Game: Archaeology

Thread: Re: Can you dig it?

waza — 2008-05-21T03:46:24+00:00

unixrevolution wrote:
The game includes a tuckbox for the cards, and money, in the form of cardboard tiles. These tiles are almost as sturdy as Carcassonne tiles! All in all, the components are great.
The edition I have, which I purchased at the Australian Games Expo 2007, has wooden discs for the money instead of card tiles, other than that it sounds exactly the same as the one you review here. I believe these are the only two editions of the game available as the game has been basically superceded bu the very similar Archaeology: The Card Game. Great review.

Thread: Re: Can you dig it?

unixrevolution — 2008-05-20T17:36:02+00:00

Meerkat wrote:
Nice review

Thank you!

Thread: Re: Can you dig it?

Meerkat — 2008-05-20T16:54:23+00:00

Nice review

Thread: Can you dig it?

unixrevolution — 2008-05-20T14:59:27+00:00

The wind swept deserts of Egypt are a foreboding and inhospitable place. As you kneel in the desert sand, you see a glint. Perhaps gold? Perhaps an idol?

Ah crap. It’s just a pot shard.

Archaeology, published by Adventureland Games and designed by Phil Harding, is a self-published game of trading in the wind-swept deserts of Egypt. Players are archaeologists, recovering bits of ancient Egypt’s past for a most noble purpose: selling it off to museums.

The Bits

]]>

Archaeology is a self published release, but that doesn’t mean it was Xeroxed while Phil was at work. Archaeology is extremely well made. The graphics are all unique and quite bright, attractively designed and functional. The cards are heavy (as they should be in a game that uses them for 90% of everything) and the board is sturdy. The game includes a tuckbox for the cards, and money, in the form of cardboard tiles. These tiles are almost as sturdy as Carcassonne tiles! All in all, the components are great. My copy had only one problem…the backing for the board shrunk so the board wouldn’t lay flat. I ended up cutting it (and consequently, the board) in two so I could actually get it to lay down. I don’t expect that this is typical, however.

]]>

Gameplay

Archaeology is a pretty simple light card game. Setup is as follows: there are 3 chests, a wood, stone, and gold chest. Each chest is filled with 3, 5, and 7 cards, respectively, and requires 1, 2, and 3 keys to open, respectively. A group of 6 cards are placed at the market, and the rest (including keys, chests, thieves, and a master thief) are shuffled and placed face down in the Dig pile. On your turn you may do several things:

Either trade cards at the market or open a chest. To open a chest, the chest has to have been previously found from a Dig and placed on the board, and you need to have the requisite number of keys. There are *exactly* enough keys in the game to open all the chests. When you open a chest you get the cards contained therein.

Trading in the market is interesting. The treasure cards in the market are for trade. To get them, you have to trade in an equal or higher value of things from your stock. The cards all have a trade value in the corner. You can trade a 2 for 2 1’s, a 2 for a 2, 2 2’s for a 4, or what have you. You can give more to the market than you get back, but you NEVER get the change if you do so.

All cards that you have from Digs, and from trading, are face up in front of you. This takes an element of card counting out of the game.

After you’ve traded or opened a chest, you end your turn by “Digging”, or drawing a card. The card you draw could be:

An treasure, which you add to your play area

A Thief, whom you can pay $1 to steal a card from another player, then discard

A Master Thief, whom you can pay $5 to steal 3 different things from up to 3 different players, then discard

A key, which you add to your play area

You may also optionally sell items to a museum. Items sell for different prices based on how many you have. Items become more valuable in groups. Some items hold their value as individual pieces until you have a certain amount, and some steadily increase. 2 items in particular, the Broken Mask and Broken Cup, are nearly worthless until you have both pieces, and there are only 2 of each.

A chest, which goes on the board to indicate the chest is available to be opened.

After you dig, the next player goes.

