Game: Vikings

Thread: Re: Massive Review With Pictures

josgeerkin — 2008-08-16T15:05:41+00:00

Great review. Thanks for putting it together.

I don't mind the randomness. To me, the game is about making the best choice with the options presented to you on your turn.

I've heard complaints about the theme also. If people are looking for a sail and pillage type experience, they would better better off with a game like Fire and Axe. You make a good point about Vikings as settlers.

The "Norse Accountants" and pasted on theme comments just seem like the typical knee-jerk reaction from the Eurobash crowd. It's predictable noise, at this point IMO.

Thread: Re: Massive Review With Pictures

cvandyk — 2008-08-16T14:05:53+00:00

Thanks for the thoughtful response Michael. About the Progress Version - what I especially like about it is that it makes the game even tighter and more difficult. Now you can only ferry one Viking per boatsman (unless you get a special tile), so you have to be extra careful about buying the right tiles. Moreover, there is more incentive now to buy the most expensive tiles, even though you might get a ship with them. Even more decisions...

Thread: Re: Massive Review With Pictures

Trump — 2008-08-16T12:20:36+00:00

cvandyk wrote:
1. Nevertheless, the common lament of bad theming is understandable.

Yeah, the theme doesn't work so great, but I really don't care with this game. I've yet to play with anyone who's grumbled about the theme.

2. The second problem that is commonly mentioned is what is called "Randomness."

There is a bit of that. The game plays fast enough though that the level of randomness doesn't have time to bother me. Money overcomes any randomness and as you said, PLAN AHEAD. Don't just assume you'll be picking up all of the fishermen you need on the last turn.

3. Analysis Paralysis. This game, the critics say, is "very prone to AP." Once again, there is some truth to that. Conversely, it's a sign that there are many difficult decisions to be made.

AP? I have seen next to none of that. Most players seem to know the island/viking pair they want before it gets to their turn.

4. No Player Interaction. As one person describes the game: "A deception. Almost no player interaction, majority of decisions are trivial." This one I just don't understand.

What?! The fact that I can't get through a game without shaking my fist at another player and exclaiming "By Odin's blood! I wanted that set!" shows me that I'm interacting. Also, as you mentioned, the interaction is at a level my wife likes. If we were actually attacking each other, she'd never play. Beating each other to the punch is more to her liking.

Consider for instance the following comment: "It's easy to get hosed on income when you can't get any yellow Vikings early in the game and then it's nearly impossible to dig out of that hole." You only get hosed on income if you are a big spender. You start with quite a bit of money actually, so you won't need to buy a goldsmith right away.

First-time games of Vikings can be brutal. Do you remember the first time you played St Petersberg, and you spent your money like a drunken sailor? Doom. You get more money in Vikings, but you still have to keep an eye on your expenses. Not having goldsmiths doesn't kill you. Spending money as if you have a dozen of them WILL.

We've only just starting playing with the "Progress Version" (talk about an unfortunate name in a game about Vikings!), although we skip the optional rules about auctioning off turn order. So after at least a dozen or more games, we still have new places to discover...

Yeah, we only use the special tiles, mainly because it will bait players into buying the most expensive sets. The other suggested rule additions just clutter the game up.

Thread: Re: Massive Review With Pictures

game_boy — 2008-08-16T09:54:50+00:00

cvandyk wrote:
the Viking meeples (aka Veeples) have nice colours and neat little horned helmets (or whatever they are)
They're actually little Jamiroquais:

Thread: Re: Massive Review With Pictures

Surya — 2008-08-16T04:43:25+00:00

cvandyk wrote:
No Player Interaction
Whoever says this, hasn't been paying attention!

Thread: Massive Review With Pictures

cvandyk — 2008-08-16T03:48:55+00:00

Introduction

Vikings has generally not had too much press. Even though it sits ranked at number 132 it's not talked about all that much. And I think it deserves a better reputation. In this review I'd like to share why I think this is a great game, and a gem that should hit your table on a regular basis.

Before I start I should direct your attention to the following review: http://www.boardgamegeek.com/thread/198930. This is probably the most succinct and well-written (not to mention favourable) review at the moment, and I can only hope to add to its commentary.

Introduction

What you do get in my review(s), is pictures, and here is the first!

]]>

So that's what you get in the box, and it doesn't look that impressive at first sight, but when you look a little closer you notice that all the tiles are made from thick cardboard, that the Viking meeples (aka Veeples) have nice colours and neat little horned helmets (or whatever they are), that the board has a cool spinning wheel that operates quite smoothly, and that the box insert is a dream come true for people who like to stack their tiles. Here are a few pictures:

]]>

]]>

]]>

Go ahead, give these pictures some thumbs up. I'm too lazy to list the photographers, but you can give credit where credit is due.

I have no complaints about the components, except perhaps one minor gripe. Stacking all the tiles every game gets a bit fiddly and it may have been smarter just to include a second cloth bag to put them in and draw them from. Oh well, it's not really a big deal.

The Big Idea

Let me give you the condensed version first. You are a bunch of Vikings. Each of you has a clan to settle on new islands. So you auction of pieces of real estate and create yourself a nice archipelago (I've wanted to use that word for a while now!). Okay, you're probably sensing that the theme is a bit whacky, and indeed, most of the negative comments about this game are to do with the theme. We'll get to that later. Not only do you auction off real estate, but you can even buy Vikings. Surprisingly I haven't seen the kinds of complaints about slavery that one sees with Puerto Rico. But maybe it's more of a work agreement. In any case, when you've bought your land and your Viking you place them before you and build yourself a nice map. Then you keep taking turns at the auction wheel. Every so often you score points for your placements, and guess what, the person with the most points wins the game! I always love it when they explain that to you in the rules.

The Rules in More Detail

You can skip this section if you like. It's dreadfully boring, and if you're like me you buy the game based on flashy rhetoric and looks anyway. On the other hand, if you like to tell your significant other that you've "done the research" before you spend the money, read on.

