half the time it takes to play any of those games. There are certainly deeper strategies here then at first glance.

Want to play more games of this as the second game I played specifically to try to 'break' the game [by either filling a complete temple or the yellow or green bands.] No dice. Couldn't do it...

The different strategies in this game are subtle, and with a few games, can be fine-tuned to finesse. The 'hall of the dead' is a fantastic timing mechanism in the game that can certainly be exploited to your advantage.

I give this game high grades for it's simple rules, medium-depth strategy and short play time. Would highly recommend as a two-player game.

Thread: Re: Aton vs Amon / Portuguese Review

JohnnyBeGood — 2008-06-15T09:12:29+00:00

Recebi ontem o meu exemplar, e depois de o experimentar, não me decepcionou.
De facto o jogo é abstracto, mas também não iria exigir muito do tema, sendo este um "Area control" para 2. Julgo que os jogos de "area control" poderão sempre ser sujeitos a uma avaliação temática ingrata, pois na realidade existem milhares de opções que poderia ser usadas.
De facto este é um abstracto "colorido" com uma temática.

Só não posso concordar com a "Interacção: Reduzida" pois todos os "area control têm um nível de interacção elevado, quanto mais não seja porque "area control" obriga os jogadores a competirem por representatividade no tabuleiro.

A Interacção é feita dessa forma mesmo, quando removemos marcadores adversários dos templos para colocarmos lá os nossos.

Não me parece que possamos exigir muito de um "area control" para 2 jogadores e muito dificilmente será possível idealizar um jogo óptimo e ideal neste formato.

Thread: Re: Kingdom of the Dead - what significance ?

ekted — 2008-05-06T16:24:10+00:00

brainst0rm wrote:
Peter WCK wrote:
At the end of every round, the Kingdom is made vacant by returning all counters to the respective stock pile.

I know that this question was made a long time ago, but... No one replied to this sentence.

I never played this game, I was just reading the rules and I didn't found anywhere this "rule".
From what I understood by reading the rules the KoD is only made vacant after a scoring and not at the end of every turn. Did I read it right? or am I missing something? Because Peter told that was at the end of every turn and no one denied this.
He said "round", not "turn". "Round" is correct.

Thread: Re: Kingdom of the Dead - what significance ?

brainst0rm — 2008-05-06T13:21:50+00:00

Peter WCK wrote:
At the end of every round, the Kingdom is made vacant by returning all counters to the respective stock pile.

I know that this question was made a long time ago, but... No one replied to this sentence.

I never played this game, I was just reading the rules and I didn't found anywhere this "rule".
From what I understood by reading the rules the KoD is only made vacant after a scoring and not at the end of every turn. Did I read it right? or am I missing something? Because Peter told that was at the end of every turn and no one denied this.

Thread: Re: Ignore 40 Point Victory Condition

ekted — 2008-04-25T18:31:57+00:00

I don't find the VP-based endgame to be a qualitative issue. While it is the most common ending condition in practice, we still have some games that end with filled temples or green/yellow areas...and I love the threats they pose. However, I do have a quantitative problem with the VP end condition. Common scores after the first scoring round are in the 25-32 range. This is so close to 40 that it triggers some of what you addressed. I'd like the chance to be able to play a "normal" second round without the endgame looming so close. I think 50 or 60 points would be a better choice.

Thread: Ignore 40 Point Victory Condition

chansen2794 — 2008-04-25T16:45:04+00:00

The first couple games I've played of this always ended when someone scored a total of 40 or more points during the first cartouche segment. In response to this, our strategy after the first scoring round was just to throw our highest value cards on the first cartouche and disregard any temple strategy. This made the game sort of feel like a luck of the draw fest, with the victory going to the player lucky enough to get a 4 when his/her opponent got a handful of 1s and 2s.

In recent games, we've ignored the 40 point rule and just played until the Kingdom of the Dead fills up twice (two scoring rounds, basically). This has allowed us to focus more on the temples (though obviously the first cartouche is still important) and long-term game strategy. I've found the endgame to be much more tense with temple control varying between players. The final score in these games has typically been around 50 points.

Thread: Re: Is Aton by Queen Games that good?

mogli43 — 2008-03-06T08:47:09+00:00

Aton is one of the best (if not THE best) dedicated two player games I own.
My wife and I love playing it.

I think that it has several things that make it stand out:

1) Short setup and playing time (important when you have little kids..)
2) Multiple paths to victory - this gives the game a strategic level
where you have to decide which of the victory paths you want to pursue. That choice will effect your play in every turn. It also means you have to keep watching your opponent to see where her strategy is taking her - so that you don't suddenly find yourself on the verge of defeat because you were too busy concentrating on your plans you didn't notice she was filling up that temple...
3) Constant tactical choices - in addition to the strategy choice, every turn is a tactical choice of how to use the hand you were dealt, and trying to outguess your opponent.
4) Terrific artwork (though a pasted-on theme, but aren't many games like that..)

Go get it. You will not regret it.