The Experience

]]>

Archaeology is rather unique in its all-open-information approach to a card game. I know of very few other card-based board games where everything you have is always public information. This leads to sort of an odd dynamic combined with the fact that you math-trade with the house, rather than negotiate-trade with the other players. It’s not an unwelcome dynamic at all, and leads to some very cool indirect player interaction and tense decisions you wouldn’t get if it was a free-for-all trading game. Almost everyone i've introduced it to have liked it.

My Thoughts

I really like Archaeology. It’s fast, easy to teach, and though the dig increases the luck factor quite a bit, it’s not horrendous. I like the trading mechanic and the way thieves allow direct player interaction while limiting it to keep the game from bogging down.

PROS:

Excellent (and I do mean Excellent!) components
Fun gameplay
Cool trading mechanism
Easy to teach
Quick!

CONS:

Luck factor a little high
Would prefer hidden cards (though this can go both ways)
OOP and produced only in limited numbers

Overall, Archaeology is a beautifully made lightweight trading game, perfect for between-game filler or that hard-to scratch indirect interaction itch. I like the game quite a bit, myself. I rate Archaeology an 8 out of 10! I can dig it.

Thread: Waza's Full Review

waza — 2007-09-06T23:06:46+00:00

I did a brief review of my first impressions a couple of months ago and at the time promised a full review. Now that the reworked version of this game Archaeology: The Card Game has been released I thought I had better finish of this review I had half written before I get the new one and do the comparative review. I guess that last statement gives you a clue what I think of this game.

Components
Be aware that there are two printings of this game with slightly different components. I have the second printing, June 2007. This edition is a special printing sold only at the Australian Games Expo 2007, not sure how many they sold but it looked like they had quite a lot and I was told that this printing sold out at the Expo. I understand this is the same as the first printing except instead of the cardboard chits of different amounts of money this version of the game includes coloured wooden disks to represent the money. Overall I would say the pieces are incredible for a self published game, but you can tell some differences if you look closely and compared to a professionally published game.

The box is attactive and colourful, it is about the size of a Fantasy Flight Silver line game (Arena Maximus is the closest in size I could find in my collection). It looks really great and one has to look closely to see it is a self published (and designer assembled game) You can see Phil is looking to the future while three sides of the box give you the standard useful number of players, playing time and ages, the fourth side marks this as Adventureland Games number 1.

The inside of the box has glued in inserts with a woodgrain look to hold the board firm in the top of the box and leave less space for the other pieces to bounce around. A tuck box that looks like a little shipping crate holds all the cards.

The cards themselves are smaller than standard playing cards but still a very usable size, especially as you lay them on the table in from of you not hold them in your hand. There are simple but clearly colour coded and very atractive pictures. the 5 year old daughter of one of our friends doesn't really understand the game fully but loves to play just so she can collect sets of the pretty things.

The rules are 4 pages and are professionally printed on a glossy heavy paper. The board is a bit redundant as this is essentially a card game (it's about the same amount as a board game as Lost Cities) However it does provide a nice centre piece to the game with an Egyptian dessert scene the provides places to layout the cards for the dig (draw) and discard piles and the chests (groups of cards that can be collected with keys) and the market place (face up cards that can be traded).

The money is wooden disks about the size of checkers in yellow ($1) orange ($5) and red ($10). Maybe this was an attempt to make the game seem more "euro" by including some wooden bits, but I am not sure it was a good idea. They don't have the amounts written on them so you need to remember the colours. I think the original printings cardboard chits or even a scoring track would have been cheaper and easier.

The final piece in the game is a high score log book to record your high scores for each number of players.

Gameplay
The basic mechanic of the game is drawing a card from the dig pile and placing it in front of you. The object of the game is to make the most money which you do by selling items you found in the dig.There are three things that seperate this game from simply luck of the draw of the best cards from the dig, these are the marketplace, the special cards and choosing when to sell your sets to the museum.