Alright, have a look at this picture:

]]>

You'll notice that the auction wheel goes up to eleven. When you draw the 12 tiles to be auctioned off you'll notice that there are land pieces and there are ships. The ships represent other Vikings (bad ones) who try to come by and plunder your fertile lands. Apparently the Franks and Anglo-Saxons have no money left and the Vikings are now raiding themselves.

When you draw the tiles for the round you place the ships starting from the 11 value and going down from there, and the land tiles starting from the 0 and moving up from there. You also draw 12 Vikings from the bag. These come in a variety of colours. Lowest on the auction wheel (and thus cheapest) are the fishermen (blue); most expensive are the boatsmen (grey). The other ones are warriors (black), noblemen (red), scouts (green) and goldsmiths (yellow).

What are these Vikings good for? Well, the fishermen allow you to feed your Viking population at the end of the game (for which you gain or lose points in the final round depending on how many you have). The goldsmiths will earn you money during the game, and you need money (especially after your initial amount is gone) to buy tiles. The scouts and nobleman score victory points (we'll leave out the details). The warriors can defend your islands from other Viking ships.

Okay, now have a look at this mid-game picture:

]]>

Each player has one of these L-shaped starting pieces (on the left and top of the tiles) that shows his starting base. To place tiles that you've bought they need to touch the base or another tiles on at least one side. It's as simple as that. However, if you want to place the Viking that you get with it, you need to place it on that tile or on the top left corner of the base, where the boatsmen reside (check out the picture of the man and his canoe). But there's another rule: Vikings may only be placed on their tile if they match the colour of that row – so they need to match the dudes depicted on the left side of the base.

The result is that when you buy a tile you have a choice. You can put the Viking on the tile, or if it doesn't fit in the right row, or you need it elsewhere, you can place it in a different row and put the Viking with the boatsmen. If you get a boatsman with your tile you automatically place it on the top left of your base.

Okay, now if you're forced to buy a ship that's not such a bad thing, because they will earn you victory points or money, but only if you have a warrior placed right below them. In the picture above the player will earn five dollars during Big Scoring (we'll get to that) from his warrior, but the blue ship threatens everything in the row beneath all the way down to the blue row (thus the colour of the ship). This means that Vikings placed underneath are useless until a warrior can protect them.

Now, let's go back to the auction wheel for a moment. The trick is that you're never allowed to buy the 0 value tile/Viking, until all the other Vikings that share a colour have been bought. So let's say there are blue Vikings on tiles 0, 1, and 2. Only when tiles 1 and 2 are gone can tile 0 be bought. Then the wheel will move up to tile 3 (if it's still left), which would likely be a goldsmith, and then that tile has a value of 0 and the same rules apply. This is one of the neatest mechanisms of the game, and while it stinks thematically it works amazingly well.

Last thing is SCORING.

After rounds 1, 3, and 5, players collect income from how many goldsmiths they have that are not threatened by Viking ships.

After rounds 2, 4, and 6, players do BIG SCORING. First they have a chance to use their boatsmen to carry Vikings from their base to open islands in their display, provided they are placed in the right row. The rule here is that you can either use a boatsman to ferry across as many Vikings of one colour as you like (e.g., 2 warriors), or to do one of each colour (let's say, a fisherman, a goldsmith, and a nobleman). This rule reminds me a bit of Thurn and Taxis, when you complete routes in the provinces. In any case, when your boatsman has done his job he's out of the game. After that the various rows are scored, more gold is made by the goldsmiths, and so on.

After the final round a Final Scoring also takes place. Whoever has the most boatsmen left gets 10 points, whoever has the longest island gets 5 points, whoever has the most gets 7, for every 5 coins you get 1 victory point and, as mentioned you get or lose points for your fishermen depending on how well fed your population is.

You'll note by the way that there's a symbol for each of these scoring rounds printed on each of the six boxes on the board where the tiles are initially stacked:

]]>

That's about it for the rules, although you'll have to buy the game if you really want to get the nuts and bolts.

Strengths and Weaknesses.

Let me list the criticisms of this game and then post my response to each of them.

1. First of all, there is the problem of Theme. In this regard the picture on the front of the box can be somewhat misleading. Here it is:

]]>

These Vikings are donned in their finest battle gear, and so the picture may give the impression that the game is about raiding and pillaging. It is not, and the correct interpretation of the cover is probably that these Vikings are discovering new land (e.g., Greenland), thus the landing scene.

Nevertheless, the common lament of bad theming is understandable. As one of the people who rates the game a 5 suggests, the game "should be called Norse Accountants instead of Vikings." Still, when I put aside the notion of an auction for land (which to me is just a mechanism to make the game tick), I have no problem enjoying the theme of exploration. When all six rounds are done the result is really quite pleasant to look at (not to mention colourful), and the entire display presents a nice picture of newfound islands. And we often forget that this is one of the hallmarks of Viking activity. The following comment from Juan from Spain (who rates the game a 5) therefore seems a bit rash: "Mmm... This game is about vikings?? Are you sure?? Perhaps the last game I play with the most paste-theme."

In addition, I also like the little pictures of halls and buildings on the islands, some of which match what I know of Viking architecture quite nicely. We won't say anything about the portrayal of horns on Viking helmets however…

2. The second problem that is commonly mentioned is what is called "Randomness." Here's what the honourable Scott Nicholson has to say: "It seemed that a lot hinged upon what Vikings came out when. Players, simply because of where they sat, could find themselves denied of important things because of the constraining rules on the purchase of Vikings." I'm not sure what he means by "constraining" since you can buy from anywhere around the wheel (if you have enough money), and if you get the wrong Viking you can just ferry him (or her!) over with a boatsman. However, his sentiment is a common one, as a second quotation further demonstrates: "This is a typical 'you plan but luck decides' strategy game."

I guess there is some truth to the complaint. Particularly in a four player game you are only going to get 3 tiles per round. For that reason I slightly prefer the 2 and 3 player games, where you get 4 and 6 tiles respectively per round. The two player game probably gives you the most control, but I should say that I like the anxiety of wondering whether I will get the one tile that I really need to help me out in the final round. Moreover, the randomness is mitigated by the fact that you know roughly how many Vikings of each colour are left in the bag (even though there are 6 extra ones to prevent complete knowledge), and you know the turn order, so you can start planning for the last round well in advance.

