Game: Bison: Thunder on the Prairie

Thread: Re: double tepee vs. double AND single tepee --> tied or not?

haarrrgh — 2008-07-22T22:23:51+00:00

Oh yes, you're right. The German rules state this as well, I just didn't see it

Thread: Re: double tepee vs. double AND single tepee --> tied or not?

jearles — 2008-07-07T22:53:41+00:00

Yes, a player with a double teepee and a single teepee will win over another player with just a double teepee.

My English rules state (in 4.4. Scoring):

The player with the teepee or canoe with the most diamonds in that region has the highest influence there. If there is a tie, the second highest teepee or canoe counts, etc. If there is still a tie, the tied player with the most hunters has the most influence.

If players are tied after "most hunters" they remain are tied, and receive a reduced bonus (see scoring for details).

Thread: double tepee vs. double AND single tepee --> tied or not?

haarrrgh — 2008-07-07T22:33:41+00:00

The rules say that a single tepee has a higher value that any number of Indians, that a double tepee has a higher value than any number of single tepees and Indians, and so on.

If two players have a double tepee each in the same area, then they are tied.
But what if one player has a double tepee, and the other player has a double tepee AND a single tepee ?

Are they still tied (because all tepees except the highest value are ignored) or does the second player control the area (because a double tepee AND a single tepee is more than just a double tepee)?

Image

olavf — 2008-06-20T13:59:53+00:00

Dutch Cover

Image

yakos — 2008-06-18T18:08:56+00:00

Bison played at "Pionek VII" in Gliwice, Poland (June 7-8, 2008)

Image

mbuckingham — 2008-04-26T16:17:49+00:00

ENGLISH Box Cover - There are NO pictures of this cover currently on BGG!

Thread: Re: Crossing with Movement action

greengow — 2008-02-25T17:35:29+00:00

Thank you very much!!

Thread: Re: Crossing with Movement action

jearles — 2008-02-25T17:30:39+00:00

Barry is correct

Thread: Re: Confusion about Terrain, Region - which one is which?

jearles — 2008-02-25T17:20:19+00:00

greengow wrote:
Ok, so basically you cannot create a teepee if you have hunters scattered on 3 dfferent tiles but of the same terrain, correct?

To illustrate:

Tile1 - 2 hunters of mine on mountain.
next to it Tile2 - 1 hunter of mine on mountain.
next to it Tile3 - 1 hunter of mine on mountain.

In that scenerio, I could NOT combine all hunters on this one area consisting of 3 tiles of the same terrain and create a 3 teepee or 4 teepee, because I can only create a teepee with hunters on ONE tile, correct?

The only possible option is to create either a 1 teepee or 2 teepees on Tile1 or create 1 teepee on either Tile2 or Tile3, correct?

But, I can "call up" the other guys from Tile2 and Tile3 to Tile1 as part of the "Move 1-3 spaces" action (or Move 1 space in this case) and THEN I can create a teepee up to 4 squares on it, right?

I was just wondering that if a terrain is made of several tiles of the same terrain, say mountain, then all hunters on the whole terrain area could count towards the building of the teepees. I guess that's not how it works.

I think you've got it.

I think it would be too easy to build large teepees / canoes if you could use all the workers in a region. The rule forces you have to decide what is the best way to use your actions / resources.

Thread: Re: Crossing with Movement action

drbsgold — 2008-02-25T17:12:50+00:00

Yes.

From the rules here on BGG..."Moving to an adjacent space of an adjacent tile is 1 movement point. Prairie↔ prairie, or prairie ↔ mountain, or mountain ↔ mountain, or river ↔ river."

Thread: Crossing with Movement action

greengow — 2008-02-25T16:56:25+00:00

Hello everyone, another question just came up.

When 2 tiles are touching with the same terrain to it, mountain to mountain for example, is moving from one tile to the other (over those mountains) without crossing other terrains on those tiles considered 1 move?

Thread: Re: Confusion about Terrain, Region - which one is which?

greengow — 2008-02-25T16:48:31+00:00

Ok, so basically you cannot create a teepee if you have hunters scattered on 3 dfferent tiles but of the same terrain, correct?

To illustrate:

Tile1 - 2 hunters of mine on mountain.
next to it Tile2 - 1 hunter of mine on mountain.
next to it Tile3 - 1 hunter of mine on mountain.

In that scenerio, I could NOT combine all hunters on this one area consisting of 3 tiles of the same terrain and create a 3 teepee or 4 teepee, because I can only create a teepee with hunters on ONE tile, correct?

The only possible option is to create either a 1 teepee or 2 teepees on Tile1 or create 1 teepee on either Tile2 or Tile3, correct?

But, I can "call up" the other guys from Tile2 and Tile3 to Tile1 as part of the "Move 1-3 spaces" action (or Move 1 space in this case) and THEN I can create a teepee up to 4 squares on it, right?

I was just wondering that if a terrain is made of several tiles of the same terrain, say mountain, then all hunters on the whole terrain area could count towards the building of the teepees. I guess that's not how it works.

Thread: Re: Confusion about Terrain, Region - which one is which?

jearles — 2008-02-25T11:25:01+00:00

Each land tile has three different terrain areas (prairie, river, mountain).

Region is used to indicate where tiles are placed such that the same terrain area type continues across multiple tiles.

So when the rules say "there can only be one teepee in each terrain area", do they mean one tile?? Or do they mean, once a teepee is on one specific type of terrain spanning multiple tiles, no other teepee can be set there? Doesn't make sense, does it?

That would mean if you have hunters of several tiles of same terrain touching, you couldn't convert/enlarge to teepees. Silly, isn't it?