The marketplace can only be used at the start of the players turn before they dig. This area begins with 6 random face up cards is only changed when players choose to trade to it. Items only are traded, you can not purchase from the market with money. Total value of the market place doesn't generally change during a game, it can go up if someone wants to trade and can't get enough items in change, but generally the size of the market depends on the intial draw of 6 cards.

The special cards are the chest which represent a set of random cards (3, 5 or 7), keys which open the chests if they have been found, Thieves and the Master Thief, which allow you to steal artifacts from other players (for a fee)

Players can sell their treasures to the museum at any time on their turn. Set values are printed on the cards and you get more the more you collect up to a certain maximum (full sets are between 2 and 6 of the same card) It's generally best to wait for a full set, but be careful as cards not yet sold to the museum can be stolen if an opponent draws a thief.

The game finishes when there are no cards left in the dig space to draw.

I have played the game several times with 2, 3 and 4 players. I have to say my favourite is 3 players. With 4 it becomes hard to get enough keysin one players hands to open the larger chest and relies on a fair bit of luck to be able to collect the sets as they can be too widely spread. With two player there is not as much choice of strategy, which other player will I send the thief to?

Have no illusions this is a light game with a fair amount of luck but its also a fun game, and easy to learn game and a relatively quick game. It is also an easy game to think of many variants to, several have already been posted on BGG, if you want to reduce the luck and add more strategy.

Conclusion
This is the game that has gotten the most plays from my collection. It's not going to get highly ranked on here on BGG or win awards for innovative or strategic gameplay. But its simple and easy to teach with a fun theme and doesn't take too long for a game. I hesitate to call it a gateway game because that implies it introduces mechanics to lead into other more complex "gamers" games, but as a game people who aren't into modern games enjoy I have found this fantastic. Also as a self published game the quality of what you get is amazing.

Thread: Waza's First Impressions.

waza — 2007-07-02T02:17:45+00:00

Recently I visited the Australian Games Expo with my wife. After wandering around to have a quick look at everything, the first stall we stopped at and actually played a game was Adventureland Games. Phil, the designer of archaeology was there, he explained the game to us and then we played a 3 player demo with Rachelle (who is credited as one of the play testers) while Phil kept assembling the games and giving us tips.

First impressions of the game was it looked really good, the graphics and look of all the pieces were well beyond what I expected from a self published game. The game was easy to learn and played smoothly. I could see there were some strategic choices but probably not enough to keep me interested if I played it too often. My wife won and I came last. This really pleased her as, particularly with new games, I usually beat her - It is one her ambitions to beat me at Carcassonne.

We did not buy a copy immediately but did come back and buy one later the same day because:

1) We did both enjoy the game. While I knew it wasn't ever going to be one of my top rated games, it was fun. And while I prefer something a bit heavier, it would be something I would continue to play.
2) It seemed like good value. It was one of the cheapest games on sale at the expo and seemed to have very high quality components for a self published game.
3) It appeared to be a good quick game, easy to explain, that I could play with friends if we had a limited time.
4) We wanted to support the local Australian product.

So now I have owned the games several weeks and played it with different numbers of players what do I think? Well I plan to try and post a full review soon. I started writing this as a introduction to my full review, but realised that would make it too long. So come back in a little while for a new post to see what I think now.

Thread: Re: Fill up the market variant

shawn_low — 2007-06-22T00:39:46+00:00

Phil81 wrote:
Hey nice idea Shawn! Some mechanic to keep the marketplace moving certainly makes the game just a tad meatier.

The only small downside with this would be that refreshing the marketplace from the deck will mean the number of cards in the deck will end up off-balanced, and some players will end up drawing more than others by end of the game. The deck is configured to work out with even draws for 2-4 players.

I don't think the game needs to be perfectly balanced (in that everyone has to draw the same amount of cards).

Part of the game is the decisions involving trading (do I trade to help myself or block someone or do I hold on to an item hoping to dig up another one). I like the idea that the marketplace being refreshed makes people more willing to trade.

For me, the early game can be rather slow as people build up resources. Encouraging people to use the marketplace makes the game move smoother. I'll be playing with this variant from now on.

