Game: Stonehenge

Thread: Re: Anyone else feel Stonehenge had potential, but is a HUGE letdown?

docreason — 2008-07-10T16:20:51+00:00

generalpf wrote:
Cinnibar wrote:
Designing around components isn't very new. Treehouse/Icehouse is a game set built around what can one do with a set of generic pyramids. Scary how many options there are with that. Piecepack is one of the definitive of this genre though, built originally for being the pieces used by game designers.
Actually, I used Icehouse and Piecepack as a point of comparison. I've been exposed to the games you can play with those and wasn't in the least bit impressed. Given how the Stonehenge pieces were even less flexible I didn't see this concept as having a hope in hell of succeeding.

Sorry, but I'm a firm believer in the components being made to match the game, not the other way around.

You do have things like Dominoes and decks of cards, that have a LOT of unique games done for them, that are good. If the equipment is robust enough, like in Piecepack and Icehouse, then you can get a bunch of interesting designs. I believe the issues with Stonehenge is that they tried to go somewhere between theming and abstractness of components, which has resulted in a game system that relies HEAVILY upon a 1-30 randomizer deck. A large number of the designs people came up with center around having a range of 1-30. The deck is actually an interesting deck to design card games around. But it is included as a randomizer, so the cards don't really work as playing cards.

I designed 1/3 to 1/2 of the games in the library. I say the lack of a killer app in the box has hurt. There isn't a single highly rated game in there at all. This hurt, and the set not being robust enough doesn't help much either.

All this being said, I would ask anyone who has the game to check out designs I did. I have done a bunch of games for Stonehenge of a range of types. I did gravitate towards abstract strategy, because I found the outward track actually interesting. If anyone has any questions about what I did, please let me know.

Thread: Re: Chariots of Stonehenge Question

kevster — 2008-07-10T16:07:09+00:00

Thanks a lot for your help!!

Thread: Re: Chariots of Stonehenge Question

jhunterj — 2008-07-10T14:43:26+00:00

kevster wrote:
I just picked this game up and despite the negative reviews here on the geek i'm very excited to try out the games as they sound quite fun. I have a quick question of the racing game:

In the getting started section it says to put one disc in the capstone of a trilithon. After that it makes no mention of why this disc is placed there. It only talks about placing trilithons on the track as blocking stones. What is the purpose of placing a disc in the capstone?

Also, is the only way to be able to place a trilithon as a blocking stone is to have drawn one of he trilithon cards from the deck?

One more question: In order to build 2 blocking stones on one turn must you have used bid at least 2 crystals in the appropriate phase? Or can you build 2 blocking stones with only one crystal?

Thanks for any help!

You place a disc in it to identify ownership, since the Trilithons themselves aren't color-coded to the player colors -- your own Trilithon doesn't impact your own movement, only that of your opponents'.

Yes, you can only place it when you play a Trilithon card along with a number.

Yes, you have to bid X (or more) in order to place X blocking stones.

Thread: Chariots of Stonehenge Question

kevster — 2008-07-08T05:58:01+00:00

I just picked this game up and despite the negative reviews here on the geek i'm very excited to try out the games as they sound quite fun. I have a quick question of the racing game:

In the getting started section it says to put one disc in the capstone of a trilithon. After that it makes no mention of why this disc is placed there. It only talks about placing trilithons on the track as blocking stones. What is the purpose of placing a disc in the capstone?

Also, is the only way to be able to place a trilithon as a blocking stone is to have drawn one of he trilithon cards from the deck?

One more question: In order to build 2 blocking stones on one turn must you have used bid at least 2 crystals in the appropriate phase? Or can you build 2 blocking stones with only one crystal?

Thanks for any help!

Thread: Re: Essen promo book

kduke — 2008-07-01T05:07:32+00:00

So did anyone every think to produce this book in English for folks who didn't go to Essen?

Thread: Re: Stonehenge review

Doombellow — 2008-06-27T21:07:32+00:00

Buy this game to create other games with the components?!?!

There is nothing special about them either (in addition to the game rules). An industrious person could make all the components on their own out of modeling clay, a poster board and using a few miniatures that they already own.

Totally un-impressed with this product.

Thread: Re: Anyone else feel Stonehenge had potential, but is a HUGE letdown?

generalpf — 2008-04-28T03:21:25+00:00

Thread: Re: Anyone else feel Stonehenge had potential, but is a HUGE letdown?

adreeve — 2008-04-28T02:55:28+00:00

ColtsFan76 wrote:
So based on a game that I was very interested in but quickly forgot about and had no further buzz to remind me about it makes me think this was definitely a dud. I thank the community for not letting me waste my money on this!

It looks like you made the right call. Maybe they'll dump their existing inventory via Tanga soon and you'll be able to get it for pennies on the dollar... if you even want it for pennies on the dollar.

Thread: Re: Anyone else feel Stonehenge had potential, but is a HUGE letdown?

adreeve — 2008-04-28T02:51:47+00:00

Cinnibar wrote:
Designing around components isn't very new. Treehouse/Icehouse is a game set built around what can one do with a set of generic pyramids. Scary how many options there are with that. Piecepack is one of the definitive of this genre though, built originally for being the pieces used by game designers.