The rule you quote continues, "... (though a multi-space region could have many teepees".

You can only build a teepee using the hunters you have in a single terrain area (mountain or prairie). Once built a teepee cannot be moved. If you have a region where you have hunters across tiles you can either use a Movement action to gather them, or build another teepee (yes, you can have multiple teepees in a region).

Note: Variant #2 does allow for "Reducing and Removing" Teepees and Canoes.

Thread: Confusion about Terrain, Region - which one is which?

greengow — 2008-02-25T04:29:03+00:00

Ok, major question comes to mind here:

What is the difference between the 2 mentioned above?

Is Terrain the whole area covering multiple tiles? Or is that Region?
If that's Region, is Terrain then just one tile?

So when the rules say "there can only be one teepee in each terrain area", do they mean one tile?? Or do they mean, once a teepee is on one specific type of terrain spanning multiple tiles, no other teepee can be set there? Doesn't make sense, does it?

That would mean if you have hunters of several tiles of same terrain touching, you couldn't convert/enlarge to teepees. Silly, isn't it?

Or is that not how it's supposed to work and I'm just reading the rules wrong?...

Anyone has a clear answer on this?
Thanks in advance!

Image

cdefrisco — 2008-01-24T18:51:32+00:00

I was surprised by the box size. Paraphrasing another geek, "Big game in a little box".

Thread: Re: How is it for 2 Players?

MindBend — 2008-01-20T18:47:32+00:00

I play Bison (almost) strictly 2-player due to limited chaos and AP.

As for supposed lack of interaction: utter nonsense, if you ask me. Every round that ends with your opponent yielding a higher income than you is a round you've been messing around too much, and a moment to shift strategy and force your opponent to play moves where you want him to. Luring and decoys are keywords in 2p Bison in the games I play. In fact, it just might be the only area-influence game that works with 2 without a "dummy" being introduced (that I know of...).
It's the whole value-changing of areas that creates this different feel.

Thread: Re: Is player order too critical in Bison?

MindBend — 2008-01-20T18:40:51+00:00

I do not play Bison with 4 players as I find the increased AP and chaos too annoying, so I won't comment on these problems with 4p. With 2p I disagree with the player order being too critical; if so you are not playing the game as you perhaps should. Yes it is important, but it's possible to see it coming a mile ahead and play accordingly. 2p Bison is about luring your opponent into committing into places that are not really that important: essential strategy and tactics for a person "going first" in whatever round except the last.
In a recent 3p game the problem did not occur either: the important locations were all "stuck" so to say, and the last few moves were nearly irrelevant.

Thread: Re: Is player order too critical in Bison?

sheepdog — 2008-01-14T21:27:02+00:00

I just got this game and haven't played yet.

But, you hit my "hot button" with this comment. I just HATE IT!!! when turn order screws the guy who starts out going last. If this is one of those games, I may regret trading for it.

But, out of ignorance, do you think this inequity can be improved by modifying the game's turn order as follows:

Turn Order for Turns 1 and 4: Players 1, 2, 3, 4
Turn Order for Turns 2 and 3: Players 4, 3, 2, 1

.................. Mike

Thread: Re: How is it for 2 Players?

beckeykevin — 2007-11-21T17:53:10+00:00

The tile draw is more important in a 3 or 4 player game due to the scoring system. 3rd and 4th place receive the number of Animals on their own tiles! So if 3rd Place drew a 2 Salmon tile and 4th place drew a 3 Salmon tile in the same scoring area, 3rd place would actually earn less animals than 4th place.

However, there still is a luck factor with the tile draw and also a potential turn order advantage for going last during the final scoring round. Maybe a Tikal type auction for tiles and turn order would mitigate the luck of the tile draw?

Thread: Re: [Review] Bison: Thunder on the Prairie

beckeykevin — 2007-11-20T22:11:48+00:00

Your opinions are pretty accurate. Gamers who find Torres or Tikal to be dry will probably find Bison to be equal in dryness.

However, the mechanics definitely support the theme since AREA CONTROL was a way of life for the Nez Perce! The rulebook actually provides a website for additional information for players who are interested in learning more about the Nez Perce nation.

Taken from the Nez Perce website www.nezperce.org:

"The Nimi'ipuu lived in bands which were divided as the Upper Clearwater River Nimi'ipu and the Lower Nimi'ipu of the Wallowa Valley. Each band with its own territory and group of composite bands. These bands then subdivided into smaller bands of people living in villages along streams and rivers, together making up the politically unified composite band."

The Canoes and Teepees in the game represent Territorial control, not actual canoes and teepees!

"Within the deep canyons of the traditional Nimi'ipuu land, the people relied on the rivers, mountains and prairies for sustenance. They practiced a seasonal subsistence cycle, living with the seasons, not by the month."

Yep, that sounds a lot like Bison.

Thread: Re: The theme in Bison IS very STRONG and well implemented !!!

beckeykevin — 2007-11-20T21:09:10+00:00

The canoe represents a claim on a particular fishing spot.

Thread: Re: What's the differenece between move 1 and move 3?

TMJJS — 2007-06-16T12:05:36+00:00

You can only use each action once, so if you have used move 3 and still need to move some Indians around, you could use another action and do move 1. Obviously it won't get you as far, but sometimes just moving off the mountain to the river can score you much needed points.

Thread: Re: What's the differenece between move 1 and move 3?

ed95005 — 2007-06-15T21:14:44+00:00

You would choose Move 1 over Move 3 if you had already used Move 3 and still needed to move.

Thread: What's the differenece between move 1 and move 3?

BugLaden — 2007-06-15T20:54:16+00:00

What is the difference between the Move Hunter 1 spaces, and the Move Hunter 3 space actions? Why would you choose move 1 over move 3?