And that is exactly what is so great about this game – that you need to plan ahead. You need to develop your islands in such a way that you have late-game options, so that you can incorporate beginning, middle, and end island pieces in your display. I have seen it more than once where a player only has room for pieces that start new islands and the wheel offers up mostly middle or end pieces. That is a risk YOU take, not one that the game forces on you. The other thing is that the game does not allow you to spend your money frivolously, which to me is a good thing. In that sense it has some similarities with a game like St. Petersburg, where you can spend big one turn but you may pay for it later.

So to sum up, you have a lot of control over how the randomness inherent in the game affects you (paradoxically), and this is a good kind of randomness, where you usually have some way of making the best out of the situation, where you have tough choices to make, and where there is a suspense and anxiety that pushes the game to its conclusion.

3. Analysis Paralysis. This game, the critics say, is "very prone to AP." Once again, there is some truth to that. Conversely, it's a sign that there are many difficult decisions to be made. I'm sometimes prone to AP, but what I usually do (and suggest) is to think through things quickly by making some rough calculations, and then go with what FEELS best. You don't have to consider every last detail to make a relatively informed decision. When players do this (and with more play there is less bewilderment) the game moves quite quickly and can easily be finished in an hour.

4. No Player Interaction. As one person describes the game: "A deception. Almost no player interaction, majority of decisions are trivial." This one I just don't understand. In an auction there's always interaction. Sure, you can't go off and pillage someone else's land, but you can go play another game afterwards and do that. Moreover, you can certainly screw people over by taking the exact tile they need or by forcing them to buy more expensive tiles than they might wish. On the other hand, the fact that each player does not have to worry about other players wrecking what they've created is something refreshing once in a while. It is certainly something my wife really enjoys, and is I think one of the things that makes this one of her favourite games.

Some additional thoughts.

It seems to me that some of the complaints about the game also arise from bad play or inexperience with the game. Consider for instance the following comment: "It's easy to get hosed on income when you can't get any yellow Vikings early in the game and then it's nearly impossible to dig out of that hole. You can trade VP's for gold but that's little help. I think a base level of income each round with a *bonus* for yellow Vikings would fix that problem." You only get hosed on income if you are a big spender. You start with quite a bit of money actually, so you won't need to buy a goldsmith right away. Moreover, if you invest in goldsmiths you may be missing out in points elsewhere. And then there's the fact that you can also make money by repelling ships with your warriors. In fact while I've often seen people very poor in the game, I've never seen anyone lose the game by a long shot because they lacked money.

Here's a similar complaint that suggests a lack of experience: "It was *very* brutal and unforgiving. One player was out of the running by the second round. I fell out of the running by about the fourth round." How can you be out of the running by the second round? You will hardly have scored any points by then.

Another complaint is to mention that too much of the scoring occurs in the final round. Strictly speaking, there's only some extra scoring, but even so, the fact is that the additional scoring adds some depth to the game. New players usually don't plan much for the final scoring. In a somewhat perfunctory manner they will add up the number of islands and figure out who's got the longest island, usually with an expression of gleeful surprise or a shrug of the shoulders. Experienced players will start competing for the boatsmen race, longest island, and most islands in advance. They will be watching their competitors to see if they need to invest energy in adding tiles or if they should conserve their boatsmen rather than use them to ferry people across. Determined strategies on either front will mean sacrifices (for instance playing a tile for the longest island rather than for the Viking), and that's a good thing, because it makes things more interesting.

Conclusion.

All in all, then, this game is great because there are so many interesting decisions to be made. And this is just the basic version of the game. Did I tell you that there's also an Advanced Version, and it's even included in the box itself? Yes sir, talk about getting game for your buck (no puns intended)! There are extra tiles, new rules, additional complexities...

]]>
(extra tiles)

We've only just starting playing with the "Progress Version" (talk about an unfortunate name in a game about Vikings!), although we skip the optional rules about auctioning off turn order. So after at least a dozen or more games, we still have new places to discover...

Thread: Re: Is the "1 VP per standing adjacent veeple" special tile too strong?

BrenoK — 2008-08-12T17:47:02+00:00

The game has fantabulous replay value. It's so great it invents a new word. The random tile-and-veeple draw every turn makes every game different.

Thread: Re: Is the "1 VP per standing adjacent veeple" special tile too strong?

qzhdad — 2008-08-12T03:04:26+00:00

This is a good tile, but I don't think it's a gamebreaker. If you get them early, the ones that score a point per meeple in a row during each score phase can score almost as many (or hypothetically more).

This was my most played game from beginning of 2006 until RftG came along. Depending on my mood I still prefer Vikings, but my game group isn't as excited about it as I am.

Thread: Re: Is the "1 VP per standing adjacent veeple" special tile too strong?

BrenoK — 2008-08-12T02:28:01+00:00

Oh, and I've played this game 16 times, so I know it pretty well. It's quite the strange one, takes a while to get used to...

Thread: Is the "1 VP per standing adjacent veeple" special tile too strong?

BrenoK — 2008-08-12T02:25:59+00:00

Last week I've lost yet one more time to another player just because he had this tile. In both cases such a tile appeared only once, and the player that got it won. Many other games in which more than one of these tiles appear the player that used them best was the one that won.

Maybe 1 VP per 2 adjacent standing veeples and an extra one if all 9 are standing(going from 0 to 5 instead of 0 to 9) would be better...

Thread: Re: Vikings - Two Player Variant - Basic Game

BrenoK — 2008-07-23T15:10:12+00:00

I actually love the bigger 2-player game, but I think your variant will make it fit for those who prefer the slimmer 4-player match.

Thread: The Random Gamer at the Cottage Next Door: Game #3 Vikings

EndersGame — 2008-07-22T16:56:02+00:00

Mr. HomoLudens: Well, I just spent a week at a cottage north of Toronto and played some games. Oddly enough, BGG user Ender Wiggins (EndersGame) and his family were at the cottage next door, so we decided to let him and wife play too. Sometimes we even let one or two of his kids play. Yes, the man has kids, although they don't often appear in his many, many photos. We did not let him take any pictures of our games, because the man's made enough GG already.