I tried the Stonehedge set, and yes, it introduces some new 'pieces', but frankly the themeing of everything made even the sample game I tried at Origins very 'clunky'. I didn't pick this up then or since, which should give anyone who knows me a good indication of my feelings about this attempt. Nice try, theme too over bearing.

I did get two Piecepack sets and a Treehouse tube and replacement pieces at Origins, though.

I don't disagree with this at all, but I think my core point may have been missed. It's one thing for us as consumers to decide that this isn't for us... but in this case I don't even think the publisher gave this a fighting chance as without a game design contest this isn't very different from anything else. Plenty of games are already available as are "sets of pieces".

Your point about the Stonehenge theme being a turn off due to the clunky nature in which the games were related to it is a great one. I suspect they had plans of trying to get this into Toys R Us and Target by being a value product (5 games plus a bunch more I can get online for under $50) and they felt a cool theme/artwork was needed, but that never happened. In fact, I'm a bit surprised Nocturne made it out the door given where this all went.

As for Icehouse and Piecepack (not to mention a simple deck of playing cards)... yes, I have sets of those too as I'm a sucker for this kind of thing. I was just hoping a commercial effort might generate more interest.

I'd love to hear from anyone with any insight as to Titanic's or Paizo's actual perspective versus my speculation.

Thread: Re: Anyone else feel Stonehenge had potential, but is a HUGE letdown?

Jeffrey Henning — 2008-04-28T02:19:51+00:00

I feel the same way. I big fan of Mike Selinker, and I thought Stonehenge was a fascinating idea. I made sure to check out a copy at last year's BGG.CON and play it. I read much of the game booklet and played the race game. In the end, I decided that it was not for me. I can't quite articulate where the game system failed, so chalk it up to personal preferences.

Thread: Re: Anyone else feel Stonehenge had potential, but is a HUGE letdown?

ColtsFan76 — 2008-04-27T13:02:30+00:00

Having never played this, I feel confident in saying - Yes, it is a huge letdown.

What I mean by that is I was very interested in the game - especially given the designers coming to the table. And while it got some initial buzz, it was almost immediately drowned out by negative or lackluster reviews. I decided then to wait to see if the buzz continued beyond the initial release and have heard practically nothing else since that time.

So based on a game that I was very interested in but quickly forgot about and had no further buzz to remind me about it makes me think this was definitely a dud. I thank the community for not letting me waste my money on this!

Thread: Re: Anyone else feel Stonehenge had potential, but is a HUGE letdown?

Cinnibar — 2008-04-27T10:01:54+00:00

Designing around components isn't very new. Treehouse/Icehouse is a game set built around what can one do with a set of generic pyramids. Scary how many options there are with that. Piecepack is one of the definitive of this genre though, built originally for being the pieces used by game designers.

I tried the Stonehedge set, and yes, it introduces some new 'pieces', but frankly the themeing of everything made even the sample game I tried at Origins very 'clunky'. I didn't pick this up then or since, which should give anyone who knows me a good indication of my feelings about this attempt. Nice try, theme too over bearing.

I did get two Piecepack sets and a Treehouse tube and replacement pieces at Origins, though.

Thread: Re: Anyone else feel Stonehenge had potential, but is a HUGE letdown?

generalpf — 2008-04-27T06:32:04+00:00

Great games are hard enough to design as it is, and someone got the idea to restrict designers to a limited set of components? Sorry, but this idea never had any potential in my mind.

Thread: Anyone else feel Stonehenge had potential, but is a HUGE letdown?

adreeve — 2008-04-27T06:25:11+00:00

I was excited when Stonehenge was announced. The idea of a modular gaming system that had somewhat generic components flexible enough for a multitude of good games has great appeal to me. Then on top of that they got some big names in the industry to design games for it to "kick it off"... well, that sounded like a hit.

Now, I'm not someone that was disappointed with the included games... I think they're decent. Yes, there are 'better' ones of each theme available... but that wasn't the point.

Then I heard Mike Selinker's talk at Origins during which we saw pre-release copies of the some of the future Stonehenge: Nocturne stuff and I could have sworn he said there was going to be a game design competition for Essen. I've also seen the reports of a promo booklet for Essen that apparently never made it to the states. (And in no way am I blaming Mike for anything... he was just the face on the game at Origins '07)

Anyhow... now for the rant... it seems that Paizo... Titantic... whomever has COMPLETELY dropped the ball with this product. I see no 'demos' of it in GenCon 2008's schedule. I see no more expansions. I also see little about Nocturne. It's as if the white flag has gone up and they're surrendered to a failed idea which is sad.

Ultimately, it just seems like common sense that with a system for designing games a "game design competition" with some prizes is just what this needed. And to see them not even try...