Thread: Re: A Brief Look at Bison

frogmind — 2007-05-19T19:27:25+00:00

I wholeheartedly agree. This little game is hugely underrated and falsely maligned. Yes, it borrows ideas but i don't think i have played a euro in the last couple years that doesn't. The fact that the end round is all that matters makes the game unique as everything up to that is simply positioning in order to make a final push - this allows for people to not get comfortable or dismayed by an obvious leader problem.

Thread: A Brief Look at Bison

Larry Levy — 2007-05-19T03:57:04+00:00

Bison is yet another game from the remarkably prolific team of Kramer and Kiesling. The design has gotten decidedly mixed reviews, but I enjoyed my one playing of it. Players need to deploy their Indian hunters, tepees, and canoes over the plains of the Great Northwest, with the ultimate objective of maximizing their food income on the final turn. The game is full of tough decisions and rewards thoughtful play. For me, it's another winner from K&K.

One nice feature is the game's high level of angst. Your initial food supply (which you use both to perform actions and to buy the items you deploy) seems quite sufficient at the beginning of the game. But as you start using those more expensive actions and pick up a canoe or two at the Shawnee Wal-Mart, things suddenly get tight. I mean real tight. Worst of all, you really need to balance your food supply for the purchases, so it can become a major objective to find a nice area where you can snatch up a few turkeys to match your healthy stocks of bison and salmon. Needless to say, this is easier said than done. And like Kramer’s Princes of Florence, you only have a tiny number of actions for the entire game, so you really can’t afford to waste any. So you’re being squeezed in a number of ways, all of them enjoyable.

Bison has gotten a good deal of criticism for adding nothing new to the world of Area Control games, a complaint which frankly puzzles me. I mean, you have three forms of currency, sequential actions (including some unusual movement options), and a unique victory condition—-the only thing that matters is how much income you can achieve on your final turn. That, along with a fine, tightly designed game, sounds like it should be more than enough to distinguish it. I can see that those who are allergic to Area Control games would find nothing to allay their distaste, but the rest of the gaming world should find this a quality design. I will say that if spending 90 minutes or so staring at the board is something you actively avoid, you should probably stay away from these noble hunting grounds. This is a thinker. But I have no such prejudice and consider this one of the better and more underrated games of the year. Like last year’s Hacienda, another Kramer design, it’s the economic element that makes this fairly abstract game much more interesting to me. I’m glad I finally got the chance to play Bison and hope I can get it to the table more regularly.

Thread: Re: [Review] Bison: Thunder on the Prairie

futhee — 2007-04-01T04:07:51+00:00

Holy smokes. That response a few back from Jorge is a embarrassing. I can only see 3 reasons for it:

(1) Tom doesn't realize that at one time, he stepped on Jorge's brand new white sneakers, and this is Jorge's bit of revenge.
(2) Jorge loves bison, and is disgusted that anyone would sully their reputation with a board game.
(3) Jorge was very cranky that night.

Thread: Re: [Review] Bison: Thunder on the Prairie

Carver — 2007-03-20T12:14:06+00:00

camisdad wrote:
I find it truly embarrassing for all of us to see a reviewer of Tom's class being personally attacked and criticized.

Two things. I always read Tom's reviews. I don't always agree with his conclusions but, as with other reviewers, I find them interesting. I also saw the response to the review and hardly regarded it as being a 'personal attack' - unless one is unduly sensitive. In fact, as I understood it, the writer seemed to be defending himself and gamers like him against an implication in Tom's review.

Tom is no retiring violet. He posts his reviews just about everywhere gamers are likely to see them. In other words he does his best to put them about. So what then is so very special about his status? If he fires his rifle and sticks his head above the parapet it isn't unreasonable that sometimes somebody will shoot back.

Thread: Re: Big Game in a Small Box

matthew.marquand — 2007-03-12T12:06:02+00:00

For me it falls in that uncomfortable middle ground of being too heavy for a middle-weight, and not heavy enough to swing with the big boys, too much game there for fluffies, not enough game for real meat folks etc.

This aspect of the game is another reason I like it. Rather than feeling uncomfortable about it, I embrace it. I rather like having a game that sits in the middle ground for those game nights when both light and heavy are undesirable.

Thread: Re: Big Game in a Small Box

4Corners — 2007-03-12T07:04:36+00:00

You're right about this being not only underrated but given overly negative press. I'm a huge Kramer fan, so I'm somewhat biased, but even I was almost regretting my purchase with all of the "negative hype". Finally got around to actually playing the game, and while it is a bit dry, it's definitely a solid gamer's game, with some excellent game mechanics. Only played this as a 2-player, twice, enjoyed it both times, as did both of my opponents (they also enjoy gamer's games). Small box, low cost, solid game.

Thread: Re: Big Game in a Small Box

josgeerkin — 2007-03-12T03:27:41+00:00

I got this one for Christmas and I enjoy it.

I've heard a lot of comments along the lines of, "It's just Carcassonne". I really think the two games have very little in common.

I thought the theme was right for the game but I'm not much of a theme guy.

Kramer's games seem to get an automatic bad buzz here lately. Hacienda was the same way. It received lots of bad comments when it first came out.

Personally, I don't get it. I haven't played everything he's published recently but the games I have tried have been solid.

Thread: Re: Big Game in a Small Box

clearclaw — 2007-03-12T03:04:40+00:00

matthew.marquand wrote:
1) Tribes 'buy' braves at a market? Okay, you get more braves out on the board by cashing in goods. Not much different than many area dominance games where your getting 'guys' out on the board is a two-step process.