Mr. Ender: There's nothing like being on vacation and discovering that the random person in the cottage next door is a fellow gamer. Vikings was Game #3 in the many game sessions (see the first here) that resulted from this amazing discovery.

Mr. HomoLudens: Vikings - what a gem this game is. We played it twice (each time a four player affair), and both games the scores were very close. I won the first and Ender used what he learned watching me in the first game to sneak in and win the second game Despite not winning, the wives were very impressed by this game (although mine had played it before), and thought it might have the best game we played all week.

Some thoughts - with four players there's more chance for randomness. You can try prepare yourself for what vikings and tiles are likely to come up, but if for instance you were expecting three fishermen to turn up in the last round and only one or two do, and you are third in the turn order, and you need fishermen, and you will not win unless you have fishermen, and the two people before you take fishermen, and one of them takes it for the tile rather than the fisherman, then you smile politely and mutter under your breath, "just wait till we play Lifeboats again..."

Other thoughts: you get a lot for your money here. Nice pieces - cool idea of the spinning auction (and yes, thematically it stinks for Vikings to auction off real estate, but the results look quite nice anyway). We haven't even tried to play the "Progress Version" yet, which adds more tiles and rules to the mix. Incidentally, who came up with the idea of calling the optional rules "Progress" rules in a game about Vikings??

Mr. Ender: I concur with the assessment that Vikings was a strong contender for the best game we played all week. Certainly it was a big hit with my family, and was only just edged out for the Favorite-Activity-Of-The-Week-Award by more dangerous events like the campfire. But with all children being natural pyromaniacs, particularly boys, perhaps that is only to be expected. Fortunately, most children also have an inherent attraction to Viking helmets, although the influence of Asterix and Obelix at an early stage of their lives might be a contributing factor to this. Certainly the cottage setting along the lake was quite suitable for a Viking themed game, despite the absence of hairy men with axes. Although if Mr. HomoLudens' own axe is anything to go by, the credibility of his own Viking roots could be in doubt. Fortunately, he only uses it to split hairs about the finer points of medieval jurisprudence, and of course kindling. But I digress again.

Mr. HomoLudens: Are you insulting my axe?

Mr. Ender: Mr. HomoLudens was kind enough to lend us the game for the following week. The Ender children had observed some of the two games we'd played with Mr. & Mrs. HomoLudens, and enjoyed it so much that Ender's Son #1 (age 11), Son #2 (age 8), and Daughter #1 (age 10) played it at least ten times themselves, on most occasions as their first activity of choice, immediately before or after breakfast, and sometimes with Pa and Ma. By the end of the week, we'd managed to get the game play time down to 30 minutes, and there's certainly a lot of game packed into that half hour of game play.

Our two games with Mr. & Mrs. HomoLudens were enough for us to learn how to play. Upon first explanation, Vikings can seem rather overwhelming in complexity, but the after effects of excessive vanilla may have been a contributing factor to this learning difficulty. I haven't seen any studies about the relationship between vanilla and Vikings, but no doubt someone is closeted in some ivory tower in a hidden part of the world at this very moment, writing a dissertation on the subject.

Given that the game has some randomness, for both tile draw and Viking draw, one can't agonize too much over decisions, because one could still end up being somewhat of a victim of the draw - as The Tale of the Insufficient Fishermen (part of the Mr. Orange series) recounted by Mr. HomoLudens well illustrates. Did I detect a hint of bitterness in his account? As it happened, I had a similar experience the following week when playing with the Junior Enders, suffering the indignity of losing about a dozen points at the very end of the game to bring my final position from first to third, as a result of experiencing a similar predicament with inadequate numbers of fishermen. No doubt this part of the theme has been borrowed from the current economic foreign policy of Iceland.

Our first game was a little slow, as we were learning the game, and some of us suffer the infirmity of Analysis Paralysis Proneness (coming to a psychology textbook near you soon!) more than others. But once you get a sense of the game flow, it moves quickly. The auction mechanic is very unique and really works well: combining auctions for tiles and Vikings is a great idea, and the C.A.P.I. (Circular Adjustable Price Indicator - a fancy way of describing the spinning wheel apparatus with numbers) is a really neat concept. The bits are attractive, and there's just the right amount of randomness for the 30 minutes of play time, and to offer good replay value. I think the Ender children are right on this one, and so is Mr. HomoLudens: this is a really good game, and one to add to my "Want" list. Come to think of it, Son #1 has already requested it for his birthday in September, and that says it all really.

Thread: Re: Auction - what's the point?

dcorban — 2008-07-02T04:06:16+00:00

The auction rules state that the tiles are not revealed until after the auction is complete.

Thread: Re: Is the Boatman +10 bonus too powerful/unbalanced?

chooi — 2008-07-02T02:59:25+00:00

Played my 1st game today and it was 4-players with basic rules.

Despite having the most Boatmen, tied with another player, neither of us won as the guy whom had most Fishermen won with his feeding surplus bonus easily.

I did find it possible to control how many Boatman you wish to buy and also to carefully buy only other colours you can place, hence reducing need to use Boatmen perhaps to just one use (shipping all 5 of each colour in one go) carefully.

Thread: Re: In-depth review and some thoughts about theme

chooi — 2008-07-02T02:46:02+00:00

Having not heard much about this game and playing it for the 1st time today, I have rarely been more impressed by a 1st play of a Euro game for a long time. Though only the 'basic' game (which I am so glad we played as only player whom had played before only had played once anyway), it was indeed so rich and unlike other 'basic' games, it is a proper full game in itself.

Great review. I enjoyed your concept of the theme as a 'teaching/memory aid' which makes perfect sense vs a pure abstract. Instead of saying you need a 'black meeple' to protect your other colours, it was knowing 'you need a warrior' to protect them.

Well done, have put this on my wish list now

Image

Toynan — 2008-07-01T23:18:30+00:00

Game with the included expension

Thread: Re: veeple + starting tile

ColtsFan76 — 2008-07-01T15:55:21+00:00

Meant to post this the other day.