Also, Paul (Big Woo) suggested giving people a hand worth value 3 to begin with. That sounds like it could work too.

Thread: Re: Fill up the market variant

Phil81 — 2007-06-21T10:00:37+00:00

Hey nice idea Shawn! Some mechanic to keep the marketplace moving certainly makes the game just a tad meatier.

The only small downside with this would be that refreshing the marketplace from the deck will mean the number of cards in the deck will end up off-balanced, and some players will end up drawing more than others by end of the game. The deck is configured to work out with even draws for 2-4 players.

I actually have played around with a "re-stock the marketplace" card in the deck, which helped keep things interesting as well. This used a small separate re-stock deck to solve the numbers problem.

Thread: Fill up the market variant

shawn_low — 2007-06-20T10:12:27+00:00

To keep the marketplace fresh and active (especially at the start of the game when things are slow to buildup), the marketplace should always have SIX cards.

Each time a player does a trade with the marketplace that brings the amount of cards below six, the active player draws cards from the dig to refill the marketplace to six.

Thread: Re: Very, Very Light

otscotty — 2007-05-25T02:56:29+00:00

My wife and I, who enjoy Lost Cities, Balloon Cup, Attika, etc., had a really nice time with this game. It is light and fast with just enough "push your luck" and "take that" to elicit the moans and groans that usually accompany the games we enjoy playing together. I'm looking forward to trying this out with 4 players this weekend. That Master Thief is really going to hurt!

My only real complaint is that the card size makes shuffling difficult. I understand the realities of self-publishing. It is only a problem because this is the type of game that you want to play several times in a row. Setting up the game requires that the thief, key, and chest cards be removed from the deck and then shuffled back in after the initial setup. Also, the treasure cards tend to be in sets after the first game is played. For these reasons, it is necessary to shuffle thoroughly before each play. Larger cards would have made this less of a burden.

This is not enough of a problem to keep us from really enjoying the game. It certainly isn't a brain-burner. For a light two player game, or to start or end an evening of gaming with friends, it seems to fit nicely. I'm glad I picked this one up. Thanks, Phil.

Thread: Re: Archaeology - Black Market variant (less luck, more trading)

SteveK2 — 2007-05-15T13:46:33+00:00

BigWoo wrote:
selling each dug card there and then is an option. In a game where the Thieves take away a lot more hand-cards, someone can win with that strategy if they turn over a lot of cards in the 3-5 value range, as they will cash in every turn, and not lose a single card to the Thieves. Spoils the game.

Ahhhh ... that's an interesting observation. I hadn't seen anyone do that, and hadn't been bright enough to try it myself. In our games, relatively few single cards have been sold, and I can't remember a single occasion where someone dug then instantly sold. This might go some way to explaining why our marketplace activity seems different to yours - we probably have more cards "in play": in hands or the market, and we've probably been more relaxed about trading despite the risks of other players benefiting.

Thread: Re: Archaeology - Black Market variant (less luck, more trad

BigWoo — 2007-05-15T12:59:50+00:00

Hi Steve.

SteveK2 wrote:
Firstly, rule #2 refers to highest card value. Presumably you mean trading value (number at top of card) rather than what you would lose on the selling value should the card be lost?
Yes, trading value. So a player holding both coins and rings and no talsiman, statue or mask, can pick either one, regardless of the underlying set value if sold at that point.

Hand limit of 8: I can see problematic situations. If you have 8 different cards in front of you and you dig another different card, you've exceeded your 8 card limit, but rule #6 says you can't sell individual cards. You also can't trade away a card because trading must occur before digging. Should the drawn card be discarded, or a chosen card? Discarded to the market, or the discard pile? Or would you suggest some other solution?
Hand limit 8 does indeed mean that players have 7 cards in their hand before digging. Probably should have phrased it that way. That also means forced trading to make it so, if selling isn't an option, which adds to your headache if you get caught out that way. We like our dilemmas. 8 different cards and no doublers has not happened with us so far, I guess we always have traded for better hands, so the situations just hasn't arisen. Feel free to increase the hand-limit if you think it is too tight. We like it that way, as you will get dilemma's, rather than avoid them, and harder choices make for better play.

