Game: Aquädukt

Thread: Re: Grubsnatcher Review: Aquadukt “Get a load of him, he's so insane. You'd better get your coat dear, it looks like rain.”

grublord — 2008-07-24T16:39:44+00:00

Gamegrunt wrote:
The components are nice, save the D20, which in my case at least, was determined to be utterly defective.

The D20 that came with my copy is awful, as well.

We were about halfway through our first game when we discovered that the die will not roll an 8. We had double canals between fields 7 & 8 and kept hoping to be able to play houses there. We took a time-out from the game just to try to roll an 8, but we gave up after about 42 billion rolls. How is it even possible for a die to shy away from a number like that?

We were away from home and didn't have another D20, so we had to finish the game out with the wonky one.

As far as the game itself goes, I was not impressed. I'm glad I got it very cheaply. Maybe if you play a lot with a group of very competitive players some interesting strategies will develop. As we played last night, it felt like we were just passing time.

Thread: Re: 2 tips to get you ahead of the game!

ackmondual — 2008-07-18T17:31:28+00:00

Shpoogen wrote:
ok so here's a tip.
;)What I do it do most of my dice rolls, and try to use up my 1 spaces as quickly as possible. that way, later on when the board is more heavily watered, you will be *forced* to use you 2 and 3 house tiles. Easy points!

:devil:And don't forget that each well only can have 2 offshoots, so if see your opponent place a well down, in hopes of watering some major 4 house tiles, place two aquaducts into the opposite directions!

;)
You should be careful with this, as it may backfire. If you rid all of your 1-houses soon, but then are forced to build in a region that will fill up and cause your house to be discarded, then you're now losing more potential points than if you still had a 1-house tile. The 1-house tiles are nice to use as "area full cannon fodder" tiles. You can decline placing a house tile, but if that was your 1st or 2nd roll, you may fall behind in house production.

The key is to try to anticipate when you're likely to be able to place your higher valued tiles and be able to water them before a region gets full.

:devil:
Only case where it doesn't work too well..... if your opponent puts the well, he'll put it RIGHT NEXT to those houses of his, so it would be hard to manipulate the canals away from there. Even so, it's usually easier to twist turn it back to those houses, or double canal it.

Exception is b/c of well placement rules, he has to place a well far away, in which case, it's a nice move

Thread: Our First Aquadukt Session

ChonChuuk — 2008-06-23T02:36:09+00:00

I bought Aquadukt from Pozy a couple of weeks ago when they had it on sale. It looked like a game my wife and my two young daughters could enjoy.

When I opened the box I was pleasantly surprised. The inside was printed with a Roman theme and was divided into two sections by a raised aqueduct. My daughters (8 and 5) had a good time punching out the counters.

I read through the rules and then explained them to everyone. Then the game began. The first game was with just my two daughters. As such, the game was not very cutthroat. We had fun playing the tiles and running the aqueducts through our farms. By the end of the game my youngest had somehow gathered the most points. She was ecstatic and danced around the house chanting "I won! I won!".

My wife decided that this sounded like too much fun so she joined us for the next game. This one was a lot more "by the book". We had missed a few of the rules the first time around like removing unwatered houses from areas when they filled up.

My older daughter was getting some really lucky rolls and putting her houses close together. It made it easier to water them all and caused me to have to divert some of her canals so she couldn't get all of her houses watered.

I concentrated on placing all of my single houses first. That way when I rolled and could place houses in fields already watered my smallest tiles were 2 or even 3 house tiles.

Since I had a game under my belt already, even if we had mangled the rules the first time, and was able to hijack some of my daughter’s canals, I came out on top.

Overall, my wife enjoyed it and thinks it will be a good game to play with friends during a game night. My oldest had fun and was able to grasp some of the strategy so it is not too "old" for an 8-year-old.

The youngest had a much harder time with the second game. It was a little too complex and she got tired of sitting at the table. She hung in there though and finished.

This game will definitely get a few more plays during family time and game nights. Well worth the $12 bucks or so it cost me.

Thread: Re: Grubsnatcher Review: Aquadukt “Get a load of him, he's so insane. You'd better get your coat dear, it looks like rain.”

DancingMoogle — 2008-06-21T02:59:48+00:00

The components are nice, save the D20, which in my case at least, was determined to be utterly defective. It, it seems, wants to roll a 10 or six about 20 percent of the time.

Too true. Mine seems to want to roll 3 almost exclusively. Because of that, all the players wanted to put mountains on 3 during our second round. >_

Thread: Re: 2 player review of Aquadukt

robdnose — 2008-06-10T18:44:19+00:00

We played with three players and it was fun. I imagine it's best with four, as the choices you make on your turn become ever more important. The limited number of wells (four?) really make for some agonizing decision-making when you realize the bulk of your houses are nowhere near a water source. Plus, the possibility of someone rerouting the canals away from your houses puts the pressure on you to add the canals on your turn. Oh, what to do!!!

Great, quick game slightly underrated IMHO.

Thread: Re: version differences

wwscrispin — 2008-05-28T09:58:13+00:00

heli wrote:
Now, what's the uh evidence that there are any differences?

None whatsoever.

Maybe I should have asked if there is a difference. At the least the Schmidt version does not come with English rules.

Thread: Re: version differences

heli — 2008-05-28T05:45:03+00:00

Now, what's the uh evidence that there are any differences?

Thread: version differences

wwscrispin — 2008-05-27T23:41:33+00:00

What is the difference between the Schmidt and Uberplay versions?

Image

Aljovin — 2008-04-23T03:42:14+00:00

The components

Image

jwedel — 2008-04-15T08:00:17+00:00

Smug game winner.