Thread: Re: Is Aton by Queen Games that good?

gamesbook — 2008-03-06T05:12:54+00:00

tawny wrote:
Like the first person to reply said, Aton is great but it's really an abstract. It's not the kind of game I'd try out with my wife.
Have to disagree. Aton is only an abstract if every other Euro is an abstract too - of course, some people think this anyway My wife and I do like this game; easy to pick up and learn but hard to win. Great value for money.

Thread: Re: Is Aton by Queen Games that good?

Gamegrunt — 2008-03-06T03:59:35+00:00

I've played over 40 games and I'd play at least 40 more. The threat of dominating a temple or one of the colors (green or yellow) and winning in those ways can sometimes be realized, so it isn't only about the first player to 40 points. I doubt whether the game can be truly appreciated after only a couple of plays - there is depth to it.

Aton is a lot of game in a very small box; it is better than Lost Cities, the Gipf series games I've experienced, or cribbage because of its many textures and well-integrated mechanisms. The ability to discard and redraw only one very bad hand can prevent a disasterous round but is therefore a highly strategic decision. The Hall of the Dead scoring round trigger is genious, the game is gorgeous, and it plays in the right amount of time.

Gg

Thread: Re: Is Aton by Queen Games that good?

tawny — 2008-03-06T03:51:25+00:00

Like the first person to reply said, Aton is great but it's really an abstract. It's not the kind of game I'd try out with my wife.

Thebes is OK for 2, but really intended for more.

Thread: Re: Is Aton by Queen Games that good?

Larry Welborn — 2008-03-05T23:06:45+00:00

My wife and I like Thebes a lot. Aton did not go over as well. I thought it was ok, my wife didn't like it at all.

Thread: Re: Is Aton by Queen Games that good?

sos1 — 2008-03-05T22:56:41+00:00

Meh. It reads better than it plays. We were looking forward to trying it, but by the second game the choices seemed obvious and repetitive. Traded it away ...

Thread: Re: Is Aton by Queen Games that good?

the1jugg — 2008-03-05T22:52:57+00:00

For the price I think Aton is great. It is a very compact game (my wife and I played it in the hotel of the city where we bought it) and easy to learn (I read the rules in the um... office... and then we started playing when the kids went to sleep).

You are dealt 4 cards and must choose how to play those cards to maximize your placement. Sometimes you get bad draws, but that is usually offset by good draws later. It is very confrontational, but not in a nasty way (you place your tokens while removing your opponents, which does not come off as nasty since its the only way to play)

We can usually fit 2 or 3 games in an hour, and its often a game we play when we dont want lots of setup time, or consulting rules.

Most importantly, my wife loves it.

As for Thebes... I'll have to let you know. Its coming in the mail "any day now". All I can say, is that its more than twice the
price.

If you're interested I have a geeklist showing quick thoughts on games my wife and I play : http://www.boardgamegeek.com/geeklist/23631

Jugg

Thread: Re: Is Aton by Queen Games that good?

Conphas — 2008-03-05T22:52:35+00:00

My wife and I enjoy Aton as well. It is nothing like Thebes though, not even thematically.
Multiple paths to victory are always good, even though we almost always end the game on points. Filling all the green or yellow boxes is just really hard for us. Its got a nice mix of luck and skill. Go buy it if you are thinking about it. Pretty inexpensive compared to a lot of our other games.

Thread: Re: Is Aton by Queen Games that good?

peacmyer — 2008-03-05T22:37:56+00:00

I like Aton quite a bit, but it's more of an abstract area-control game.

Thebes is more pick-up-and-deliverish, so it scratches a different itch for me.

Thread: Is Aton by Queen Games that good?

tbftne — 2008-03-05T22:23:31+00:00

I am considering picking up Aton by Queen Games. Is this a good 2 player game? How is it for a wife/gf? Is it better than Thebes for two?

Image

jsper — 2008-02-17T15:51:56+00:00

Piece board 6 of 6

Image

jsper — 2008-02-17T15:47:20+00:00

Piece board 5 of 6

Image

jsper — 2008-02-17T15:28:17+00:00

Piece board 4 of 6

Image

jsper — 2008-02-17T14:25:28+00:00

Piece board 3 of 6

Image

jsper — 2008-02-17T14:22:31+00:00

Piece board 2 of 6

Image

jsper — 2008-02-17T14:19:58+00:00

Piece board 1 of 6

Image

jsper — 2008-02-17T10:02:22+00:00

Back of the cards

Image

jsper — 2008-02-17T09:56:47+00:00

Inside box artwork

Thread: Re: Missing counter piece

unisonic23 — 2008-02-13T11:43:34+00:00

Already got a reply. Thanks for the suggestion!
-Chris

Thread: Re: Missing counter piece

unisonic23 — 2008-02-13T03:47:25+00:00

I sent a comment. Thanks for the suggestion.

Thread: Re: Missing counter piece

Gamegrunt — 2008-02-13T02:22:46+00:00

Nevermind Queen, e-mail Rio Grande Games, the U.S. distributer of Aton. Mr. Tummelson will take care of your request.