You don't buy braves, you trade in stored food to support a larger population.

2) Canoes can't float down the river? Canoes and teepees are permanent structures so the theme breaks down a bit there.

They aren't canoes, they're semi-permanent fishing grounds.

3) Since when can braves "teleport"? Okay, the theme breaks down a bit when braves can teleport during an emergency "calling all braves" action.

Smoke signals, long distance communication and a simple fact that turns aren't instantaneous. Just figure that player turns last an entire year. Teleporting Indians are just walking indians.

pHowever, I greatly enjoyed my couple of games so far and think the game is underrated. I like the tension of gathering goods and spending wisely on upgrading territories, moving men, breaking out into new territories full of goods you desire, and/or attacking neighboring weak territories when necessary. I also found the Ingenious-like scoring mechanism interesting when your goods are wiped clean before the final round. Neat trick.

I found it a fair game, not great. For me it falls in that uncomfortable middle ground of being too heavy for a middle-weight, and not heavy enough to swing with the big boys, too much game there for fluffies, not enough game for real meat folks etc.

Rating: 5 tending towards 4.5.

Thread: Re: Big Game in a Small Box

matthew.marquand — 2007-03-12T02:42:42+00:00

I'll jump in on the theme question and give my two cents worth.

I found the theme as heavily glued on as most Euros. It didn't seem tacked on as an afterthought although there are some oddities that are easily ignored:

1) Tribes 'buy' braves at a market? Okay, you get more braves out on the board by cashing in goods. Not much different than many area dominance games where your getting 'guys' out on the board is a two-step process.

2) Canoes can't float down the river? Canoes and teepees are permanent structures so the theme breaks down a bit there.

3) Since when can braves "teleport"? Okay, the theme breaks down a bit when braves can teleport during an emergency "calling all braves" action.

However, I greatly enjoyed my couple of games so far and think the game is underrated. I like the tension of gathering goods and spending wisely on upgrading territories, moving men, breaking out into new territories full of goods you desire, and/or attacking neighboring weak territories when necessary. I also found the Ingenious-like scoring mechanism interesting when your goods are wiped clean before the final round. Neat trick.

I look forward to many more plays in the future.

Thread: Re: Big Game in a Small Box

gregd — 2007-03-12T01:29:53+00:00

Gotta ask- cause I think up about buying this all the time(to play with son): Theme wise- do you feel it pasted it on - or does it fit in well?

Thread: Big Game in a Small Box

ropearoni4 — 2007-03-12T00:27:53+00:00

I don't know where to start, but I guess first things first:
This game in no way should be where it is on the obscurity level it has drawn. I remember a year ago the few reviews on it where not favorable, so like everyone else we decided to try a different game instead, leaving it to the "same-ol-euro-majority-game" section in the gamestore. Others claimed it had the same mechanics as Tikal, but not as good. The reviews went on and on about its faults compared to other K&K games.
Well...I fell for the hype(dis-hype as it is), and stayed cleanly away from the game though it was so cheap in cost. That is another factor, as most games that are less cost are less of a game. A bad assumption in this case.
Now for the comments. This game found its way to me through a trade for some magic:tg cards, along with some other games that have set on the shelf for a while since their release, for same reasons. It plays 2-4, I like the 2 part, but more would've been nice, but 4 is okay.
This game is not just the average area majority game with action points via most of Kramer's stuff. It has a mixed bag of other Kramer games, but gives them a spin, and brings a medium weight game to your table.
Bison is a game about resource management, actions(but not action points), and area majority. There are some sligh twists to the area majority mechanics. The game doesn't remind me of Tikal, nor Mexica, nor Java, nor Australia, etc. The game reminded me of playing Kreta if any game comes to mind. This game is a gamer game. Many commented it was like carcassonne, but it is far from that game depth. This game is less about luck than carcassonne is, and more in depth than other area majority games. I would consider this game somewhat like El Grande with a harder time getting your cubes out of the supply. With the different types of areas(fowl, bison, fish) it also makes planning for the unexpected prevelent to one's thought process. The random naturee of the tiles is not even close to the random nature in other tile laying games. This one is very even and has never left a bad taste in one's mouth when they had to lay a tile down that wasn't what they wanted at the time.
It is not a dry game as others have said. It is rather fun, some take thats in there, but nothing to hurt feelings, or change the entire game.
The AP involved in the last turn might take some time, but it is managable for a game of this depth.
Overall, the game is a fun mix of mechanics that for such a small box, packs a big game in there. It doesn't say 90 minutes on the outside for nothing. It is a real game for such a low price that it would be a good game to buy on a whim if you were looking for a game in the vein of a good Euro mix. It is a lot of game in a small package and the cost as well is nothing compared to others of the same depth.
Some 50 dollar games are less of a game than this one is. Give it a chance, and try it out, it is not what it has been preported to be; Not in my opinion.

Image

matthew.marquand — 2007-02-03T19:29:38+00:00

Thread: Re: How is it for 2 Players?

Favre4MVP — 2007-01-30T17:39:56+00:00

So far I've only played it with 2, and I really like it. In fact, I'd say it's one of Kramer's best games. Top 10 easily, maybe even top 5. It's a bit of a brain burner, but it is very interesting and a lot of fun. I can see where it would probably be better with more players, but it's certainly worth owning and playing even with just 2 players.

Thread: Re: How is it for 2 Players?

Fledermaushaus — 2007-01-30T17:30:23+00:00

I disagree with the above. Although I cannot say whether it is better or worse with 2, it is a very good game with just 2 (the only way I've played it). We found it had plenty of interaction and did not depend at all on who drew which tile (whereas Gheos, for example, certainly seems to be the luck of the draw). If you're wondering whether it is worth buying just for 2 players, I would definitely say to go ahead. I suppose it's a game where the interaction isn't forced, but that would apply to any number of players - if you don't move on to another player's tiles you don't interact.