Thread: Re: Placing Wells BEFORE Houses ???

leftyleo — 2008-04-14T15:32:09+00:00

That's a very interesting tactic on his part.

My first thought was that he was trying to put the wells
any place where you were not, even though he would be a bit
behind in the placement of houses. If he were not the starting
player this might be an option. Otherwise I would even see any
slight advantage.

I have turned canals away from an opponent, then had the misfortune
of multiple rolls into that area which I had just denied of water.

Ugh.

C'est la vie!

Thread: Re: First timers to aquadukt playing with my wife

ackmondual — 2008-04-13T04:35:51+00:00

eightbit wrote:
ackmondual wrote:

Curious, did you folks play that when a region/area fills up, unwatered house tiles go back into your reserve or are permanently discarded from the game for good?We played they are permanently discarded, isn't that what your supposed to do?That's how our group interpreted it. One person here on BGG thinks the tiles should go back into a player's reserves. He claims this way, players won't just get rid of their lower house tiles just so they can get free, higher points for when they place a tile on a pre-watered spot. They'll actually have to work on getting the 1 and 2-house tiles watered first

Thread: Re: First timers to aquadukt playing with my wife

durak60 — 2008-04-12T03:34:43+00:00

Yep, permanently discarded is correct.

That discount explains why my sister sent me this, LOL!

We played it a lot when we first got it. The screwage factor was kind of fun. We also found it easy to play with other non-gamers, so it has a certain gateway type of appeal.

But, after that initial burst, it's kind of just been sitting on the shelf collecting dust. I don't think it's a game that ultimately has much staying power.

Thread: Re: First timers to aquadukt playing with my wife

eightbit — 2008-04-12T03:05:14+00:00

ackmondual wrote:
75% off!? Damn... I wish my local B&N would have such splendid sales on board games
This was the sale they ran back in Feb., they only had a few good titles marked down.

ackmondual wrote:

Curious, did you folks play that when a region/area fills up, unwatered house tiles go back into your reserve or are permanently discarded from the game for good?We played they are permanently discarded, isn't that what your supposed to do?

Thread: 2 player review of Aquadukt

eightbit — 2008-04-12T03:03:19+00:00

The game is relatively simple. The rules were well written and only a few questions came up during game play. They were all quickly resolved from the rule book.

The object of the game is to have as many of your houses supplied by water at the end of the game. You do this by choosing one of 3 actions per turn. You can roll the dice up to 3 times and place houses in the quadrant that is rolled, you can place a well, or you can build canals. There are a few other things but thats it in a nut shell. The end of the game is when you run out of canals then you count up your houses that are supplied by water.

The pieces are good quality. I really like a game with good bits. The board did not sit flat on the table, this is the first time it was out of the box. Its not that its warped but its like the seems are to tight. The wells are nice glass stones, and the canals are nicely painted peices of wood. The house and mountain tiles are a good thick cardboard and everything has nice artwork. The d20 was not good. You can look at it and it doesn't look like its right. Some numbers seemed to keep getting repeated so I pitched in favor of my chesses d20 and the rest of the game rolled well.I like that the boards folds into quarters because it allows this game to be in a relatively small box.

I really liked this game for 2 people and look forward to playing with more as I think it will have a lot more depth when you add in more players.

Image

rbrockfam — 2008-04-12T01:59:17+00:00

Consulting the Geek! When my wife and I disagree on the rules a quick trip to Board Game Geek usually... proves her right!

Image

rbrockfam — 2008-04-12T01:57:57+00:00

Bad rolls! Red loses by one point after rolling and placing his last three house tiles into completed fields with no water supply!

Image

rbrockfam — 2008-04-12T01:56:18+00:00

Ouch! A rookie mistake! White loses 6 points and red loses 1 with no water supply!

Thread: Re: First timers to aquadukt playing with my wife

ackmondual — 2008-04-11T23:50:21+00:00

75% off!? Damn... I wish my local B&N would have such splendid sales on board games

I played a 4p game and it truly is as different as it goes with games like Carcassonne, Samurai, etc. You gotta worry about what the other 2 players would do, so it's the case of analyze it somewhat and just make the best move you can.

Curious, did you folks play that when a region/area fills up, unwatered house tiles go back into your reserve or are permanently discarded from the game for good?

Thread: First timers to aquadukt playing with my wife

eightbit — 2008-04-11T17:47:56+00:00

I bought this game from Barnes and Nobles 75% off sale knowing nothing
about it. Then I came here to the geek and learned it was liked by
many and that it was a good game for 2 players. The other night my
wife came to me and said lets learn a new game, I know you've bought
some you haven't played yet. Well after I picked myself up I asked her
who she was and what had she done to my wife. She assured me that she
was really my wife and did want to play a new game. I think we've
turned a corner here and my life will be different now.

So I suggested aquadukt and she did a quick scan of the rules. Neither
of us had before but thought I knew enough of the rules that between
the 2 of us we'd figure it out. The game isn't that complicated and
only a few times did we have to refer to the rules when a question
came up. The biggest one being the directions say wells have to be 5
tiles apart. Does that mean 5 squares or 5 canal sections. Since an
example in the book showing illegal canal placement showed 2 wells 5
canal lengths apart thats the interpetation we used.

The first game I played very aggressively spending more time blocking
her than playing my own houses and in the end she beat me bad. We then
played again and I still played to block her and lost even worse. The
third time we played I only blocked her when it gave me at least some
benefit. The game was close but she won again. I wish I could say it
was all part of my secret plan to lure her deeper into board games by
letting her win but I really was playing my best. I rarely beat her in
San Juan any more either and while I don't mind losing to her even
most of the time I would like to win once in a while.