Jay got back to me and confirmed that you can NOT place a Viking on the start tile.

Thread: Vikings - Two Player Variant - Basic Game

JayB — 2008-06-26T21:40:06+00:00

My wife and I find that Vikings isn't quite the same with two players as it is with four; we feel that you have too many islands and veeples by the end of the game and not as much strategy. So, we developed this variant to the rules to make it more interesting.

Note: This is for the basic game, we have not tested it with the Progress version.

Setup:

Separate out 36 tiles as follows:

10 Left Island Tiles
10 Middle Island Tiles
10 Right Island Tiles
2 Green Ships
2 Yellow Ships
1 Blue Ship
1 Red Ship

Remove six of each color veeple and place the remaining veeples in the bag. There will be seven of each color.

Each player begins the game with 10 gold in coins.

Shuffle the 36 tiles and place them face down in 6 stacks of 6 tiles each on the 6 places provided for them on the board.

When placing tiles around the wheel:
- the first island tile drawn is placed on the value 0 space with each additional island tile placed on increasingly costly spaces.
- the first ship tile drawn is placed on the value 5 space with each additional ship tile placed on decreasingly costly spaces.

Yellow Goldsmiths are now worth 1.5 gold in coins rounded down. For example, 1 Goldsmith is worth 1 gold in coins, 2 Goldsmiths are worth 3 gold in coins, 3 Goldsmiths are worth 4 gold in coins and so on.

All other rules remain the same.

This variant gives you the same feel, resource wise, as the four player basic game by giving you fewer choices.

Thread: Re: Vikings - Second Play

Jim K — 2008-06-26T12:21:51+00:00

this game has an unbelievable amount of strategy compared to your impressions before you first play. It would be a tough game for newbies to pick up at first. There's quite a bit going on under the surface.
The real beauty of this game is that you could play the basic version for a very long time before ever feeling the need to learn the advanced. The basic version is such a thorough, enjoyable and deep experience in and of itself.
In most games that offer two versions of play, the basic one is abandoned after the first play.

Thread: Vikings - Second Play

JayB — 2008-06-25T19:20:36+00:00

This was my second time to play Vikings; first time was a two player basic version.

There were four players for this session. We played the basic version since three of us had not played before.

Stephen was picked by Michael and Darrell to be the start player, so he began the round by laying out the first stack of 12 tiles and randomly drawing 12 veeples from the bag; placing them in their appropriate spots. Stephen picked up the Fisherman and an 'Island Middle' tile for 1 coin. The first round was pretty uneventful and at the end Darrel and I both scored 3 coins for having one Goldsmith each. At this point, we were all tied with 10 VPs.

Second round went pretty smoothly for everyone except for Stephen. He had capped off all of his islands and was unable to play any purchased tiles for the entire round; basically only purchasing veeples. I had acquired a boatsman by this time but chose to save him for a later scoring as did Darrell. I scored 3 VPs for one Warrior and 6 coins for two Goldsmiths; Darrell also acquired 6 coins; Michael only received 3 coins; Stephen did not score anything, having only one Fisherman placed. At the end of round two, I was ahead with 13 VPs while everyone else was tied with 10 VPs.

By round three, I could tell that Darrell had picked up on the mechanics and basic strategy. Michael and Stephen were still completely lost and remained so throughout the entire game despite subtle strategic hints. Michael had almost all of his Island tiles in his Goldsmith row and Stephen had all of his Island tiles in his Fisherman row. It seems that they have a hard time picking up on new games. Round three ended with Darrell and I picking up another 6 coins each and Michael receiving another 3 coins. Stephen with only Fisherman did not receive any coins.

I spent most of round four buying tiles to put in my Warrior row; at the end of the round, I had 3 island tiles with one Warrior played and two warriors on my base. I coached Michael to branch out a little and not play another tile in the Goldsmith row and to possibly look into placing it in the Warrior row since he had a few ships in play. Darrell had a good variety and was beginning to purchase more expensive tiles that he needed while Michael and Stephen were primarily going for the cheapest thing on the board. Stephen finally started an island somewhere besides the Fisherman row and was able to get a scout out. I used one of my boatsmen to move all of my Warriors out onto their tiles. I scored 7 VPs for my Warriors, due to the three ships above them, 2 VPs for one Noble, and 2 VPs for a Scout with a GoldSmith below him. I also brought in another 6 coins. Darrell scored 3 VPs for, I believe, a Scout-Goldsmith-Fisherman combo. He also received 11 coins; 5 coins for a Warrior and 6 coins for his two Goldsmith. Michael receive 2 VPs and 3 coins for his Warriors and another 3 coins for a Goldsmith. Stephen received 1 VP for the Scout that he placed this round. At the end of round four, I had 24 VPs; Darrell had 13; Michael had 12 and Stephen had 11.

Not much excitement in round five; ended much the same way as round three since no one placed any more Goldsmiths that round. Darrell and I received 6 coins each and Michael acquired 3 coins.

Most of the starter island tiles ended up in the final round, which kept the island counts relatively low. I spent most of this round trying to acquire island tiles for the nobles on my base. Darrell was also trying to make room for some of the veeples on his base. I'm not sure what Michael and Stephen were doing. I don't remember the last large scoring so I will just go over the end game and final scores.

End game scoring: Darrell and I did not have any unrepelled ships so we did not lose any points there, Michael had one and I believe lost 3 VPs because of it and Stephen lost 3 coins. For coins: I received 1 VPs, Darrell received 2 VPs, Michael received 3 VPs and Stephen didn't receive any. Darrell and I tied for most Boatsmen with one each and received the 10 VP bonus. I had the longest island with 5 tiles which gave me the 5 VP bonus. Michael and Stephen tied for most completed islands, having four islands each, and both received the 7 VP bonus for that. I only had one Fisherman and ended up being under-supplied by 11 so I lost 11 VPs there. Darrell was under-supplied as well but only lost, I believe, 3 VPs. Michael was also under-supplied and also lost around 3 VPs. Stephen was the only one who over-supplied, by 4, and received an 8 VP bonus.