Thread: Re: How is it for 2 Players?

Pallet Ranger — 2007-01-30T13:01:49+00:00

Not as good as it is with more.

This one falls in the bracket of many other games, whereby although it's certainly playable with 2, there is - as a general rule of thumb - very little interraction, and the game turns into "who draws the best tiles" rather than anything more tactical.

That said, I really enjoy it with 3 or 4...

Thread: How is it for 2 Players?

budral8 — 2007-01-30T03:57:01+00:00

Nobody has asked yet.

Thread: Re: Is player order too critical in Bison?

olavf — 2007-01-20T17:25:24+00:00

I only played 2-player games and it's a big problem. The startplayer is the one who ends the game and wins 90% of the games, because he/she can react on the other players actions.

Image

quentin1 — 2006-12-17T01:19:44+00:00

Thread: Re: 2nd Place tied

TMJJS — 2006-11-22T07:05:48+00:00

Brian, you are correct! 3rd place in your example would score more than 2nd place 5-4.

Thread: Re: 2nd Place tied

Moosehead — 2006-11-22T03:11:29+00:00

So, i take it we are playing it right, that 3rd place gets the resources that its hunters are on, all of its regions that its hunters are on. So it would be possible for a 3rd place person to get more than a player in 2nd place. eg, the total for the area is 8, so first would get 8 and 2nd place would get 4, the third place player has a hunter on a 2 bison region and a hunter on a 3 bison region so scoring 5 points and outscoring 2nd place. ( can't remember which is larger: regions or areas, and too lazy to go downstairs and look it up in the rules)

Image

Kevin C — 2006-11-17T18:46:58+00:00

Thread: Re: Why three different good types?

Hubajube — 2006-11-07T19:06:21+00:00

Basically, it's just a way to prevent over-specialization. Since there's a 15 cap on any one good, it becomes wasteful to over-invest in a specific good.

Thread: Re: The theme in Bison IS very STRONG and well implemented !

Hubajube — 2006-11-07T19:02:47+00:00

And of course the fact that canoes on rivers cannot move is also thematic!

Thread: Re: Is player order too critical in Bison?

Mythoturge — 2006-11-01T16:32:37+00:00

Played a four player game last night and the person in the fourth position won on a tie-breaker. As in many games where position is important the other players must compensate.

Image

TMJJS — 2006-10-30T17:23:21+00:00

Playing with Jeff, George & Eckart while Al reads the rules.

Image

TMJJS — 2006-10-30T17:08:02+00:00

1st game of the day at Kit Con 06/II

Image

Artax — 2006-10-29T14:09:11+00:00

Thread: Re: [Review] Bison: Thunder on the Prairie

kilarney — 2006-10-27T14:11:14+00:00

Fortunately, Tom has a thick skin. That's what makes him such a decent guy.

I agree, attacks are not appropriate. Well founded and constructive criticism, however, is something that Tom handles just fine. We've got to give him credit for that. I suspect that his willingness to listen to constructive criticism has only made his review better over time.

Thread: Re: [Review] Bison: Thunder on the Prairie

camisdad — 2006-10-27T06:23:00+00:00

I find it truly embarrassing for all of us to see a reviewer of Tom's class being personally attacked and criticized. It is bad enough to attack anyone personally - it is worse to attack people who are doing us all the service of publishing detailed reviews of games and sharing their opinions- it is horrendous to attack someone like Tom, who has published hundreds of reviews on this site.

It's one thing to disagree with somebody - Tom's opinions are his own. It is another to be gratuitously rude, callous and demeaning. If anybody should feel like they are in a position to give lessons to Tom on writing reviews, it should be someone with a little bit more than two (2) reviews - now that's chutzpah.

It would be better for everyone if there were more reviews and less review police:-)

Thread: Re: Review of Bison

SusanRoz — 2006-10-26T04:10:42+00:00

Yikes, Rob! You made my heart stop with that first sentence!

But, I'm glad you guys like it. All of our games have been very tense up until the end. I'm rather surprised that Bison's rating isn't higher. This is exactly the kind of eurogame that sucked me right into the hobby years ago. It's classic K&K with a few new twists and a new theme. What's not to like?

Thread: Re: Review of Bison

robmderrick — 2006-10-17T00:05:27+00:00

Susan,

I Very Recently bought Bison based almost entirely on your review. I love Kramer/Kiesling games, and that was the other strong factor. But, without your review, I would have "waited a bit".

Well, I'm glad I did. Played it and loved it, and even one of my gamer curmudgeons who is hard to please found it to be quite good. A very good game. And, the theme was a big plus too.

The icing on the cake is that I won in the squeaky end-game tie breaker against my "discerning" friend, where we were tied for total food, but my lowest was just a bit higher than his lowest.

This is another winner from this great team.

-- rob derrick

Thread: Review of Bison

SusanRoz — 2006-10-10T21:12:01+00:00

The combined designing talents of Wolfgang Kramer and Michael Kiesling have resulted in excellent games like Java, Tikal and Torres, to name a few. Limited actions and area majority control seem to be favored features in several of their collaborations and with Bison they have once again taken these and added new wrinkles to create another simple, elegant game.

In Bison, players take on the role of Nez Perce Native American tribes in what is now northwest Idaho. The tribes roam the land and try to establish their presence in the most fertile hunting grounds.