Without having actually tried it, the rule about "not selling a single card" concerns me slightly.
The main reason it's there is because selling each dug card there and then is an option. In a game where the Thieves take away a lot more hand-cards, someone can win with that strategy if they turn over a lot of cards in the 3-5 value range, as they will cash in every turn, and not lose a single card to the Thieves. Spoils the game.

An example situation: I played a couple of days ago (2-player) and I had 2 of the 3 Pharaoh's Masks. The other player had the remaining Mask. If I were able to steal that Mask (or if he were dim enough to put it into the marketplace) my set value would rise from 14 to 30. He did the sensible thing - he sold the Mask (for 5) and deprived me of the chance of enlarging my set. Under your rules, not only would he have been unable to sell the Mask, but if a Master Thief was dug then it would have to be the Mask that he must return to the Marketplace. I guess I, too, would have to send a Mask to the Market, but I'd then have first chance at doing trading.
First chance at trading in the situation you describe would not be a clean +25 ozzie dollar gain. You'd have to trade in 10 points to get 2 5-point cards, which in all likelihood also had an added bonus value. However you get to that, you will also be offering substantial set improvements for others in your 10 point swap-out. In the early game you probably can't even get to 10. In the middle to later game without hand limit you probably can if you haven't just sold a set, but only by breaking up other sets you are building or releasing cards that help others to their sets. With hand limit getting to 10 on average does mean trading in a substantial part of your hand, including some stuff you don't want to let go for the same reasons. I can understand you fear, but it hasn't played out like that at all in the games we have played so far. The appearance of a Masterthief does usually trigger some lively trading for a round or two, with roughly a high to low ripple. Sure, getting 3 Masks that way gives you a boost, but not a clean +15 against the table. BTW, we find that if the Masterthief hasn't come out yet, and the Masks sit split 2/1, it is the person who has the 2 Masks who tends to sell up, taking the +4 and freeing up 2 slots in the hand (with hand-limit), making the single mask "safe", but annoying, as you can only sell it in at the end of the game. It then starts to end up yo-yo-ing in and out of the Marketplace as an temporary investment for people who collect long low value sets and need a high-value card to "store" excess points (again, playing with hand-limit). Highly thematic.

In the original game there is an argument for not collecting any Masks ever (unless the Materthief is gone, and you are to open a juicy chest in the next turn), and simply selling them as you go along, as Thief cards are aplenty. Losing 5 to another player means a net difference of 9, plus whatever silly bonus has been gained. Selling 5 means cashing in an a lucky pick-up (+4 against a Parchment pick-up is not to be sniffed at), avoiding serious risks, and making Thieves far less dangerous throughout the game. It also makes Statues and Talisman's the only obvious targets, and Keys off course. Max set value is also reduced. Not using a thief in the original rules is also daft, as at a cost of 1 which you bound to have available in a useless card somewhere, you are always gonna get at least 1 back, which you can instantly sell for a net gain of 0 to yourself, but after taking from someone else. No-brainer.

The real nightmare is actually at the other end after one of many Thieves show up: not being able to safeguard a broken cup or mask and losing it to the marketplace. Potentially substantial increases for next to no trade-in loss to someone. In reality it only happens if Thieves come out in quick succession, as players are usually able to protect the shards with parchment, etc. But thematically it works beautifully. Am I gonna try to hold on to this annoying bit of rubbish, or do I let it go to the market, with the guarantee that someone will get its missing half and cash in big?