The peices are all nice, the board is pretty but did not sit quite
flat and this is the first time it was out of the box. The wells are
nice stones, and the canals were nicely painted peices of wood. The
house and mountain tiles are a good thick cardboard and everything has
nice artwork. I really like a game with good bits. The d20 on the
other hand isn't right. You can look at it and it doesn't look like
its right. Some numbers seemed to keep getting repeated so I went into
the closet and came out with a chessex d20 and my dice tower (we were
playing on a very small table) and all was well. I really like that
the boards folds into quarters because it allows this game to be in a
small box.

I really liked this game and look forward to playing with more people
because like Carcassonne I think its going to be a very different game
when you add in more players.

Image

eightbit — 2008-04-10T00:13:23+00:00

I must have taken to long on my turn.

Thread: Re: Grubsnatcher Review: Aquadukt “Get a load of him, he's so insane. You'd better get your coat dear, it looks like rain.”

Gamegrunt — 2008-04-05T02:03:08+00:00

Thanks for the reference to the underappreciated Elton John classic, Madman Across the Water.

I obtained my copy via Tanga as well. The components are nice, save the D20, which in my case at least, was determined to be utterly defective. It, it seems, wants to roll a 10 or six about 20 percent of the time. A gaming friend gave me a nice replacement...a white D20 about the size of of golf ball. I promised her that I'd have her wearing golf balls the size of diamonds for her thoughtfulness.

I enjoy the game. It isn't the greatest, but it's a keeper.

Gg

Thread: Re: Grubsnatcher Review: Aquadukt “Get a load of him, he's so insane. You'd better get your coat dear, it looks like rain.”

petegrey — 2008-04-05T01:16:50+00:00

TVis wrote:
Grubsnatcher wrote:
Mountains add an unpredictable element to the game. Each mountain either makes a house tile worth more points or zero. Mountains also take up spaces on the board, so it becomes hard to supply areas with water. I do like this element of the mountains, but the randomness does hurt the game.I think you misrepresent the Mountains. In the standard game they serve simply to vary the board layout each session. I find this useful.

In a variant, they are flipped over at game end to reveal hidden values that increase or decrease scores for adjacent tiles. This is much more lottery than strategy, so I find it unattractive.

Lottery is a good way to express how that works. Exactly how we felt about it.

I really enjoy this light game, but the mountain scoring variant just makes no sense. We don't play using it.

Thread: Re: Grubsnatcher Review: Aquadukt “Get a load of him, he's so insane. You'd better get your coat dear, it looks like rain.”

TVis — 2008-04-05T00:41:27+00:00

Grubsnatcher wrote:
Mountains add an unpredictable element to the game. Each mountain either makes a house tile worth more points or zero. Mountains also take up spaces on the board, so it becomes hard to supply areas with water. I do like this element of the mountains, but the randomness does hurt the game.I think you misrepresent the Mountains. In the standard game they serve simply to vary the board layout each session. I find this useful.

In a variant, they are flipped over at game end to reveal hidden values that increase or decrease scores for adjacent tiles. This is much more lottery than strategy, so I find it unattractive.

Thread: Re: Grubsnatcher Review: Aquadukt “Get a load of him, he's so insane. You'd better get your coat dear, it looks like rain.”

Grubsnatcher — 2008-04-04T20:00:03+00:00

It's the latter. Each player's placement is subject to a separate roll. It's not LCR, but it feels very random especially when you start to roll the same full field.

Also, it appears I have a few musts where it should be mays. It is fixed now.

Thread: Re: Grubsnatcher Review: Aquadukt “Get a load of him, he's so insane. You'd better get your coat dear, it looks like rain.”

stormseeker75 — 2008-04-04T19:56:46+00:00

Each player gets to roll the die and place houses up to 3 times on their turn. So your rolls are independent from mine.

Thread: Re: Grubsnatcher Review: Aquadukt “Get a load of him, he's so insane. You'd better get your coat dear, it looks like rain.”

DarrellKH — 2008-04-04T19:24:55+00:00

So, this review begs a question - does everyone place a tile on a turn based on the same roll of the die, or is each player's placement subject to a separate roll? If the former, then the game doesn't seem quite as subject to the random element as you indicate; if the latter, then you're coming in five-by-five.

Thread: Grubsnatcher Review: Aquadukt “Get a load of him, he's so insane. You'd better get your coat dear, it looks like rain.”

Grubsnatcher — 2008-04-04T18:24:07+00:00

“Get a load of him, he's so insane. You'd better get your coat dear, it looks like rain.”

Welcome to a Grubsnatcher review. Each of my reviews will be named after a song, or after lyrics within a song. I will not use numerical ratings with my reviews but instead show elements that personify the game. I feel that numerical ratings will change between play groups as bad rules will be house ruled.

--

]]>

Aquadukt is a game that I received on the cheap from Tanga. I was curious about the game and there didn’t appear to be too many reviews on the game.

Components

After two weeks of shipping from the notorious Tanga, I receive my on-the-cheap copy of Aquadukt. As I opened the shipping box, I spotted the container in between a treasure trove of peanuts. After rolling around in the peanuts for a few hours like the dog, I started to look at the package. The box displays a two architects working on the early aqueducts. Behind him are two impatient women who can’t wait for the aqueducts to be finished. Look at her, she already has a vase in her hands wanting some of the fresh water.