Components:

21 land tiles. Three of these are marked as starting tiles. Each tile depicts the three types of landscapes – rivers, mountain and prairie – and the corresponding animals in varying numbers – salmon, turkeys and bison. The tiles are oddly shaped with six sides that alternate curved convex and concave sides. (See pictures)

Pieces in the four player colors including:
-hunters represented by wooden cubes
-wooden scoring cubes
-teepee tiles that have values of 1, 2, 3 or 4
-canoe tiles that have values of 1, 2, 3 or 4

Players boards – these are used to keep track of the player’s food and actions taken during the game. They also have cost charts on them for reference which is very handy.

16 white action cube markers

Totem pole tile that designates the starting player

Rules booklet –the rules are excellent and provide many illustrations and examples.

Game Play

The goal of the game is to be tribe holding the most valuable land at the end of a fixed number of “seasons.” The value of a region is measured by the number of animals it will produce each season.

The three starting tiles are placed together to form the starting board and the rest are shuffled to form a facedown draw pile. Some tiles are removed depending on the number of players.

Players start the game with a limited number of hunters, canoes and teepees. The rest are put into a market where the player can purchase them during the game. Players also start the game with 10 each of bison, turkeys and salmon. They mark this on the appropriate tracks on their player boards where they will keep track of the animals they spend and collect during the game.

The game is played in a number of “seasons” based on the number of players. The number of seasons increases with fewer players. A four-player game will be four seasons long. During each season, players each draw a tile from a facedown supply which must be played at some point in the season. Then, in turn order, they will each take four actions, one-by-one, marking the appropriate action box on their player board. This is to indicate that they have taken that action this season as each different action can only be taken once by a player each season. After all players have taken four actions, the regions are scored based on majority control as indicated by the presence of hunters, teepees and canoes. The numbers of animals pictured on the tiles in the regions formed are awarded to the appropriate players and the markers moved accordingly on their respective player boards.

The action phase is the meat of the game and involves players getting their hunters on the board and moving them around to establish majority control by building teepees and canoes in the regions formed as tiles are placed. There are six possible actions:

1. Place your tile on the board and place up to 5 of your hunters on it. The hunters must be available from your immediate supply and can be placed on only one of the terrain types on the tile. The tile can be placed anywhere so that two sides are joined as long as the new tile is not more than three tiles away from the starting tiles. This is the ONLY way to get hunters onto the board. This feels a bit similar to the popular game, Carcassonne.

2. Building or enlarging a teepee
3. Building or enlarging a canoe

These actions both work the same way except teepees are built on mountains or prairie and canoes are built on water. To build, you must hunters on that terrain area equal to the value of the teepee or canoe, or equal to the difference if upgrading. Hunters are removed and placed back in your supply. So, if I want to build a 2-valued canoe, I must have two hunters on a river space. To later upgrade it to a 3-valued canoe, I must have one hunter on the space. Both hunter and the 2-valued canoe would go back to my supply. By building teepees and canoes, not only do you increase your influence in an area, but you also get hunters back to be placed in the next season when you play your tile.

The following three actions allow you to move hunters around the board. Teepees and canoes may never move. Each terrain type on a tile counts as one space and moving to a different tile (even if it is the same terrain type) also counts as one space. Hunters may move through a spot with an enemy hunter, but cannot stop there.

4. Gathering hunters, which I call “holding a powwow.” Up to five of your hunters may move from anywhere on the board to a single space containing at least one of your hunters. This can be a very powerful action, especially at the end of the game and can give an opponent a nasty surprise.

5. Move up to five of your hunters one space each.

6. Move up to five of your hunters 1 to 3 spaces each.

If you choose an action, but don’t take it, you get a free animal of your choice.

Each action has a cost in animals which is where careful resource management comes into play. The cost depends on the number of hunters involved and is the same for each type of action which makes it very easy to remember. If one hunter is involved, the action is free. If two are involved, then you must pay any two animals. Three hunters cost four animals and so on up to five hunters which costs a very expensive ten animals. The animals can be the same type or a mix. So, placing three hunters on a tile costs four animals and upgrading a 2-value teepee to a 4-value one costs two animals.

At any time during a round, a player may buy more hunters, canoes or teepees from his market if there are any available. The cost is one of each type of animal (for a total of three) for one hunter and the same for each diamond (the value) for canoes and teepees. So, a 3-valued teepee costs 3 bison, 3 turkeys, and 3 salmon, which is quite expensive. At any time, a player may trade types of animal at ratio of 3:1. The neat thing about the market cost is that if forces players to go hunt all three types of animals.

Scoring
At the end of each season, each region of each terrain type that has been formed will be scored. The scoring is similar to the game Entdecker. The player with the highest valued teepee or canoe has the most influence with ties broken by the next highest valued and then on number of hunters. This player scores the number of animals in the entire region and adds them to his food supply. With ties, each tied player receives half. The person with the second most influence gets half the number of animals rounded down. Third and fourth place players get animals equal to the number showing on the actual spaces occupied by their pieces. This can be rather interesting in that sometimes the third or fourth place player can score more than the second place player. After all regions are scored, a new season starts.

Scoring at the end of the game is somewhat different. After all players have completed their actions, they lose all the animals that haven’t yet spent. Then the regions are scored as usual and the player with the most animals (adding together all three types) is the winner. This is a very interesting way to score as it encourages players to spend all their actions as efficiently as possible during the game to gain influence all the board as hoarding them gains them nothing in the final scoring.