I am really surprised that you haven't seen some market place lock-up in your games (with the out-of-the-box rules), especially with fewer players. To us, trade vs pick-up considerations tend to fall into the "I'll just wait and see if I can just pick it up" camp. Low value items tend to get swapped out only for other low value items, but not if you can see that someone else will then get the last missing one or even the penultimate one, locking it all up until that player has drawn it instead, cashed in, and the board is "safe" again. What you gain in added value by picking up lots of low value value ones for one high value one, you tend to give away in its added value to someone else. With only 2 or 3 players that net-gain against most of the table often isn't worth it, as long as picking it up is still a viable alternative.

From Randy's review posted in the review section, I think they made similar trade calls, as he too stated that there often was no impetus to engage in trade once the initial conversions had been made. If your initial Marketplace started off with lots of low value items, it is even worse. In our games, people tended to collect and sell only complete sets, with the Statues and masks the only exceptions to that rule of thumb. And only if the Masterthief was still in play, otherwise loss-against-Thief vs gain-on-pick-up (of Thief or matching item) simply fall into the wait-and-see camp. With few players even more so.

The rules suggested here are manly for folk who reacted to the published game the way we did, and I guess Randy did too. If you enjoy it out of the box, great. We kinda did too, but felt left seriously wanting. Beware that this variant will have a substantially different flow, and that the Marketplace will become pretty well supplied, players less so.

I would remind you that if you play with the Thief cards the way we suggested, the not selling single cards rule is also there to prevent the dig-and-sell-up strategy in a 3 or 4 player game, which can work otherwise, as the other players will lose a substantial amount of cards throughout the game, making final scores a lot lower, and more so if set clinching cards were simply sold off right away by the sell-instantly-throughout-the-game player.

Thread: Re: Archaeology - Black Market variant (less luck, more trading)

SteveK2 — 2007-05-15T08:17:12+00:00

Paul,

thanks for putting some thought into this. I have to say that in my 6 plays (4x 2-player; 1x3 player, 1x4 player) I haven't seen the marketplace lockup, and we've enjoyed the game as published.

However ... we'll be trying some of the suggested rules to see what they bring to the game. The changed used of Thief cards, and the tradability of Keys are particularly appealling

A few questions / observations:

Firstly, rule #2 refers to highest card value. Presumably you mean trading value (number at top of card) rather than what you would lose on the selling value should the card be lost? In other words, a talisman is always trading value 3, but what you lose on their selling value depends on how many talismans you had.

Hand limit of 8: I can see problematic situations. If you have 8 different cards in front of you and you dig another different card, you've exceeded your 8 card limit, but rule #6 says you can't sell individual cards. You also can't trade away a card because trading must occur before digging. Should the drawn card be discarded, or a chosen card? Discarded to the market, or the discard pile? Or would you suggest some other solution?

Without having actually tried it, the rule about "not selling a single card" concerns me slightly. An example situation: I played a couple of days ago (2-player) and I had 2 of the 3 Pharaoh's Masks. The other player had the remaining Mask. If I were able to steal that Mask (or if he were dim enough to put it into the marketplace) my set value would rise from 14 to 30. He did the sensible thing - he sold the Mask (for 5) and deprived me of the chance of enlarging my set. Under your rules, not only would he have been unable to sell the Mask, but if a Master Thief was dug then it would have to be the Mask that he must return to the Marketplace. I guess I, too, would have to send a Mask to the Market, but I'd then have first chance at doing trading.

Thread: Archaeology - Black Market variant (less luck, more trading)

BigWoo — 2007-05-12T03:57:59+00:00

It is a shame that a game that is visually appealing and sounds very promising isn't quite what you hoped for when you get to play it. This is not the same as saying that the designer messed it up. I suspect it is more a case of games ending up in different hands than the intended audience. It is exactly because the designer had done something so well that the instant appeal factor caused the initial print-run to be gobbled up within hours by probably the wrong crowd, who might be more demanding.