Final Score: Darrell 49; Me 45; Stephen 35; Michael 29.

Play time: 67 minutes

The second time to play was much better than the first. I think this game goes over much better on the second play or perhaps just with more than two players. Hopefully, I can get it to the table with Michael and Stephen again and see if they enjoy/understand it better on the second go 'round.

Thread: Re: veeple + starting tile

Fledermaushaus — 2008-06-25T19:03:12+00:00

The Rio Grande translation was not the best of translations and in dealing with placing Vikings it is not as crystal clear as the original German.

In the RGG rules the sentence:
'When the player places an island tile in the row that matches the color of the Viking that was taken as part of the set, the player may immediately place the Viking on the island tile he just placed.'

Translates literally from the German as:
'If an island tile is placed in the row that matches the figure acquired at the same time, the figure is immediately placed on this tile.'

So the tile referred to is the one that has just been acquired ('at the same time' as the figure) and it cannot be interpreted during the first turn to refer to the start tile.

So in the first turn the Viking you aquire must either be placed on the tile you acquired at the same time as the Viking (not the start tile) or on your homeland.

Thread: Re: veeple + starting tile

ColtsFan76 — 2008-06-25T18:33:45+00:00

Rokkr wrote:
Obviously, the wise thing to do would be to cut the viking in half and place a segment on each tile.
So says wise King Solomon.

Thread: Re: veeple + starting tile

Rokkr — 2008-06-25T18:30:47+00:00

Obviously, the wise thing to do would be to cut the viking in half and place a segment on each tile.

Thread: Re: veeple + starting tile

ColtsFan76 — 2008-06-25T18:12:19+00:00

Great Dane wrote:
ColtsFan76 wrote:
That's my point, only the Viking is classified as part of the set - not the tiles.

This is not true: the chapter on how to place tiles and figures (page 3) reads:
"In each turn a player acquires 1 set, which he must immediately place in his play area on or connected to his homeland."

Then the chapter goes on explaining how to place both pieces of the ACQUIRED set.
I disagree. Not with your quote but with your application. I am nto arguing that the tile is acquired, I am arguing how the Viking is placed.

The rules stating how to place the Viking do not link the Viking to an aquired tile; it links it to a placed tile. In the first round, you have two placed tiles therefore an option on to which tile gets the Viking.

Thread: Re: veeple + starting tile

Great Dane — 2008-06-25T17:02:52+00:00

ColtsFan76 wrote:
That's my point, only the Viking is classified as part of the set - not the tiles.

This is not true: the chapter on how to place tiles and figures (page 3) reads:
"In each turn a player acquires 1 set, which he must immediately place in his play area on or connected to his homeland."

Then the chapter goes on explaining how to place both pieces of the ACQUIRED set.

The placement of the starting tile is explained on page 1, and is completely separate from the placement of the acquired set.

Thread: Re: veeple + starting tile

ColtsFan76 — 2008-06-25T16:29:55+00:00

^
That's my point, only the Viking is classified as part of the set - not the tiles. The only requirement of the tiles is that they are "just placed." In the first turn, it is both of the tiles. The just acquired Viking must be placed on the just placed tile. If your first tile is the "just placed" tile, then the Vikign can go on it. If your tile from the set is the just placed tile, then the Vike can go there.

Moviebuffs wrote:
And just for the converse opinion, we play that you can only place a guy on the tile that he comes bundled with.
This isn't spelled out anywhere in the rules.

Thread: Re: veeple + starting tile

kevinb9n — 2008-06-25T16:13:53+00:00

ColtsFan76 wrote:
We play that you can place it on either tile.
Just below it, Viking placement is explained. It says "When the player places an island tile in the row that matches the color of the Viking that was taken as part of the set, the player may immediately place the Viking on the island tile he just placed.

The problem is, what does "the set" refer to?

(a) "the set that this island tile was part of"?
(b) "the set that the player just acquired"?

The rules aren't too crystal-clear so we'll just house-rule it until we hear something more specific. I can really see it going either way.

You can -- feels a little inconsistent with all the rest of your choices in the game
You can't -- but it's not like it breaks the game

Thread: Re: veeple + starting tile

Moviebuffs — 2008-06-25T06:54:54+00:00

And just for the converse opinion, we play that you can only place a guy on the tile that he comes bundled with.

The start tile is only there so that you're not screwed in the first round if all the tiles left to you don't include any "island start" tiles.

N.

Thread: Re: English Rules Clarification - Progress Version

liken@xtra.co.nz — 2008-06-25T04:50:25+00:00

You are right it is a mistranslation - this has been discussed before - the below quote is from another poster on a previous rules query.

Hope this helps.

"This has probably come about from a mistranslation of the rules.
What ruleset is being referred to? The German rules actually state that:

'The people depicted on the special tiles do not need to be fed by the fishermen in the final scoring'.

I don't think there would be an intentional difference about this in the English (i.e. RGG) version. The German is simply stating that pictures are not the same as figures and so do not require feeding. However, ALL figures need to be fed."

Thread: English Rules Clarification - Progress Version

Ansbach — 2008-06-25T04:21:12+00:00

The last sentence on page B1 of the Progress version sheet:

"Vikings placed on special tiles are not counted when scoring over and under supply by fishermen at game end."

This may have been a rule we missed. The way I interpret it, the only special tiles that have a Viking placed on them are the building tiles. So any Viking standing on a special building tile doesn't have to be fed? If that is the case why wouldn't they say "building tiles" instead of special tiles and why wouldn't they include that in the description of the building tiles?

That just seems like an odd little rule and I was wondering if a.) I am interpreting it correctly, and b.) if the same rule is in the German version of the rules. It almost comes across like it might have been some kind of translation error or something.

Thread: Re: Is the Boatman +10 bonus too powerful/unbalanced?

Ansbach — 2008-06-25T03:59:46+00:00

I'll reiterate what the others have said:

a.) Number of Fishermen play a much bigger part in determining the final winner in our games,
b.) Unless it's your first game or you are playing with kids/non-gamers, definitely play the advanced game with the bonus tiles.