Thread: More sessions of Magic of Stonehenge

waferthinninja — 2008-02-25T13:09:55+00:00

We had some time after playing Shadows Over Camelot, so we played 2 games of Magic of Stonehenge, which we remembered as one of the quicker Stonehenge games. Its the one where you each play a card, with either Night or Day as trumps, and whoever plays the highest gets you an "apprentice" on the board. 6 apprentices gets you your Trilothon, and clears your apprentices. Get them all on the board again to win.

When we had played it previously, I did rather well, and almost won, pipped at the post by Baz. This time around I was rubbish. In our previous play, everyone played very cautiously, playing the null Trilothon card a lot until they had built up a big hand. I tried to take advantage of this by playing more riskily - but unfortunately everyone had the same idea. This led to some elongated rounds, and at one point Baz won with a non-trump card, getting 3 bonus cards. We learned that when this happens, you *should* just back out and let them win one more apprentice. What actually happened is that everyone still kept trying to win a sneaky one, but Baz had them covered every time with his inflated hand, and he pretty much got his Trilothon in a single round. He stormed to victory fairly quickly.

The second game went just as badly for me. I was pretty much at full tilt by now - it seemed every time I played I would be pipped by a point - usually by Baz. I was the only one without his Trilothon up when I think Baz won again. This is definitley Baz's game. He would make a good card counter.

Thread: Re: Stonehenge review

FunkyBlue — 2008-02-02T12:05:24+00:00

The review is 100% spot on.

Honestly, guys, I tried this out at Origins in 2007 and I was terribly unimpressed. I was set to demo the Garfield variant and it wasn't even themed for Stonehenge. It was basically just a card game with very frustrating scoring. You could pull a nice high 22 card and even though your piece is almost at the top of the scale, someone always pulls a 23 and your piece is suddenly off the map. The only thing that scoring method provided for gameplay was lengthening game time. The guys demoing the game also didn't advertise the fact that there were four other versions to demo so I sat there wondering how a game called Stonehenge had all these pieces, yet we used none of them. It wasn't until GenCon 07 that I actually saw others playing the other games in the box and I still wasn't impressed enough after sticking around to decide if I wanted it or not.

I still can't find enough value in that box to justify the $40.00 convention price tag they had on it. Especially when they had that very nice new set of Kill Doctor Lucky (excellent production values, btw. All wood pieces, great card stock, and nice artwork on the board and cards) for only $35.00. For the quality of the cheap plastic pieces, I think they could have definitely brought this box down to about $30.00.

Now, as for people saying "Well, build your own games", I would not buy a game hoping I could just build a better game out of its pieces. Sure, if you like to design games, it's fun but I'm a player. When I drop a good chunk of change on a game like this, I'm looking for a good game. Not a good Lego set. If the best use for this set is for new game creation, they should just market it as such. Remove the rules and put in some of the user-created rules with advice on new creation.

Thread: Re: Original English Rule?

vandeti — 2008-01-22T15:30:54+00:00

still no translations on the web ?

Thread: Games 3 and 4

waferthinninja — 2008-01-22T14:11:33+00:00

We played the next few games from the Stonehenge anthology.

-----------------------
Auction Blocks was designed by a man whose name I forget, who has designed games for Cheapass including Kill Doctor Lucky and Button Men. The premise is that the owners of stonehenge are fed up with it and selling the stones off at auction.

The coloured discs were used to represent the stones being auctioned, and the cards were used to represent bids. In each auction, cards of the same colour as the stone being auctioned counted as trumps, and would outrank a higher score of a non-trump colour. The exception to this was when one of the bids contained a trilithon card, which mean there were no trumps and the card value was the only thing that mattered.

Bids were placed face down, starting with the player who won the last stone (or simultaneously in the first round), then revealed. A bid had to contain card of the same colour only (e.g. all green, or all red), or the player could pass. The highest bid won the stone and scored points equal to the amount of that colour the player now had, so winning the first red stone was worth 2, winning a second was worth 3 etc.

The twist came when replenishing cards at the end of the round. The winner of the stone gets no cards, the *lowest* bidder gets 2 cards, everyone else gets 1.

I just never got into the swing of it - I drew lots of black cards (which are never trumps since there are no black stones) and lots of middling numbers, so I could rarely even play for the 2 card bonus. Baz managed to score a whole load of one colour, and won convincingly. We enjoyed it, but felt it was the weakest of the games we had played so far.

----------------------------------
Chariots of Stonehenge was designed by yet another bloke I cant remember the name of, but he was behind Risk Godstorm and Axis and Allies. This had the craziest premise, that stonehenge had become a kind of racetrack for futuristic spaceships. The charioteers would use telekinetic beams to knock the stones in front of their opponents.

The rules sounded complicated when they were read out, but were suprisingly simple in play. It reminded me a bit of Formula De, but with far more player interaction (read "backstabbing") so I loved it.

Each player starts with 4 power stones, and picks up more as they reach checkpoints on the track. The players have to distribute their power each round between blocking (powering their telekinetic beams to place stones on the track) and thrust (to go faster). Each player had cards which determined where they could place their blocking stones.