Discussion:
The economic and placement parts of the game interlock nicely and elegantly in a way that creates many tough decisions and opportunities for clever plays. Nearly every action taken feels like it matters since actions are limited to only four per season per player. The fact that they are taken one-by-one in turn order instead of all at once (as in the game Tikal) and the fact that a player can only take an individual action once per turn makes for a nice chicken aspect. The actions that are still available during a season to other players are a very important factor to consider. I often found myself delaying building a teepee or canoe in the hopes that an opponent would use that same action elsewhere on the board. Then I could make a clever placement without him being able to successfully respond that season. Taking the actions one-by-one also cuts down on analysis paralysis as it gives players just a few decisions on their turn instead of many.

The placement of tiles and hunters on the board also makes for tough decisions. Do you place a tile so as to increase the animals in an area that you already control or do you place it to get hunters in a region of the board where you have none so you can compete for valuable territory there? While there is some luck in the tile draw, it didn’t seem to be too big of a factor in my games.

Of course, having hunters available to place every season poses an interesting problem as you have so very few. The limited number drives players to build canoes and teepees to get their hunters off the board to place again in the next season. The few canoes and teepees that players start with will be used eventually, requiring them to buy more at the market. Hence, players will find it necessary to balance the types of resources they have available in order to do this. This need for diversity drives some of the competition on the board, making the game that much more confrontational. While a player may be tempted to spend his actions reinforcing a valuable area in which he holds a majority, he also needs to make an effort to acquire territories that have the other types of resources. It’s hard to do both with a limited number of actions and animals. See how it all neatly works together? I think it is this resource management aspect that really draws me into the game.

The game works very well with both three and four players. I liked the three player game a bit better as the extra seasons make it more likely that you have the time and resources to purchase and build your higher valued pieces. Unfortunately, I have not had a chance to play it with just two although I see no obvious reason why it wouldn’t work okay with that number.

While the theme is not overly exciting, it fits the game play well enough although there are a few inconsistencies like the fact that teepees and canoes are immobile. However, fans of German-style games should be quite used to this and Bison’s theme fits much better than many other games of its type.

I’ve gotten deathly tired of area majority games and there are so many of them. Bison though, has taken some familiar (some would even say old and tired) mechanisms and created a new game in the genre that is different enough to captivate me. While some experienced gamers will find Bison to be too redundant, the resource management involved intrigues me enough to want to explore it further. For that reason, I can easily recommend it to fans of this type of game.

Thread: Re: First Impressions after one play

SusanRoz — 2006-10-10T21:06:54+00:00

Oops, I somehow missed the questions and am replying 2 months late!

It's been quite a while since I played El Caballero, but I can definitely say that the two games feel very different to me. The mechanism and costs for adding and removing guys is quite different. If I'm remembering correctly, in both games you have a limited number of guys to work with which is a similarity.

Unfortunately, I have not had a chance to play Bison with just two players. I think it would work although I think that I'd prefer the added competition with more players.

Thread: Re: 4-player game, my opinion improves

tornadog — 2006-10-09T19:01:00+00:00

Jeff,

Do you think this might be a good game for our group. I remember you saying this game didnt do much the first time you played it.

Thread: 4-player game, my opinion improves

jcurtis55 — 2006-10-09T00:29:21+00:00

I had hauled Bison to 3 Sunday gaming sessions, but we had not gotten it to the table. We frequently end up playing games that will take 5 or 6 players, but the breakdown of players today allowed for a 4-player game.

I started off giving Ken, Mike and Kevin a run through of the game. Ken and I had played at Gen Con, but that was the extent of our experience.

Bison can give a bad first impression as the game starts out a bit slow the first year as players generally get tiles and hunters out on the table, and there isn't much contention for the resource.

I got a good draw on my tile with a 3-turkey mountain that I was able to join to the 2-turkey starting tile. I placed 3 hunters in the mountain area. Ken had a similar draw with a 3-fish river and created a 4-fish river. Mike and Kevin weren't quite as fortunate in their tile draw but got areas started with 3 food items. All of us put 3 hunters out. I followed that up with a 2-person tepee in my mountain area and Ken followed with a 2-person canoe in his choice river.

Mike made an early choice that he was going to take a tact of spreading out his hunters to capture food items in as many areas as possible, while Ken and I went for a couple of big payoffs. Kevin went for a hybrid approach, put the mountain area he build his tepee on in the first season was surrounded by prairie and never grew after season one. This is certainly a danger of placing a teepee or canoe early in the game. Still, with a 4-player game only lasting 4 seasons, you can't wait too long.

After season one we were all in good shape on food and some of us even had more than we started with. Season two let all of us expand our main areas of concern, but with more territory available the hunting parties began to explore and make others nervous. I moved a hunter onto the river Ken had extended and which now held 5 fish. My original mountain area was now at 7 turkeys. Mike and Keven also had rivers that held 5 fish. A central prairie area had become an area of contention for Mike and Kevin. With the good food hauls in season one, most of us placed out 4 hunters on turn 2 which also contributed to increased conflict. Due to the scoring mechanism, it is possible for the players with the 3rd or 4th highest influence in an area to get a higher payout that the player in 2nd. I'm not sure I like this, but we certainly tried to take advantage of it, with Mike becoming known as the "3rd place man". If you have not played Bison, when contiguous terrain areas are scored it works like this:

Assume we are scoring a river. First is the tribe with the largest canoe. 2nd goes to the next biggest canoe, and so on. The tie breaker is the number of hunters in the area. Also let me say a river may be made up of river segments from several tiles as long as they connect. Each segment may have some fish in it. You sum up the number of fish in a contiguos section of river. The first place player increases his fish level for the total number of fish in the entire river. 2nd place gets half of this, rounded down. 3rd and 4th place get the fish that are in the river segment for the single tile their hunter is on. A situation you might frequently see is a river that has segments on two tiles; one with 3 fish and the other with two fish. Given this example, the tribe with the most influence will add 5 fish to their coffers at the end of the seach. 2nd place gets half rounded down for 2 fish. 3rd and 4th place get the number of fish in the river segment where their hunter or canoe resides. In this case there is a single river segment with 3 fish in it, so it is entirely possible for the 3rd and 4th place player to get 3 fish where the 2nd place player got 2. This happened more than once and was the strategy Mike was taking. You could frequently get this 3rd or 4th place playoff with a single hunter placed judiciously.