We have a pretty experienced group and the Most Boatsman Bonus in our games is definitely considered and fought over in every game. The winner will usually have 2-4 boatmen total, and it was because he was able to select, place and leave spots open more efficiently than his opponents and thus minimize his need for boatmen a little better than the others.

I think a few more plays of the advanced game and you will be fine.

Thread: Re: veeple + starting tile

Rokkr — 2008-06-25T02:58:22+00:00

We play placement on either tile is acceptable. It's the first turn. It's not like it will make or break the game.

Thread: Re: veeple + starting tile

ColtsFan76 — 2008-06-25T02:37:15+00:00

We play that you can place it on either tile.

EDIT:
Grabbed the rules to make my case. Page 3 covers the tile placement and obviously says you can place the start tile or the just acquired tile in any order. Nothing is mentioned about the Vikes in this section.

Just below it, Viking placement is explained. It says "When the player places an island tile in the row that matches the color of the Viking that was taken as part of the set, the player may immediately place the Viking on the island tile he just placed.

Strictly speaking it is worded such that the Viking come from the acquired set and the tile be just placed. Nothing says the tile has to be the just acquired tile - so the start tile should be a legal option.

Thread: veeple + starting tile

MikeD — 2008-06-25T02:23:42+00:00

Normally, you can put a newly acquired veeple on the newly acquired tile or on your home base.

For your first veeple (newly acquired), can you put it on the starting tile or does it have to be put on the first tile acquired (of course, home base is always an option).

Unless I'm missing something, Rio Grande rules don't seem to cover this. Strict reading of the rules seem to indicate that the veeple cannot be put on the starting tile.

Any ideas?

Image

Cornbread46 — 2008-06-24T21:17:30+00:00

Little did we know, we would all still love this game a year later! (taken Origins 2007)

Image

whoami — 2008-06-14T00:14:34+00:00

Image

whoami — 2008-06-13T13:25:37+00:00

Thread: Re: Is the Boatman +10 bonus too powerful/unbalanced?

quartersmostly — 2008-06-10T06:34:00+00:00

I don't think this game works without the tiles in the advance rules. They allow for so many different paths to victory that it really helps balance the game out. By going for the boatsman tiles you don't have to rely on luck to win the bonus. Also the bonus isn't nearly as valuable as there are other ways to score extra points.

Thread: Re: Is the Boatman +10 bonus too powerful/unbalanced?

Ciaran — 2008-06-10T06:14:06+00:00

I also wondered if maybe the +10 wasn't too large a bonus...it seems like it should be sympathy points for someone who just got stuck with more than they needed or were forced to take extras by the other players. Nobody wants to actively try for it because if more than one person makes a real attempt they would probably both lose. On the other hand, if noone makes an effort then somebody just gets lucky and wins the game.

I did finally get to play the advanced rules earlier tonight though, and I think it does balance things out pretty well (although I would definitely not recommend it for new players).

Thread: Re: Special tiles Stacking?

GeoMan — 2008-06-07T09:24:45+00:00

sasquatchdjh wrote:
Do they combine, or in fact in any case can you have multiples of a particular color?

Yes, you can have multiples of one color.

Thread: Special tiles Stacking?

sasquatchdjh — 2008-06-07T06:50:52+00:00

Question came up, and we play that they do not stack, however, I'm looking for more official rules clarification.

Specifically, there are 2 types of bonus red tiles. (and several of each type). Do they combine, or in fact in any case can you have multiples of a particular color?

As in:

Can I have 2 red tiles that add 1 point and 1 point, or 1 point and 2 points such that when red dudes score, each one is worth 4, or 5 per red dude instead of the usual 2 each (unthreatened of course). or for that matter have all red bonus tiles such that my red dudes are like 8 points each? (probably too powerful hence our rule that you can only have one of the bonuses, and yes dumb for players to let me do that, but this is an example)

Of course red is just an example, other bonus score tiles could fit into this question just as easy.

Thread: Re: Is the Boatman +10 bonus too powerful/unbalanced?

familygaming — 2008-06-06T14:09:25+00:00

I don't know that I would call it luck, exactly, but what you are describing is what I was getting at in the first post: it seems like it is harder to actually strategize to get the boatmen bonus, and since it is the biggest bonus, it feels like it ought to be more the result of strategic planning.

Having said that, I played Vikings four nights ago and decided to make the boatmen one of my main startegies. I made the simple decision to acquire boatmen fairly often, and to only take sets that I could put into play right away. I did have to ship one time, but at the end of the game I had four boatmen to my opponents 1 and 0. So, I got the +10 points...and I lost the game to one of the two newbies because the turns I had taken acquiring boatmen meant I wasn't acquiring other point getting dudes.

SO I am back to my original concern: it seems like the winner of the bonus tends to be more dependant on who gets 1 boatmen to the others zero, unless someone really focuses on securing it, in which case he probably should have been focusing on other point-getters instead.

I just don't know what to make of this bonus. I'll keep trying to find a balance...

Thread: Re: Is the Boatman +10 bonus too powerful/unbalanced?

GSReis — 2008-06-06T06:04:42+00:00

I played the game for the first time today and my thoughts were similar to the OP's. It was a two-player game. Incidentally, I had zero boatmen, and my opponent had one.

Yes, you can go for the bonus by getting more boatmen, but you have to account for all the other players shipping possibilities. In the end, it seems to come down to simple luck. And even if it is not luck, it is much easier to go for this bonus (i.e. just acquiring boatmen) than for the others, which require a little more thought.

It is true that the fishermen are very important, too. Despite losing the boatmen bonus, I won the game by one point thanks to fishermen. But I still feel the boatmen bonus is too big, especially for a certain sense of lack of control.

Thread: Re: Is the Boatman +10 bonus too powerful/unbalanced?

citylife — 2008-06-01T22:09:48+00:00

Bonus' are the beauty of euro games. In this case perhaps it is the fact that the bonus points require you to sacrifice something to get them which can be frustrating. It is not surprising that you find the boatmen at the top of the bidding wheel. They are valuable

We have found like some others that the fisherman are more definitive. Almost every game we have played has been decided by the fishermen. Because fishermen give you pluses as well as minuses fisherman are almost guarnteed points at the end of the game.