I won't deny that our initial reaction was disappointment, we had hoped for more. What we had expected was a game in which players would frequently engage with the Marketplace to improve their sets, and that players would have some control over their collecting strategies, but disappointingly, "Light set-collecting" was exactly that. Marketplace interaction for a series of reasons is usually not worth it, meaning that what is on offer hardly ever changes significantly. So if that isn't the key mechanic to get a good set spread together, that only leaves "draw and pray", and that can't be good. Thief cards were very powerful and random. Getting a chest card usually spelled disaster.

I looked for a way to get more action around the Marketplace, without adding anything to the game. The answer seems to lie in an alternative use of the Thief card, at the cost of "random take-that pickings". To us that is a bonus, others might regret that.

All other rules fell more or less in place after that change. In our eyes it has become a lot more dynamic, and decisions are much more diverse, and harder. Using Thief cards to increase the value of the Marketplace gradually over time meant that trading choices became increasingly harder and more complex, and fluid. Hardly a turn goes by in which a player doesn't use the Marketplace now to fiddle with the hand-set. Since keys no longer are stolen, we also introduced a way to sell them to the marketplace. A simple selling rule was introduced to stop hoarding, and a few optional rules have gone down very well.

We haven't settled on the final version yet (still playtesting), but it will look very similar to this:

Archaeology - Black Market variant

Slightly different set-up:

Remove 2 thief cards from the game, optionally more.
Set up the board as normal

Alternative rules: changes to the basic rules only, the rest stays the same

1. Thief cards: Each player discards 1 item card of their own choice to the Marketplace. Key cards are safe. Players without item cards obviously do not lose anything. The Thief card also no longer needs to be paid for (so the "1" on the card is meaningless and it happens automatically). Players on the whole will pick their lowest value item card, but not always.

2. Master Thief cards: Each player discards the highest value card of their own choice to the Marketplace. Same as before, the cost is no longer paid and meaningless. Clarification: individual trade value, not set sell value. (note: we find that the appearance of high value items is a great stimulant for Marketplace trading, and because players would need to exchange a similar total value of cards to get hold of them, it does not mean that the next player has cheap or easy pickings, as you might fear. It genuinely complicates matters.)

3. Selling Key cards: Key cards can now also be exchanged in the Marketplace, alone or in combination with other keys and items, for an item value total of 5 per key. They still open chests too off course.

4. Buying Key cards: Key card can then be bought from the Marketplace by exchanging items of a total value of 10 per key.

5. Complete Sets must be sold immediately.

6. Single Item Cards can only be sold in the final cashing up phase. During the rest of the game, you need at least a pair before you can sell it for money.

Optional additions:

a. Hand Size Limit: at the end of a turn, a player is not allowed to have more than 8 cards, including key cards. Players must either sell cards, and/or trade with the Marketplace to reduce the total number of cards back to 8 or less. We recommend this. If you want to make hand-management harder, decrease the hand-limit, but insist that all trading and selling happens as 2 individual and unsplittable phases within the turn. Clarification: it does require players to trade down to seven cards before the Digging phase. Better wording: a combined hand-limit of 7 before entering the Dig Phase.

b. Alternative Set-up Before creating the Dig Pile by shuffling in the remaining cards, deal each player starting cards with a minimum combined value of 3 (start dealing until the total item value equals or exceeds 3, then deal next player, etc - Alhambra style). It speeds things up at the start, gives players instant motivations for targeted trading, and also means that all players have something to lose when early Thief Cards show up. We recommend this.

c. Equal amount of Dig turns: The game ends when the Dig Pile isn't big enough to make sure that all players will have ha an equal amount of turns when the last card is drawn. We recommend this.

d. Alternative Stealing Rules: If you miss the original take-that stealing mechanic that let you pick a card from someone's hand and claim it yourself, you could mark the discarded Thief cards and re-introduce them to the Dig Pile. If you draw a Marked Thief card, you steal as originally intended (trigger cost et al). Alternatively, you keep the Master Thief card as it was originally intended. We recommend this if you liked the take-that-and-i'll-have-it targeting of opponents.

e. Stealing Key Cards: When a Thief Card is drawn, and a player owns at least one Key Card, one must be handed in to the Market Place. That player doesn't lose another card, losing a key is bad enough. (optional: this only happens when the Master Thief is drawn.)

f. Hidden Hands: An obvious way to stop players from counting things out based on what players have in front of them is to take all cards to hand (and trust people to discard the highest value card when the Master Thief appears). We don't like it, as open play has become thoroughly intriguing, but it might be something we consider in the future. Not sure if it would improve the game though.