The box is a little on the small size. It’s big enough to fit on my shelf in odd portioned. It’s not as big as the Days of Wonder square boxes, but not as small as the Kosmos boxes. I think it’s comparable to the Carcassonne box. I always have a hard time trying to get these unshapely boxes on the shelf.

Board (1)

]]>

The board is a grid separated into twenty different sections. Each section has a slightly different look. One section has rock outcroppings while another is surrounded by leafy hedges. I never had a problem discerning one section from another.

Twenty Sided Die (d20) (1)

]]>

The game is randomized. The board’s sections are divided into twenty separate section as mentioned above. Each time you need to know where to play in a certain section this die will be used.

House tiles (112)

]]>

The game comes with 112 houses in four different colors and designs. On each tile is a plot of land with houses ranging in the numbers of one to four. Each color sets comes with eight one house tiles, one two house tiles, eight three house tiles and 4 four house tiles.

Each player represents a color. Each color receives an entire set of matching houses. The game does scale and depending on the number of players, each player will receive a certain number of these houses. The more players involved in the game, the number of houses decreases per player. Each house tile is placed on the gird square.
Each player receives a wide variety of houses

I love the art on the tiles. Each house has a unique architecture coupled with the color. There isn’t much of a chance you will get the houses mixed up even if you are colorblind. It is very visually appealing.

Wells (5)

]]>

The game comes with five beads that represent welled. What a better well to represent a well with a glass bead counter? Well, it does look cheap but it works. The glass bead counter is of moderate size and of enough heft that you don’t have to worry about moving it around. In play, you place Wells at intersections on the board.

Mountain Tiles (8)

The 8 Mountain Tiles are double-sided tiles of chance. If you decide to use mountains, you place on the board at the beginning of the game. The double sides of the tiles are not exposed until the end of the game. The art on the mountains is very robust resembling what it’s supposed to do. The use of mountains is optional and adds much more luck.

Canals (36)

]]>

The game also comes with 36 blue wooden rectangles. This represents the canals you will be building through the land. The canals must extend from a well. They are placed on the edges of the grid lines.

The Rulebook and Player Aids

The game is simple. It would be hard to describe the rules in a complicated fashion. The rulebook is in full color with lavish illustrations. The rules are laid out so if any questions about the rules are asked, they can be referenced with a moments notice.

The game does not come with player aids. I don’t think the game needs it.

Objective

To win you must have the most houses supplied by water at the end of the game. The game ends when the last canal is laid.

The Flow

The game is divided into three actions. Each player receives on action per turn.

:d10-1: Building a House. This action involves rolling the twenty sided die and placing a house in corresponding section. Each section on the board is divided with a number. You may place one of your house tiles, and only one, on any space in that field. If at time the field becomes full, you remove any house that is not supplied by water. All houses are removed from the game and not returned to that player’s supply.

This is repeated up to three times per turn. Every roll is voluntary, so if you do not wish to roll no one is twisting your arm. You do not have lay a tile, but if you do you lose There is a rule that makes things a little more difficult. You must use your lowest valued if a space is already supplied by water.

:d10-2: Spring a Well. Every turn a player may spring a single well in any of the intersections on the board. The one exception is that the well must be at least five spaces away from any other well. The logic behind this is simple: it wants to board to be spread off as much as possible.

:d10-3: Building a Canal. The player may build one or two canals. Canals must be connected to another canal or a well. A well may only have two canals branching off from any one spring.

Double Canals can also be built. These allow a house to supplied two spaces over. This is an excellent way to support your own houses but can also hurt yourself if your not careful.

Why would a player build just one canal? If you want to set up the game to go on longer than it should. This way you can lay your cheap houses out first and deny water to your opponent’s high value houses forcing them to lose their houses early in the game. It’s also wise to use later in the game if you are trying to play catch up.

Mountains add an unpredictable element to the game. Each mountain either makes a house tile worth more points or zero. Mountains also take up spaces on the board, so it becomes hard to supply areas with water. I do like this element of the mountains, but the randomness does hurt the game.

Ponderings

]]>

They just can’t wait until it’s finished? Reminds me of some BGG users.

Aquadukt is not what I call a gamer’s game. It’s not even what I call a gamer’s filler. It’s a game that you feel like playing when you want a little bit of random chance in your life.

Mountains make the game even more random. I do not suggest adding mountains; they simply take away from the already random game. A variant that I’ve been considering is allowing a player to lay down a mountain instead of a house during the game. While this does not represent a real life situation it does add more choice.

The game is simple and do not expect more than what it is. There are very few tactical decisions in the game with a majority of your choices being led by the roll of a die. A majority of the true tactics does not come from laying down your houses, but laying down wells and canals. Denying your opponent assess to water is the key to victory.

So who is this should play this game? I suggest people who need a game that is random but doesn’t reach the mind boggling madness of War.

So in conclusion, you may ask why there aren’t very many reviews for Aquadukt? It’s that simple of a game. It’s not rocket science. It’s a simple, yet quaint game that is fun if played with the right mindset.

“Another glimpse of the Madman across the Water.”

Thread: Re: Influence the die roll

Awfki — 2008-03-20T13:27:14+00:00

The consensus is clearly that the die roll for house placement isn't that big a deal. Maybe I just need to think about it differently.

Then again, I'd almost be happier if well placement were random instead of house placement. I don't think the game would work as well that way though.

Thread: Re: Influence the die roll

ackmondual — 2008-03-20T05:25:37+00:00

Personally, I enjoy the randomness of a d20 in where to build houses. I feel this randomness compliments the game nicely since wells and canals get to be choosen where they're built, so THAT's where you have control. Furthermore, as one poster put it, ppl would just clump their houses together. A) clump multiple players' houses together and fight over how the canals twist and turn or B) segregate all the houses. East side, west side, north side, etc. Each player would then arms race their canals. One point is to use other players' placement of wells and canals that are permanent to work for you.