A stone would only block half the track, either the pit lane (which was rubbly and had twice as many spaces, making it slow going) or the outside lane. Once someone smashed through a block it was destroyed, so the order of play was important, with the person spending the most power going first in each phase, with ties determined by position - leader going first. This gave a naturally balancing effect, with the person in the lead forced to negotiate the obstacles first, possibly clearing them for those behind them.

If a player could not pay the thrust to negotiate an obstacle, then they would crash and permanently lose a power stone.

The game was nip and tuck the whole way round. I managed to keep the lead for the first half, briefly losing it to Baz. Then disaster stuck, and I was forced to crash by the sheer weight of obstacles in my way. This basically put me out of the running. Tim had played the "tortoise" role, being at the back for much of the game, but building up obstacles later on the track. This gave him the edge to take the lead at the end, and he pipped the others in a photo finish with everyone except me, who would have needed another round to cross the line

I think the game was a suprise winner, great fun.

Thread: Games 1 and 2

waferthinninja — 2008-01-22T14:09:31+00:00

Stonehenge is an interesting product that is like a pack of cards or a chess board - a set of components with which you can play many different games. There are 5 included in the game box, and I believe a number of others have been published on the web.

The components are:
- a board which looks a bit like a roulette wheel - 30 numbered and coloured sections round the edge. In the middle is an altar block and space for 5 of the famous pi shaped "trilothons" of Stonehenge
- 5 plastic trilothons
- 10 discs each of 5 colours
- 10 small bars each of 5 colours
- 1 pawn of each of 5 colour
- a pack of cards
- 5 cards depict trilothons and have a coloured blob
- Cards numbered 1 - 30 with a sun symbol
- Cards numbered 1 - 30 with a moon symbol
(the numbered cards also have colours, I think corresponding to their colour on the wheel - it wasnt relevant in the games we played so I'm not sure of this)

The games were simple to learn, but had a suprising depth.

---------
The first game we played I cant remember the name of, but was designed by the bloke who did Citadels (Ohne Furcht Und Adel). The premise was that there was an election for the position of High Druid, and seemed to be a satirical take on the US electoral system.

The wheel of numbers is split up into various sized "colleges" using the small bars of a neutral colour, for example the numbers 1 to 3 might make up one college, 4 - 9 might be another and so on - seven colleges in total.

Each player has 7 druids who could be placed in the numbered spots, and 2 bars which represent the ability to shift the diving bar between two colleges by a space. In my example, you could move the bar between 3 and 4 to be between 4 and 5, adjusting the size and makeup of the colleges.

Players take turns taking actions - either placing a druid or moving a bar - until they pass. Once all players have passed, the colleges are scored. Each college votes as a block for the player with the most druids in that college. E.g. if blue had druids on 1 and 2, green had a druid on 3, and red had a druid on 4, then the college 1-4 would put all its 4 votes towards blue. However, in the case of a tie, the next highest person wins the votes, even if they have noone at all in the college. E.g. in a 4 player game, a 6 vote college might be split 2-2-2 - the 4th player with NO druids would win the 6 votes.

This "ties are disqualified" principle also applies to the greater vote for the overall win, so if after all colleges had voted, blue and green were tied on 10 points, red on 8 points and yellow on 6, then red would win.

To complicate things, each player is dealt a secret "taboo" card - one of the trilothon cards showing a colour. A players druids on spaces of that colour are ignored. They also have a secret "fetish"? card - one of the numbered cards. If they control the college containing that number, they get 2 extra votes.

We played 2 games of this.

The first game is a bit of a blur, I dont think anyone really knew what they were doing, and I think Tim won by a clear margin.

The second game people had formulated strategies. Baz went for a strategy of using his early turns to expand the largest college and take control. The downfall of this strategy was that it made it fairly easy to calculate his score - 10, making the assuption that the college contained his fetish. He had expanded his college to contain my fetish, so had scuppered my chances of winning by sheer weight of votes. I had to try and manipulate the others into having 10 points too. I almost managed it, Tim and Baz both ended on 10 points. Steve however had 8, since he did not get to score his fetish. If he had it would have been 10 each and my 4 votes would have won. As it was only Tim and Baz were disqualified, and Steve took the game with his 8.

Great backstabbing fun - one of the signs of how good a game it is is that I had so much fun despite being in a terrible position from early on.

--------------
The second game was Magic of Stonehenge, by Richard Garfield.

This was mainly a card game, with other components mostly used to keep score. The "sun" and "moon" on the cards represented a "suit" for the purposes of trumping - i.e. in any given round either sun or moon would be trumps. If sun was trumps, then "Sun 1" would be higher than "30 Moon".

Each player had a hand of the numbered cards, plus a trilothon card which represented withdrawing from the round, and would always be returned to the players hand. A round consisted of each playing a card and revealing them simultaneously. The highest card would get to place one of his "apprentices" (discs) on the board at the number of the card he won with, or the highest avaliable spot if that was alerady filled. If you placed your 6th one on the board, you removed them all and placed your Trilothon piece on the board. Get to 6 again and you "cast the spell" and won the game.