Gg

Thread: Missing counter piece

unisonic23 — 2008-02-12T22:18:00+00:00

I am missing my blue counter piece and I am wondering if anyone has had any luck in replacement pieces through Queen?

Thanks
Chris

Thread: Re: When Aton Was in Egypt's Land...

Zwerchfell — 2008-02-11T07:50:43+00:00

Great review! I finally got around playing the game as well and I really like it a lot. Great 2 player game with a lot re-playability.

Thread: Re: <2 in cartouche #2

UnknownParkerBrother — 2008-02-05T21:00:36+00:00

I really don't see how this was even a debate. The rules are quite clear on this. Quoting from the cartouche 2 segment of the english rules:

"Note: The card next to cartouche 3 shows which temples the counters can be removed from."

This clearly states that C3 establishes which temples counters are removed from. This is C3's *only* purpose in the game. Ignoring it when it actually matters would be wacky. Further:

"If there are not enough counters available in the temples, just those available are removed."

And this equally clearly states what happens if there aren't enough evailable to be removed.

Side is irrelevant. If you're supposed to remove 2 of your opponent's counters, and he only has 1 available, tough noogies. If you can arrange it so that none of yours will be available to be removed, great move.

Thread: Aton vs Amon / Portuguese Review

nnoc — 2008-02-03T18:56:40+00:00

]]>

Aton é um jogo de estratégia para dois jogadores em que as decisões se sucedem e são sempre um dilema. Com um bom equilíbro entre sorte e estratégia, acaba por ter uma jogabilidade rápida, seduzindo os jogadores de forma muito eficaz. O motor do jogo são cartas, que vão determinar a colocação de peças num tabuleiro, envolvendo os jogadores numa competição pelas casas mais pontuáveis e acabando por dar resultado a um jogo intenso e notável. Com um visual atractivo e cuidado, comum nos produtos da Queen Games, este jogo é da autoria de Thorsten Gimmler, criador de vários jogos conhecidos.

Componentes: Fornecido numa pequena caixa, todos os componentes são de qualidade e de excelente grafismo relacionado com o tema proposto para o jogo. As cartas são pequenas, os marcadores em madeira e o tabuleiro em cartão é formado por seis peças que depois de unidas o compõem, proporcionando um bonito resultado visual. As regras são claras e contêm muitos exemplos.

Duração: 20 minutos.

Repetitibilidade: Média. O jogo não apresenta grande variação, ficando dependente do gosto pessoal de quem o experimenta. O facto de ser um jogo abstrato pode ser uma menor valia para quem aprecia jogos fortemente temáticos.

Apropriado para jogadores casuais: Pouco a Moderado
Apropriado para jogadores frequentes: Muito
Apropriado para jogadores veteranos: Moderado

Interacção: Reduzida. Marcadamente individualista, este jogo evidencia a corrida pelas casas mais valiosas, momento máximo de interactividade.

Tema: Fraco. Qualquer outro tema tinha servido para este jogo.

Notas: Devido a alguma complexidade, este jogo poderá não ser o mais adequado a jogadores casuais, mas sim a quem tenha já alguma experiência de outros jogos.

Luis Nunes

Image

nnoc — 2008-01-20T18:37:19+00:00

Playing Pieces

Image

nnoc — 2008-01-20T18:36:12+00:00

The 4 Card Values

Thread: Re: Order of Actions / Who Has the Advantage?

Gamegrunt — 2008-01-02T18:13:08+00:00

tomchaps wrote:
ekted wrote:
Your order of play is correct.

There are reasons to want to go first: grab specific locations (bonus spaces) or to win an alternate victory condition. There are reasons to want to go last: just before scoring to make the best possible use of your markers, or to remove specific opponent markers. But often, the card you want to play on Cartouche #2 could be so useful elsewhere. Great game!

My last game turned on this ruling--in the English language rules, the alternate victory conditions are triggered when Cartouche 1 or 4 is "assessed". However, we found it unclear if this "assessment" of Cartouche 4 occurs when one player finishes their moves, or both.

In this situation, I had to place only two more chits to fill Temple 1. I played a 1 on Catouche 2, and he played a 4. At the end of my play, I had filled the temple. However, my opponent could remove two of my chits on his turn...

Are the German rules clearer? The Finnish?

We always play that the game ends immediately when a victory condition has been met. That is why playing that "1" in the 2nd Cartouche is often the way to go.

Gg

Thread: Re: A Ton of Abstract Fun

tomchaps — 2008-01-02T17:50:09+00:00

Agreed. I picked this game up for $1 at a tag sale--still shrinkwrapped! Given the mediocre ratings here, I didn't expect much, but this is becoming my most-played game, and now two more people in my family have bought copies. Fast, agonizing, but not too paralyzing.

I love it when opponents start competing for alternate victory conditions--say, when Temple 1 is almost filled, but the other player has 37 points, and is throwing down 3s and 4s on Cartouche 1. I've not seen this mentioned in other reviews, but frequently in such situations there is a good deal of bluffing.