Modifiers will still be random b/c you're still rolling the die, but IMO, that would skew the gameplay enough to make it a much different game. If you do want to pursue this, also consider using chit modifiers, or whatever modifiers such that they work by location as opposed to region #. For example rolling a 15 would also let u build in #10, #14, and #20 since those regions are all adjacent to each other

Thread: Re: Influence the die roll

TVis — 2008-03-20T00:14:08+00:00

My only experience so far is a series of two-player games, but my conclusion is that the die causes little impediment.

1) at the beginning of the game, no particular zone is necessarily beyond the reach of water,

2) you have direct control over placement of Wells and Canals to compensate (maximize) for tile placements.

Absent the die, players would just bunch houses together. The die serves to spread the placement all across the board. I'm satisfied.

Thread: Re: Influence the die roll

cferejohn — 2008-03-19T18:40:03+00:00

Its a thought. I generally don't feel like this game is overwhelmingly luck-based though, since you do get to decide what size houses to play and everything else in the game (unless you play with the optional mountain rules) has no luck.

Other alternatives:

*Divide the board into fewer lots - say 4 lots of 5 or 5 lots of 4.

*Allow players to sacrifice an unplayed house tile to change the die roll by some amount (1 per house? (# of houses) -2? ).

Thread: Re: Influence the die roll

Mease19 — 2008-03-19T17:53:37+00:00

We had previously considered renumbering the squares and rolling two dice, that way the internal spaces were in the middle of the bell curve.

Thread: Re: Influence the die roll

pekin2121 — 2008-03-19T17:52:12+00:00

An interesting idea, might be worth a try. :)

I agree the die roll does make house placement completely random but I look at choosing when to place a well or water pieces the main part of the game. You can really screw over your opponents by having the water run away from their houses.

Thread: Influence the die roll

Awfki — 2008-03-19T13:52:28+00:00

No time at the moment to give this much thought but my major complaint with Aquädukt is the complete randomness of the die roll. I don't mind dice in games where I can stack things and play the odds (or take a long shot) but just a straight d20 roll to decide where to build your house? I'm glad we don't do it that way in the real world.

Anyway, what if you could influence the die roll? Maybe you get a +/- 1 modifier chit for every 4 houses watered. You could collect the chits to modify the die roll and get the area you wanted and it would be incentive to play those 4 house tiles.

Thread: Re: Cards instead of Die-Roll Variant

Awfki — 2008-03-19T13:42:48+00:00

papahoth wrote:
Why do you want to reduce the randomness? Is that not the point of playing a game?

Because in Aquädukt there's too much randomness. It ends up feeling like you don't really have control of anything and the winner is whoever gets better die rolls.

I don't have a problem with dice in games where you can play the odds (and sometimes lose anyway) but in this case you just roll and there's nothing you can do to influence the roll.

Thread: Re: Tiles removed from play?

ackmondual — 2008-03-14T07:00:37+00:00

@all.... my vote is also the way we played it. Those houses are permanently removed from the game.

EDIT: 5/6/2008
Finally got my own copy. The US Uberplay version to be exact, pictured here...
]]>page 3 of the rulebook states, in the Area full! section.... "The red tiles with the 3 houses are removed from the game, as they are not supplied with water"

ezwrighter wrote:
I would disagree with you on this...I think the stategy is actually a little more interesting if the tiles are left in the game.

Since, you must play your lowest tile on any pre-watered field, getting back your one point tiles after already playing them, actually forces you to use low numbered tiles in good locations, as opposed to having your low tiles removed from the game. If tiles are removed, you would just dump the low tiles into locations you know are going to be removed so you could easily play larger tiles when populating watered fields.

Wouldn't the rules cover running out of tiles if that was truly the intended rule?That's a valid argument, but on the flipside, if your houses come right back to your reserve, there'd be no incentive to balance wells and canals with building houses. Everyone would just keep piling on huge floods of houses (pun intended ;) ). Making them permanently gone forces players to not be so 'wreckless' in placing them and lax about not watering them. Once wells and canals are set up, then other players can turn that against you by using the resources that were built by another player to their own progress

Thread: Re: Final Turn - Beware!

ackmondual — 2008-03-14T06:29:37+00:00

glsonn wrote:
The rules state: "Once all of the canals have been played onto the game board, the current round is completed so that each player has had an equal number of turns."

Note that this is not the more-familiar "everyone gets one more turn" rule such as found in Ticket to Ride.

Example: Aldie, Bernhard, Claus, and Reiner are playing the game. If Aldie started the game and Bernhard played the last canal, how many other players get one more turn? Is it just Claus and Reiner? Or does Aldie get one more too? :shake: No, Aldie is out of luck. Each player gets the same number of turns. Aldie doesn't get an extra turn. Sorry, Aldie. :soblue:

Well, if Aldie was the last to move, then he'd get +1 turn compared to everyone else. In TtR, the person who places and ends up with 2 or less trains left actually gets +1 turn. Not much to do with 2 or less trains, but he could find a short route to squeeze it in somewhere

Thread: Re: Rolling a filled number?

ackmondual — 2008-03-14T06:24:47+00:00

mvettemagred wrote:
I think the wording of the rule answers your question. It's a "re-roll", not a 'new' roll. A re-roll is, by definition, a redo of a previous roll, and does not count against the 3-roll limit.