Apprentices on the board were not safe - if you lost a round, and didnt play your "withdraw" card, then you had to move one of your apprentices down a number of spaces equal to the number you played - e.g. if you had a guy on number 27 and you played a 26 but lost, you would have to move him down to 1. If you had played a 27 and lost he would fall off the board completely. This meant if you had noone on the board, you could take as many risks as you liked, and if you had apprentices in high places you could also be a bit riskier.

If anyone paid a penalty (i.e. unless it was just the winner who did not withdraw) then another round was played. If everyone (but the winner) withdrew, then everyone draws 3 cards and simultaneously discards down to a hand size of 6. Whoever discards the highest value of cards gets to either
a) change trumps, or keep tumps as they are
or
b) discard and redraw any number of cards.

Whoever discarded the next highest total value of cards could take the option that the first person didnt take. E.g. they could redraw if the other person changed trumps.

We seemed to all have a similar tactic for this game, playing very cautiously and withdrawing a lot until you built up a monster hand. I had the first monster hand, and got a lot of bods on early. I took a few losses over the next rounds, but my apprentices stayed on and I soon got my Trilothon. Baz got his next, Tim later, and Steve never even got his Trilothon on before myself and Baz were 2 or 3 away from casting the victory spell.

Baz was 1 pog from victory, so we had to pull out our best shot to stop him - however my hand was all the non-trump suit, and Baz beat Tims card by one point, taking the win. Damn you Dore!!
-------------

All in all great games with suprising depth

Image

EricMatt — 2008-01-16T12:31:45+00:00

French edition box

Thread: Re: Stonehenge review

super... — 2008-01-13T02:22:57+00:00

Well thats fine for you and all but i did buy the game to make games for it. I even got my first game published in print (In the essen fair rulebook. I guess I'm such a fan of your chess variant that I wanted to see what you would do with the box.

Thread: Re: Stonehenge review

weishaupt — 2008-01-12T16:52:22+00:00

super... wrote:
if you don't like the games that come with it, make your own.
Yeah, right. Except we're all paying good money for the actual *game designs* and not just for the bits of plastic.
And seriously, this comment could be made about pretty much any game. Sorry, but the folks behind Stonehenge didn't invent the concept of coming up with new games using existing game pieces. My three girls have been doing it for years, opening up Ursuppe, or Ticket to Ride, or Ra and creating all sorts of different games.
How is Stonehenge any different? The difference is that the rules that come with the box are BAD, as opposed to the rules that come with Ra, or Ticket to Ride, or Ursuppe.

Thread: Re: Stonehenge review

super... — 2008-01-12T06:10:30+00:00

if you don't like the games that come with it, make your own.

Thread: 3 Games of the political game

stoop76 — 2008-01-08T20:42:48+00:00

(Is it just me or writing the first lines of a session is awfully painful?)

Stonehenge is quite an intriguing game, so I was eager to open the box after I received it for Christmas.

(There, Intro: check!)

We played 3 games of the Political game by B. Faidutti that evening (I know, game nights are short with 2 babies on our hands) I read the rules out loud, we figured it out quite fast, and went on.

In our first game, two of my friends randomly picked the exact same card number, so had to fight for the same school to get their extra 2 points. I won 12-8-6-5. I had 2 schools and the bonus (7+3 and the 2 bonus points)

In our second game, the same two friends picked cards in the same school again, I thus won again with 2 schools and the bonus

In our third game, well, you guessed it, I won again with 2 schools.

Nothing fancy about this game, place all your markers, count your points, and that's about it.

Some remarks:
Playing first seems to be an advantage in selecting the schools and staying ahead.

There are 28+8 possible points in a 4 player game, so scoring 10-12 points should be your goal. Often keeping 2 schools is enough to win.

(* I have the french version of the game so the term "school" may be inaccurate in English)

Mat

Image

chezzilla — 2008-01-02T18:05:10+00:00

Stonehenge at ESSEN

Image

chezzilla — 2008-01-02T18:04:27+00:00

Image

Artax — 2008-01-01T15:47:48+00:00

Image

Artax — 2008-01-01T15:46:54+00:00

Thread: Re: Essen promo book

docreason — 2007-11-26T19:31:29+00:00

super... wrote:
I got my copies a few weeks ago (i recently moved so i have not posted about this). The games in the book are (Presented in their German titles)

Der Hohe Rat
By Volker Hesselmann

Erbaut Stonehenge!
By Dustin D. Trammell

Rollende Steine
By Tyler Tinsley

Trilithen Knallen
By Nicolas and Vloker Hesselmann

Opferruoulette
by Jason Bulmahn

I'm really happy with the production quality of the book. the new artwork for each game and layout match the original game's rulebook perfectly. I really love the new courses they came up with for rolling rocks. They are much easier to play and they fit the games feel much more then my originals.

So, would you say it looks like they went for themed games in that (or perhaps just German designers)? I am a bit disappointed none of my games made it. Anyhow, just curious what is going on. Thanks for the feedback. Some of the game names I don't recognize.