During the 3rd season a nice prairie openned up near the river Ken was agressively defending. I added to my mountain area, but such a way that I could move more hunters into the new prairie area on the river Ken and I were contending for. I had put a 2-person canoe in the river, causing Ken to have to leave hunters there to ensure he maintained the most influence there. I begrudgingly accepted I was not going to gain the most influence in the river and decided to go for the prairie. I had placed a tile to extend the prairie area in question and placed 4 hunters there. On my next turn I bought a 3-person teepee and placed it on the prairie. Ken followed suit also buying and placing a 3-person teepee. The board had evolved where it seemed Ken and I were competing on one side while Kevin and Mike were fighting over the other, although they were not having the escalation that Ken and I were experiencing as we fought for choice areas. Mike was still spreading hunters further and further from their starting tiles. He had also managed to build a nice 6-fish river that he had all to himself. Kevin was also working on building up his river, but was trying to do so without adding to the mountain area I had control over.

The start of the 4th year saw everyone with enough food items to play aggressive and build 3 or 4 level canoes and teepees if desired. I drew a 3-buffalo tile and joined it to a two-buffalo tile on the opposite side of the board from where I had been playing. I placed my 4 remaining hunters on the tile. I eventually built a 2-person teepee on that prairie and moved my remaining two hunters into scoring position. I also had to reinforce my original mountain area after Kevin moved in and built his own-two person teepee in those mountains. He was only able to get one additional hunter to the mountains while I brought in two to keep top influence by the slimest margain. Kevin then took a heavy hit as his original prairie area that had grown nicely saw Mike take over influence with a 4-person teepee. It was the first, and only, teepee or canoe Mike had placed the entire game. Ken had reinforced and had firm control of first in large river and prairie areas

When the final scoring was done it came out as:

Mike - 28
Jeff - 27
Ken - 22
Kevin 19

Mike's strategy of scoring in as many areas as possible versus building and controlling large territories barely won out. It was fun to see how the different approaches worked, and games are always funner to play when there are multiple paths to victory.

Just on a side note, Mike's food levels were 11, 9 and 8, while mine were 10, 10 and 8. Had I managed to pick up one more food item I would have had him on the tie breaker. The tie breaker is the highest score for your lowest level food item (shades of Ingenious or Tigris and Euphrates). Our 8 would have been a wash and on the next food item my 10 would have beat his 9 on the second tie breaker. You can't get much closer than that.

It was a fun game and my rating of the game might rise a tad if further plays provide these kind of results. It is a game that can easily be prone to analysis paralysis though. As a group I think we did pretty well in this regards. You do need to give some thought to where you place your tile each year and even how you place your hunters on the tile. This isn't a bad thing as I think there may be more here than I was originally giving the game credit for. I'm looking forward to trying it again.

Thread: The theme in Bison IS very STRONG and well implemented !!!

MacTele — 2006-09-29T09:36:41+00:00

IMO theme is strong in BISON. Your pieces (dudes,meeples) are hunters of one of the clans (family groups) of Nez Perse tribe. The Spring has just started (after hard winter) and they go from their winter camp to hunt. The goal is to bring as much food as possible to the village (represented by the red sign on the board) before winter. This is very thematic, because life for native tribes was rather easy during warm seasons (a lot of food) and very hard during winter (food nearly non existant).So it was normal to live very well in summer and gather food for hard time. This is shown very well in the game. The family group which brings the most food to the camp gathers most prestige and fame and wins the game (also very thematic). There are three different kinds of food, all of them meat, with the same value (also very thematic). In the beginning hunters do not know where are the places with most game so they have to find out. This is represented by adding tiles and putting cubes (hunters) there. They are ones who went from the winter camp to look for food for winter and decided to stop in that place and start to hunt. Meanwhile (during next phases and turns of the game)they can decide to travel to other areas (movement in the game) in which they hope to find more game. They cannot stay in areas where other families hunt which is also very thematic because families lived during summer in small groups not near each other but meeting sometimes (scarcity of food). Three ways of moving cubes are also thematic because it really shows how hunters travels in search of good hunting grounds, calling to place being the real gem of implementing theme into the mechanics. Building of tipis and canoes is very thematic also showing bigger hunter bases with women and children staying there. They free Your hunters to hunt in other areas cause they traveled vast distances from home to hunt. Costs are very thematic too. During movement there is no real difference do they eat fish, birds or bisons (beef) but when You take (birth or rather adultery) new hunters and build tipis or canoes families use not only meat but also bones, furs, feathers and so on. The cost dependance of number of hunters is thematic also which i do not have to explain . The distribution of game in the area (scoring) is very thematic also with most strong getting all, next getting half and next getting what it has in his own area. Finnaly the scoring is very, very thematic showing how native tribes fested during time of plenty (droping meat to zero before score) and gatherd food for winter.
Bison is very thematic game showing how life of tribe looked like during warm seasons taking into consideration the specifics of hunters and gatherers way of life, their dependence of meat, must to prepare for hard winters and important role of prestige.
The game has very interesting mechanics (even if not revolutionary, i do not care), tense decision especially in the end game and i agree can be prone to AP.
And when we speak about the theme, the theme is very strong here !!!