I hope this helps.That's my vote as well. Re-roll means that roll doesn't count towards the "up to 3 rolls" per turn

Thread: Re: Surprise Finish

walkie — 2008-03-10T05:03:19+00:00

It's true. She wins the first play of a new game every single time. I don't know how she does it.

Thread: Surprise Finish

40on3Legs — 2008-03-10T04:31:00+00:00

This was our first game of Aquadukt and it turned out to be a nice play. Eric got off to an early lead with lots more houses on the map but I was able to get a few lucky rolls in and eliminate some that weren't supplied with water. All was seemingly going well until I foolishly allowed a booming blue metropolis of Eric to get supplied with water! Curse my incompetence!!!

In the end it was a close game with only a difference of 2 points- I was the winner!!! I am still not sure how I pulled a victory out of seemingly nowhere- it probably had something to do with the last few lucky rolls I got where I was able to place some houses on open water lines. I feel that there is a bit more luck then we usually like in a board game but it is still fun. Something to note is that we did not play with the random mountain points since it was our first time. I don't like the idea of having random points added to scores at the end of the game, especially in light of how close our game was. But Eric counters this argument saying that there will be increased strategy to build around the mountain tiles. I am still skeptical but we will definitely try it out next time around.

I like this game but I think it will be better with four people- it seems like it is hard to have an unbalanced game with only 2 people (not counting mountain points). However, I did manage to use my uncanny ability to always win the first game which is usually enough to sell me on a game. Overall a great Tanga buy.

Thread: Re: Mountain Tiles

mvettemagred — 2008-03-07T03:08:43+00:00

Be aware -- the rules state a different number of mountains are used based on the number of players (I believe it's 8-6-4, for 2-3-4 players, respectively). So yes, you always use mountains, and they can be placed on any open field on the board.

Thread: Re: Rolling a filled number?

mvettemagred — 2008-03-07T03:05:07+00:00

I think the wording of the rule answers your question. It's a "re-roll", not a 'new' roll. A re-roll is, by definition, a redo of a previous roll, and does not count against the 3-roll limit.

I hope this helps.

Thread: 2 tips to get you ahead of the game!

Shpoogen — 2008-03-06T16:18:55+00:00

ok so here's a tip.
;)What I do it do most of my dice rolls, and try to use up my 1 spaces as quickly as possible. that way, later on when the board is more heavily watered, you will be *forced* to use you 2 and 3 house tiles. Easy points!

:devil:And don't forget that each well only can have 2 offshoots, so if see your opponent place a well down, in hopes of watering some major 4 house tiles, place two aquaducts into the opposite directions!

Thread: Re: Anyone else's die look like it went through a shredder?

skacoaster — 2008-02-25T19:29:52+00:00

My ueberplay d20 is chipped a couple places, but seems to look and roll fine otherwise.

Thread: Re: Aquadukt: Fantastik or Krap?

nolesr1 — 2008-02-16T18:16:21+00:00

Your review made me laugh out loud. I am reminded of the credits in Monty Python and the Holy Grail "See the majestik moose"

Thread: Re: Three times attempted; all the same outcome

TVis — 2008-02-15T00:49:48+00:00

Drew1365 wrote:
If I were his opponent, much effort would go into turning those canals away from those tiles.It's not quite so simplistic. His Canal might also service my tile, or at least lead closer to one of mine. Meanwhile HE spent the turn building it while I place three more bets on additional plots.

Drew1365 wrote:
However, I think that in each game I've played not all the wells got placed. I have a vague memory that perhaps the first game we extended existing Canals without placing final Wells. Not so here.

And I have limited basis to imagine what happens if we insert an extra player in all this, where we have to WAIT without being able to react so immediately and directly to each other. There is comfort in knowing that you are only one turn away from being able to do something ... instead of two or three.

Thread: Re: Three times attempted; all the same outcome

Drew1365 — 2008-02-15T00:28:43+00:00

I've only played this a couple times, but it seems to me that placing your 4-house tiles early is a sure way to lose them. If I were his opponent, much effort would go into turning those canals away from those tiles. Meanwhile, I would take your approach and put down mostly 1-house and 2-house tiles at first. Since the only tiles that can be placed in an already-watered space are your lowest-valued tiles, I would try to get rid of the 1s and 2s. Also, placing a well doesn't seem like a powerful move, and you give up placing both canals and tiles to do it. But I haven't played enough to really tell. However, I think that in each game I've played not all the wells got placed.

Thread: Three times attempted; all the same outcome

TVis — 2008-02-14T15:24:25+00:00

This is the third competition where both my lone opponent and I have no experience with this game apart from this series of plays with each other.

My opponent’s consistent strategy has been to set out his 4-house tiles early in the game, while I cautiously use 1- and 2-house tiles. My intent is to wait for better information regarding position of the Wells in order to judge my chances of success. My opponent, on the other hand, actively places Wells, even doing so randomly early in the game when there are very few houses on the board.

And so it begins just like the first two games. Within the first handful of turns, I have used more of mine to place houses than he has. His efforts go more often to placing Wells and Canals than mine. By time he places the fourth Well he has also placed them “well” with respect to his 4-house tiles, although some have made me comfortable, too.

But this most recent Well gives me an opportunity to cut him off. He has a 3-house tile next to one of my tiles, and has positioned the Well between them both. I immediately place Canals to form a right angle outward from the Well, working them to my own benefit and his detriment. He makes a knowing grimace before rolling to place some houses.