Thread: Re: Essen promo book

super... — 2007-11-26T10:30:39+00:00

I got my copies a few weeks ago (i recently moved so i have not posted about this). The games in the book are (Presented in their German titles)

Der Hohe Rat
By Volker Hesselmann

Erbaut Stonehenge!
By Dustin D. Trammell

Rollende Steine
By Tyler Tinsley

Trilithen Knallen
By Nicolas and Vloker Hesselmann

Opferruoulette
by Jason Bulmahn

I'm really happy with the production quality of the book. the new artwork for each game and layout match the original game's rulebook perfectly. I really love the new courses they came up with for rolling rocks. They are much easier to play and they fit the games feel much more then my originals.

Thread: Re: Essen promo book

docreason — 2007-11-25T23:42:54+00:00

super... wrote:
Anyone pick this up at Essen? I know it's all in germen but maybe someone out there got a copy anyway. I know my game Rolling Rocks was printed in it but i want to try out the other games that were picked.

Any other ideas of what games are in there? I am curious if any of my games made it.

Thread: Re: Stonehenge review

docreason — 2007-11-24T02:43:40+00:00

Hey I like my designs for it :-)

Thread: Re: Original English Rule?

vandeti — 2007-11-06T13:18:33+00:00

I'm also in need of the original English rules

Thread: Essen promo book

super... — 2007-11-04T10:53:02+00:00

Anyone pick this up at Essen? I know it's all in germen but maybe someone out there got a copy anyway. I know my game Rolling Rocks was printed in it but i want to try out the other games that were picked.

Image

Lgb-JohnDoe — 2007-10-23T16:28:49+00:00

Stonehenge Overview - SPIEL'07 -

Image

Gonzaga — 2007-10-23T16:01:37+00:00

At Essen 2007

Image

Ceryon — 2007-10-22T19:35:24+00:00

Image

Curufea — 2007-10-22T01:26:35+00:00

Board setup for "Thief of the Sacred Fire"

Image

ArtEmiSa64 — 2007-10-21T19:47:23+00:00

Thread: Re: Stonehenge review

Bixby — 2007-10-12T20:54:37+00:00

Gnomekin wrote:
It's not actually a comment on the review but that is one wicked cool avatar, Matt.

Thanks. Guinness Drinkin' Squirrell - Not an avatar, a way of life.

Thread: Re: Stonehenge review

Bixby — 2007-10-12T20:49:47+00:00

adam.skinner wrote:
Adam, I'm not sure that the point of Stonehenge is the demo games that came with it. It's more of a construction set, like Piecepack or Treehouse. To purchase (let alone rate) it for the games that came with it doesn't seem on target.

I own both IceHouse and PiecePack and I do not regret those purchases. This on the other hand, left me feeling, well, terribly disappointed.

The fact that 5 brilliant game designers have engaged in an endeavour of mediocrity is a let down.

This is my two cents, for anyone who enjoys the included 5 games; my hat is off to you. If you feel you got value for your money; my hat is off to you. I did not receive the value I expected from my purchase.

Thread: Re: Stonehenge review

Tygo — 2007-10-12T20:29:16+00:00

I think the ultimate rating is whether or not you regret your purchase.

I do/did. Sold it on ebay recently.

Why should I be the only one disappointed, share the love. :P

Thread: Re: Stonehenge review

adam.skinner — 2007-10-12T19:53:35+00:00

Adam, I'm not sure that the point of Stonehenge is the demo games that came with it. It's more of a construction set, like Piecepack or Treehouse. To purchase (let alone rate) it for the games that came with it doesn't seem on target.

Thread: Re: Stonehenge review

Gnomekin — 2007-10-12T19:49:07+00:00

It's not actually a comment on the review but that is one wicked cool avatar, Matt.

Thread: Re: Stonehenge review

weishaupt — 2007-10-12T19:40:06+00:00

I unloaded my copy a few weeks ago. I just couldn't bring myself to keep it. If you do find a diamond in the rough, though, do let me know!

Thread: Re: Stonehenge review

Bixby — 2007-10-12T19:26:29+00:00

I could not have said this better myself. I was realy disappointed when I read the game rules. One of my all time purchase regrets.

"Great Concept - Terrible Execution".

I too, hope there is a rating system for the games in the Stonehenge Library, the only thing worse than playing the included games would be reading tons and tons of game rules looking for the diamond in the rough. I hold out hope for some substance for this...
...we will see.

Thread: Stonehenge review

weishaupt — 2007-10-12T18:19:30+00:00

In the south of England, the strange circles of stones known as Stonehenge stand as one of the enduring mysteries of the western world. Envisioned as a temple, a cemetery, a landing pad for alien spaceships—proving that not even the sky could be a limit here—the famous prehistoric landmark inspired five designers to come up with an anthology: five games that use the same material but that play completely differently.

Inside the box are one circular gameboard, a deck of 65 colored and numbered cards, five trilithons (the big stone arches typically associated with Stonehenge), one neutral figure, and a kit of pieces for each of five possible players: 10 round “stones,” 10 bars, and one figure. Plus the rules for the five games.