Great game though, the wheel is brilliant.

Thread: Re: Do you prefer the advanced rules?

JimPAX — 2008-06-01T20:49:09+00:00

kevinb9n wrote:

I sense the combination is probably yes to special tiles, no to auctions. That's how I was taught the game and have always played it. The auctions just seem weird to me.

But the auctions are the only way for a player to balance the inequitable distribution of the more valuable pieces. Farmers are the most valuable folks, followed distantly by a well-placed warrior or scout. If farmers are always first, then the access to these pieces are imbalanced based on turn order, which allows for randomness to have a large impact on the game. Also, the goldsmiths are ridiculously useless by the end of the game unless there is a need for a steady stream of gold, as there is with auctions.

Thread: Re: Is the Boatman +10 bonus too powerful/unbalanced?

liken@xtra.co.nz — 2008-05-29T10:50:46+00:00

I think the comment about going for the bonus is a good one - I can't give much informed comment based the experience of one game, but have just bought it and will be playing the game more.

On my first game, it did strike me that this was quite a large bonus, and in fact I actively went for it by buying a boatman late on when another colour may have seemed more obvious. What was particularly annoying was that I only discovered after this that you had to ship your other vikings on the final turn. I had three boatmen and one goldsmith left at the end, with the only spot available for the goldsmith being an undefended location (ie there was no value in shipping him). I ended up sharing the boatmen bonus, and the other guy who shared it won the game by around 15 points. I won't make that mistake again!

Thread: Re: Is the Boatman +10 bonus too powerful/unbalanced?

ColtsFan76 — 2008-05-28T03:50:02+00:00

I agree, it's how you play it. You may also hold off on placing veeples during the game and risk loosing their popints so you can maximize a boatsman getting as many veeples out as possible later on.

In our games, the bigger game decider has been the fisherman (or lack thereof). It seems to be the thing that really throws a curve ball in the final scoring. We are usually pretty tight in scores before we count the fisherman and then the final score usually contains a pretty large gap.

Thread: Re: Is the Boatman +10 bonus too powerful/unbalanced?

tool — 2008-05-28T03:45:53+00:00

Bear in mind you can only ship Vikings that you have space for.

Thread: Re: Is the Boatman +10 bonus too powerful/unbalanced?

Dreadnaut — 2008-05-28T03:36:08+00:00

Nope. You are playing it right. But they are ways to fight for this bonus just like anything else. You can purchase more boatsman than you have meeples to ship. Or, you can try obtain the boatsman special tiles. To me, it's just like anything else in the game... if you want it, you'll have to fight/plan for it.

Thread: Is the Boatman +10 bonus too powerful/unbalanced?

familygaming — 2008-05-28T03:16:12+00:00

I really am starting to enjoy Vikings. I like the balace of getting what I need, interfering with my opponents' acquisitions, playing the "tile puzzle" on the map, and finagling both the balance of Veeple and endgame bonuses.

But there is one part of the game that - so far - just hasn't worked for me: the +10 Boatmen bonus. See, the problem is that, in my playings, the 10 point bonus often wins the game for whomever gets it, but that the person who gets it usually does so by having one Boatsman while everyone else has zero. It just seems anti-climactic: a bonus that big ought to be something more fiercely fought over, but with the rules stipulating that one MUST use all their Boatmen to ship Veeple at game end, it is rare for anyone to actually have any Boatsmen left.

I am assuming for now that somehow I am misplaying this, or misunderstanding this and that someone can point out that I am playing wrong and that's why I am not enjoying that bonus.

Please, someone tell mw what is going on with the Boatman bonus!

Thread: Re: Do you prefer the advanced rules?

miggor — 2008-05-26T09:04:00+00:00

Kopernikus wrote:
I have 1 question for the advanced rules:

can I put more than 2 special gold tiles on the left so that my extra gold income is accumulated? And: can I put more than 1 special tile on the left site (for example in the line of the nobleman) so that the extra income of victory points is also accumulated?

-Nick

We play that yes, you can multiply up on the special tiles. There's no logical reason you shouldn't accumulate extra boatmen tiles for example, so this should follow through to the others too...Getting both goldsmith tiles early on is a killer!!

Edited PS: To the original question, the auction mechanic is ignored by our play group so far. And we also don't use the "one boatmen can only move one viking" option either. Although thinking about it while I'm typing this, the extra special tiles kind of makes up for this doesn't it? So perhaps I'll try to introduce this one next!

Thread: Re: How is this game for 2 players?

Ansbach — 2008-05-26T03:03:37+00:00

I'll have to voice my opinion against the masses - I don't think this game is all that great with 2 players.

It's too easy to do everything you want to do and the game just turns in to a scorefest. I guess there are plenty of people who like easy scorefests though, since obviously I'm in the minority.

Edit: To clarify, it's still a good game with two - just better with three or four in my opinion. But I probably like more conflict than your typical BGG'er.

Thread: Re: Do you prefer the advanced rules?

Kopernikus — 2008-05-12T11:17:05+00:00

I have 1 question for the advanced rules:

can I put more than 2 special gold tiles on the left so that my extra gold income is accumulated? And: can I put more than 1 special tile on the left site (for example in the line of the nobleman) so that the extra income of victory points is also accumulated?

-Nick

Image

Toynan — 2008-05-10T19:50:12+00:00

Back of the board

Image

Toynan — 2008-05-10T12:30:06+00:00

Image

Toynan — 2008-05-10T12:28:30+00:00

Image

Rokkr — 2008-04-29T14:32:55+00:00

the island tiles

Image

Rokkr — 2008-04-29T14:32:03+00:00

first player token

Image

Rokkr — 2008-04-29T14:30:47+00:00

the ship tiles

Thread: Re: Bureaucratic Vikings that hate boats and are market-savey...

theTak — 2008-04-26T05:20:50+00:00

There would have to be more farming for it to be a real Viking-themed game

Nice review, I've picked up the box a few times, but now I'm going to make an effort to get a try at it (if someone locally or the FLGS has an opened copy)