I breathe an internal sigh of relief. I have a small group of houses that are currently unwatered and unrealistically distant from available sources. I had some fears he might use his turn to place the fifth Well, too, as a way to swipe back at me. Instead I get to use it. Wells are now complete; four by him against one by me. “I wondered when you’d get around to that,” is his comment.

I’m also able to extend Canals within that last group. The balance between using turns for Houses versus turns for Wells/Canals may have inverted for both of us at this point. I am conscious of how few Canals are left, since total depletion of the supply ends the game. I gauge where I need them. Two particular tiles of mine are more distant from Wells, but they are 1s and I am willing to sacrifice them. He could simply consume Canals to reduce my chances but I succeed because he doesn’t seem to make that calculation. At least once through this, though, he does place a house where water already exists. Of course the 1-house tile he must use is limiting so I feel little threat.

The timing just works out that I water my last houses with the last Canals. The only tile removed from the board before scoring is that 3-house tile of his that I had undermined earlier.

My house count wins, 44 to 39, and I have more tiles on the board overall. This, too, has been the ending pattern as we have both stuck to our own starting pattern. He dislikes the loss but feels there is value in controlling the early Wells. I have been winning, yet seeing (it was visible already in mid-game for each session) that he is successful in watering his 4s I cannot fully conclude that he is wrong – at least in a 2-player game.

Other Observations:

++ I once sacrificed two of my 1s to kill a 3 of his when I purposely placed a tile that completed a zone that had very little water. It has not been a prominent element of our games to have this opportunity for destructive play, although he had a one-for-one against me tonight, too.

++ In that same zone as above, he later placed a tile and watered it. With the last space was still unwatered, I again rolled the zone number perhaps three times and had to pass on building (reluctantly ending my turn). He rolled it once, too. This provided an uncharacteristic example of imbalance due to the die.

++ Another uncharacteristic sight was a broad, empty area in the middle of the board, where zone numbers were never rolled. Overall, we have seen the developed spaces nicely distributed. “Luck of the die” has never been a criticism that crosses my mind in this game.

++ Upon reviewing the rules later I am reminded of double Canals. The methodology for this was discussed before our earliest test session but we have since forgotten its existence. It has never been used. When I recreate tonight’s gameboard in my imagination, I believe there were locations where it might have been a useful alternative to more literal extensions of a canal.

Thread: Re: I think I've been playing wrong....

TVis — 2008-02-13T21:13:22+00:00

Just imagine the incremental pleasure you are now going to discover once you place a Well and gleefully watch your opponent immediately place two Canals explicitly in directions meant to bypass your preferred tile.

Oooh... Perhaps I didn't express that from the correct viewpoint.

Thread: Re: I think I've been playing wrong....

stormseeker75 — 2008-02-11T15:07:27+00:00

Yeah, the springs are just a source of water for the Aquaducts, but they dont' actually supply water to the buildings around them.

Thread: Re: I think I've been playing wrong....

thesedarkdice — 2008-02-11T06:13:50+00:00

All I can say is "good lord, this is going to change gameplay just a little bit". :-)

Thread: Re: I think I've been playing wrong....

Mr.Baggins — 2008-02-11T05:47:55+00:00

Wells do not supply anything, only canals do.

Yeah, you've been playing it wrong. Bummer, eh? :arrrh:

Thread: I think I've been playing wrong....

thesedarkdice — 2008-02-11T05:02:24+00:00

...Oh how we all dread those few words.

This evening, I was playing Aquadukt with my brother when I realized that while I always had just assumed that all tiles adjacent to a water source/well was automatically supplied, I couldn't remember were it said that. So, after the game (which he won, by three points) I reread the rule book and can't seem to find any evidence of such a rule ever existing.

So, I'm going to ask the all knowing BGG collective, am I crazy? or do wells actually supply to adjacent tiles?

Image

jupiterchild — 2008-02-02T03:26:09+00:00

The Double Canal will supply the gold 4 house tile, but the single canal will not supply the gold 3 house tile.

Thread: House Count versus Tile Count and other contemplations

TVis — 2008-02-01T18:26:08+00:00

Two players meet for the third time. Sort of. Two weeks ago we walked through an informal session for learning purposes only, while last week was our initial play for proper competition. Neither of us has any other experience.

I go first and place three tiles. With no knowledge of where water might turn up, I expect that any tile is purely a gamble at this point. I place a mix of 1-house and 2-house tiles, saving better ammunition for better-known opportunities later. As part of his first round, however, my opponent places a 4-house tile. In fact he places another in each of the two following rounds, also, while I have remained cautious.

Should I feel smug? I do, whether or not it is justified. My thinking is that with only five water sources, at least one of these big-value house tiles can pointedly be denied access by game’s end.

I roll the chance to place a tile next to one of his 4-house locations. I place the first of my own 4-houses and count on his help to get it watered. Indeed, he places the first Well and I quickly position Canals in the desired direction.

In time, he places two more Wells to his advantage while I have been placing houses or Canals. I have a set of three contiguous tiles that will lose out if I do not grab a Well soon. I drop one in place knowing he has the power to immediately route Canals away from my needs, and he does try. But my overall formation guaranteed that he had to service at least one of my tiles and on my turn I can begin to circle back to where I want to be.

Similarly, he places the last Well (he has placed 4 of the 5) and I intentionally occupy my following turn with disruptive Canal routing to thwart him.

But back in the area where we had our respective 4-house tiles adjacent, he also got to place his final 4-house tile. In addition he has continued the same Canal past a pair of 3-house tiles there, too. In fact, all four of his 4-house tiles are secure. Overall I have more tiles on the board, yet a hurried count shows he may have better scoring. I have several 3s, but still only one of my 4s is out.