The High Druid comes from Bruno Faidutti (Mystery of the Abbey, The Queen’s Necklace). In this political game, each player manages his group of druids in order to gain access to the position of High Druid. A number of druidic colleges are established on the gameboard using bars as boundaries, and each numbered space becomes a seat. Players then take turns taking seats or moving bars to resize colleges. At the end, each college is tallied separately, and tied votes are set aside. Whoever has the most of the remaining votes wins the game.

Magic of Stonehenge is Richard Garfield’s contribution (Magic: The Gathering, RoboRally). In this bluffing game, players go through a series of simultaneous card plays to place six stones on the board and then six more to cast a spell. Each round, the highest card wins the hand and allows its player to place one stone on the corresponding number. Others have to move one of their stones counterclockwise a number of spaces equal to the number on their cards. Stones that move past space number 1 are removed from the board. Whoever casts his spell first wins.

Auction Blocks is an offering from James Ernest (Gloria Mundi, the whole Cheapass Games line). Players try to score 20 points by buying the rocks of Stonehenge. Colored stones are randomly placed around the board and on the five trilithons. Then each stone is auctioned off in sequence. Players use cards to bid, and earn one point for each stone bought, plus one point for each stone of the same color already in their possession. First to reach 20 points win.

Chariots of Stonehenge is the game from Mike Selinker (Gloria Mundi, Risk Godstorm). Players use stones and cards to race alien chariots around Stonehenge. An initial blind bet determines who will start placing obstacles on the racing track (according to available cards) and how many of them, while the remaining stones in each player’s reserve indicate how fast the chariots can move that turn. First chariot to cross the finish line wins.

Arthurian Ghost Knights is the final game, by Richard Borg (BattleLore, Wyatt Earp). Players take turns playing cards to add a stone to one of five locations, building their defenses. Special cards trigger struggle rounds where players can either add stones from their supply or remove opponents’ stones. Locations are scored after each struggle, and the game ends after four struggles. Highest point total wins.

The concept behind Stonehenge is intriguing, but its execution is terribly flawed. The best game of the lot, Chariots of Stonehenge, remains a shallow proposition and will take a backseat to any other racing game in your collection. Each of the five games would not have found a publisher on its own—they’re too limited and boring for that. So how does cramming them all together in one box justify a publication? One wonders how five sterling designers failed (or refused) to recognize the severe lack of fun in their own and their peers’ creations.

In the struggle to attain brevity (each game takes up only two pages worth of rules), clarity took a dive. Some rules are cryptic and others could benefit from detailed examples. Also, the universal components are not at home in any of the five games: they’re just “okay” bits that feel like they were borrowed from some other game.

One thing Titanic Games is doing right is the Stonehenge Library. That’s the place on their site where fans of the game can submit their own rules for a new game using the Stonehenge components. As of this writing, 15 new games were up. (But they definitely need a rating system for those games.)

FINAL WORD
As a boxed set, Stonehenge is impressively weak. Only interesting for those who like tinkering with bits to make up their own games, or who feel like trying new creations off the Web by their fellow enthusiasts.

Number of players: 3-5 (depending on game)
Designed for ages: 10 and up
Learning curve: Easy
Playing time: 30 to 60 minutes (depending on game)
Pros: Easy, short, and hey, it’s five games in one.
Cons: Games are boring, and the theme ultimately (and ironically) feels pasted on.

Thread: Re: Why Stonehenge matters...

docreason — 2007-09-26T04:10:38+00:00

Morganza wrote:
So Stonehenge is the inverse of Cheapass Games. Cheapass supplies the rules and assumes that you have the interchangeable bits. Stonehenge supplies a set of flexible bits and assumes that you have some interesting rules.

I've enjoyed a few Cheapass games in my time, I even own a few, but none of them rises to the level of "great." It sounds like the people who've played various Stonehenge games also don't feel that any of them rise to the level of great either.

Hm.

It is a bit of an inverse. James Ernest, Mr. Cheapass himself, was instrumental in getting Stonehenge launched. He wanted to do an anthology game, the opposite of Stonehenge.

The game comes with rules, and more were created for it (around 30 games for it now).

As far as the game, I have to say multiple games I have done have gotten positive feedback. I have a range from a simple dexterity game, to some light Euro style games, to multiple abstract strategy games of different types. A version of Crossing Stonehenge I did for Zillions also. This is a two player abstract strategy game. And there is Celtic Whist I did, which is a trick-taking card game.

I personally like a lot of my designs actually, but take it for what it is worth.

Thread: Re: Why Stonehenge matters...

Morganza — 2007-09-26T03:40:22+00:00

So Stonehenge is the inverse of Cheapass Games. Cheapass supplies the rules and assumes that you have the interchangeable bits. Stonehenge supplies a set of flexible bits and assumes that you have some interesting rules.

I've enjoyed a few Cheapass games in my time, I even own a few, but none of them rises to the level of "great." It sounds like the people who've played various Stonehenge games also don't feel that any of them rise to the level of great either.

Hm.

Thread: Raiding Duel is up on the Paizo website

docreason — 2007-09-23T06:48:07+00:00

http://paizo.com/titanicGames/library/v5748btpy7zw2

This game is a 2 player version of the original version of Raiding Stonehenge. It went through multiple changes from the original to be a different game. Same basic idea, but tweaked to work with two players. The splitting the scoring into two rounds makes the game differ from the original Raiding Stonehenge.

Thread: Re: 2-player recommendations?

docreason — 2007-09-16T02:53:25+00:00

GSReis wrote:
Oh!, to be more specific about my Euro preferences, I have noticed I generally like area control games. Well, I actually like most of the common Euro mechanics, but I confess I'm getting a bit tired of the old "produce resources, build, convert to VPs" stuff. And I'm not a big fan of auctions, especially blind bidding, although I enjoy a few games with that mechanic.

Ok, maybe Stonehenge can spin something a bit different you haven't played yet. Stonehenge is on the weak side as far as area control type games, but Borg's game might be close to that. I would also argue here that Bruno's election game would arguably be an area control game. It has minimal luck, with the only luck coming from the cards you draw to mark special bonus and also the avoid color card you are dealt. For the election game, I would have it tweaked a bit so that two players don't end up with the same bonus score area.

Thread: Re: 2-player recommendations?

GSReis — 2007-09-14T04:33:01+00:00

Oh!, to be more specific about my Euro preferences, I have noticed I generally like area control games. Well, I actually like most of the common Euro mechanics, but I confess I'm getting a bit tired of the old "produce resources, build, convert to VPs" stuff. And I'm not a big fan of auctions, especially blind bidding, although I enjoy a few games with that mechanic.

Thread: Re: 2-player recommendations?

GSReis — 2007-09-14T04:22:08+00:00

I'm primarily a Euro gamer, but may occasionally enjoy ameritrash if it has a fantasy or sci-fi theme. I tend to prefer games with a strong, well implemented theme. I know some people will consider that a contradiction when talking about euros, but I'm usually quite willing to accept and try to see the proposed themes.

Thread: Re: 2-player recommendations?

docreason — 2007-09-13T04:37:00+00:00

GSReis wrote:
Richard, I had noticed you created a number of "Stonehenge" games, but I confess I haven't read the rules of any yet, because they are from genres I don't care much.

I asked for two-player recommendations because my copy has just arrived and I don't know when I will be able to get more than one other person at the table. However, even for more than two, I have to say I'm not very excited after reading the rules of the games included.

And no, I don't own "Zillions".

Ok, I understand. I will see what I can come up with here for more 2 player games along the lines of Euro style stuff.

What kind of games are you interested in?

Thread: Re: Rating system for "Stonehenge" games?

GSReis — 2007-09-12T23:12:39+00:00

it wasn't see as a "killer app" so adoption has been slowed.
Probably with good reason, but that's a topic for another thread.

I would say my games for it are all good, but then that is a designer speaking.
I would certainly like more than the word of the designer on that.

Thread: Re: 2-player recommendations?

GSReis — 2007-09-12T23:07:40+00:00

Richard, I had noticed you created a number of "Stonehenge" games, but I confess I haven't read the rules of any yet, because they are from genres I don't care much.

I asked for two-player recommendations because my copy has just arrived and I don't know when I will be able to get more than one other person at the table. However, even for more than two, I have to say I'm not very excited after reading the rules of the games included.

And no, I don't own "Zillions".

Thread: Re: 2-player recommendations?

docreason — 2007-09-12T22:29:07+00:00

By the way, if you by chance have Zillions, download Crossing Stonehenge for it. You can playtest it that way. Crossing Stonehenge for Zillions implements almost all the rules for it, and has a unique custodian freeze capture as one of its move types.

Thread: Re: Rating system for "Stonehenge" games?

docreason — 2007-09-12T22:27:16+00:00

GSReis wrote:
It would be really good if Paizo provided an easy way for players to rate games in the "Stonehenge Library". There is some light categorization, which is also nice, but far from enough. I wish there was some way to get the best games, for someone who doesn't want to read the rules of every single game in the library. There could also be some "editor's picks", especially if the number of voters is low.

They will be getting on this eventually I believe. They do allow people to put up reviews of games though. Mostly designers and their small playtest crew have been involved in this. Stonehenge is very new, and the buzz has worn off a bit, and it wasn't see as a "killer app" so adoption has been slowed.

I would say my games for it are all good, but then that is a designer speaking.

Thread: Re: 2-player recommendations?

docreason — 2007-09-12T22:23:30+00:00

GSReis wrote:
I got my copy of "Stonehenge" today and was a little disappointed that none of the five games included can be played by only two players. I have seen there are several games suitable for two in the "Stonehenge Library", but there is no easy way to know which ones are best, or even if they are any good, without reading the rules of all of them (and possibly playing most). So, any recommendations?

Consider I created a bulk of them, my opinion may be biased. But let me know what you are looking for. The abstracts I have playtested that I created have gotten positive reviews. Drop me a note and I could maybe help you out.

Thread: Re: Rating system for "Stonehenge" games?

super... — 2007-09-11T01:08:03+00:00

well some Stonehenge will be getting their own pages and then they can be rated here on the boardgame geek. i really need to get off my bum and Make a page for Rolling Rocks.