Having silently noted that scoring issue above, I have an unusual round where each of my rolls allows me to place a tile on sites already watered. I am of course required to use my low value 1-house tiles, but that is a complete round of three guaranteed points. That might be a very fortunate catch-up moment.

We continue and the final count at game end reveals that I have scored better, 33 to 31. Looking at it in a second direction, however, I find something to ponder: that thin margin has taken me 17 tiles to his 13 to do so. Is that significant, is there any lesson?

The breakdown of successful tiles (mine and his respectively):
[c]1s 6 6
2s 7 0
3s 3 3
4s 1 4[/c]

Other observations which we discuss:

-- We both acknowledge choosing to place houses in seemingly unattractive locations on our first roll of mid-game rounds, but doing so nonetheless as a concession to continue rolling.

-- Since almost every placement was successfully watered, were the above “unattractive” sites really so bad? Or did we perhaps try to hard to bring Canals to them?

-- We recognize a particular comfort in a 2-player game knowing that as soon as a Well is placed by one of us, then the other can immediately take it in a preferred direction. This self-serving, follow-up action could be much less certain with additional players who would take intervening turns. We are eager for additional exposure.

-- Those three-rolls-in-a-row that gave me immediately guaranteed water access represent the only time I felt the luck-based level of the game, despite the ongoing presence of the die. In the end, this event could be deemed to have been the difference in my victory.

-- Did we give more effort to placing Canals (see also second item above) than placing houses? Only two tiles each were removed from the board before scoring (all 1s) for lack of water, yet quite few tiles were never even played. Did we cut ourselves short by leaving so many?

Thread: Placing Wells BEFORE Houses ???

TVis — 2008-01-26T14:01:55+00:00

A two player game in which the experience level for both is very much like the opening board. That is to say very nearly empty except for a few random spots that have been filled in advance. A week earlier I read the rules and then taught my opponent during a superficial walkthrough session in which we jointly discussed various moves and purposely executed some non-competitive actions just to exercise the rules. It was then the end of the night and we packed up.

So I begin tonight by placing three house tiles as permitted by the die rolls. I am pleased that some are roughly in the middle of the board, where I perceive there will be more directions from which to draw water in the future.

On his first move, without the least hesitation, my opponent grabs a blue jewel to signify drilling a well. He places it off in a quadrant well away from any of my houses. Not near any houses for that matter. This puzzles me. I make a facial expression to represent that sentiment and speak a one word query, “What?” The shaking of my head in conjunction with this is the non-verbal equivalent of adding the words “… are you doing?”

He shrugs and I move onward to roll for three more house tiles.

For his second move, he does the same again, he just places another well elsewhere in the wilderness. I am quite stunned while he is equally nonchalant. “Are you sure you want to do that?” I ask. My own plan is to see where my houses land and then try to place a water source as close as I can to as many as I can. Should I explain that to him? He calmly replies, “I really don’t have any idea what this game needs, so I’m just going to experiment and see what happens.”

Round three he joins me in placing houses, but round four he takes yet another well from the supply and gives it a home on the board. I now consider two particular assessments:
1) At this rate, I could win just because he has almost no tiles on the board. I might simply outnumber him.
2) But hey, be careful. There are only five wells available and he’s already put three where they give me no advantage at all.

I waste no more time and act on that second assessment. I place a well central to some of my own house tiles and wait anxiously to extend water service to more of them before he can misdirect the supply route. He smirks when I drop the well into place.

Now that some of my houses are set for scoring, I also contemplate a bit further regarding that first assessment from a moment ago. I understand that the game will end when all canals have been placed. Can I hasten the ending and leave him with too few house placements to gain a useful score?

For a while I try to balance placing more houses and placing more canals to service them. His efforts to place houses increase. He is able to place some of them so that they are close, but not immediately next to existing canals. This allows him to utilize some of his higher scoring tiles and still be confident of obtaining water service.

I silently perform an informal scoring count. I’ve varied my bets and have been using a mix of different valued house tiles. He may have fewer tiles on the board but the score is fairly close due to a mix that has higher average value.

I am able to combine goals at this point. I can use up the remaining available canals by also routing them in directions inconvenient for the houses he has placed near to mine. I’m comforted that his own efforts to gain water supply consume the canals, too. Interestingly, two lines of supply are approaching each other. He is able to turn a corner and bring them close enough together in a configuration that makes it impossible to supply one of my tiles. That one will be removed when the end comes.

I am definitely interested in an expedited ending. He is using canals to help himself while I am using them as much to make them go away as give myself aid. With the final two of them I add service for another one of my tiles, although it’s only a low-scoring one. The game ends

There are plenty of open spaces on the board, but we have assured that very few of the filled ones lack water. Only three tiles are removed from the board before scoring. Two of them are mine and one is his.

The remaining houses are counted and I have won, 36 to 31., He is discouraged at the loss (he’s lost almost everything we’ve played recently), but the amount is not so amazing as to dissuade him from using his opening tactic again.

Only later do I absorb the connection that his one removal was a four-house tile for which I had intentionally made canal access more difficult (lengthy, but still possible). Furthermore, those last two canals I placed could have instead supplied that very house tile if I had left them behind. That would still leave me with a win, but my escape would have been even more narrow. Was his opening really so wasteful as I had imagined?

Image

adamdynris — 2007-11-19T03:48:09+00:00

Image

adamdynris — 2007-11-19T03:47:49+00:00

Image

matthewjhoskins — 2007-11-11T17:14:13+00:00

Unpunched sheet - showing numbers on mountain tiles for scoring variant