That's it. We kinda liked the idea that increased, but more egalitarian Thieving, created additional value to the Market Place over time, by adding a Black Market component. To us the new way to steal sits equally well within the thematic atmosphere that the original designer intended, but created a game that we simply enjoy more. Ideally we would have had a couple of different looking Thief Cards for rule #d, but since there are none we don't use that rule. I can't get myself to mark any component, and certainly not those that look this fab. It would have been neat to have a bit of direct thieving kept in. We don't mind a degree of chaos, but only if the remainder is more meaningful and controllable. I am sure some people will prefer the original version, but this is the one we like best, and the game is just far too beautiful to have it sitting on the shelf.

Have fun with either one. Feel free to comment, as we don't have time to playtest this thoroughly, but like to share the variant that works works for us, and hope some others will welcome it too.

Thread: Re: Very, Very Light

BigWoo — 2007-05-12T02:00:44+00:00

I agree on the 1.5, so I helped you making it so.

BTW, our reaction to it after we played it (3+4 player), was pretty much in line with your write up. Lovingly produced, disappointingly light. And probably not aimed at players like us.

I'll repeat my comment here, so people won't have to look it up.

The theme and presentation were good enough to persuade me that I would probably dig this. Judging by the speed by which the initial 50 copies sold out here on BGG it looked like I wasn't the only one keen to get this set collecting filler, billed as a light Euro from Oz.

It is lovingly produced, with artwork on a par with any pro-publication, and with the quirky oddities you can expect from a low print-run and hand-assembled set. The cards and money counters may come in a variety of near identical sizes, but the board, rule-sheet and box are spot on, and the satin finishes and overall feel makes this a first effort that is pretty impressive.

The game is pleasant enough, and certainly delivers the goods as a light filler, but the gamer in me had hoped for something more, and I am not convinced that the designer got the most out of the things he put in.

This is all about collecting sets of identical cards, and cashing them in for VPs. The value of sets increases when you get more of a kind, some increase at a steady pace, some only when you get a lot of them, and some rare ones only when you find their other half. At the start of the game, 6 cards are placed on the board in the Marketplace, 3 Treasure Chests are filled (with 3,5, and 7 cards), and the remainder makes the Dig Pile (the draw deck) that is supplemented with special action cards: 3 cards that tell you when a Treasure Chest becomes available, Key cards that are needed if you want to claim the treasure chest cards, and Thief cards that let you steal cards from an opponent at a set "hire" cost of 1VP. All cards are open.

The idea is that you unearth an item card from the Dig Pile each turn, after optional trades with the Marketplace to improve your hand (or make life harder for others), or, if you've acquired enough Keys, lay claim claim to one of the 3 discovered Treasure Chests. The Thief cards are used to steal important cards from someone else's stash. Players decide at which point they want to cash in their sets, and secure the VPs from thieves.

What I had expected was a game in which players would frequently engage with the Marketplace to improve their sets, and that players would have some control over their collecting strategies, but disappointingly, "light set-collecting" is exactly that. Marketplace interaction for a series of reasons is usually not worth it, meaning that what is on offer hardly ever changes significantly. So if that isn't the key mechanic to get a good set spread together, that only leaves "draw and pray", and that can't be good. Pray it is a high value one, or even better, a Thief or Key at the right time. So far, the person drawing the most Thief cards has always won the game, and retained a high degree of control throughout.

It's main weakness, to me, is the static nature of the Marketplace, which even grinds to a complete halt in a 2-player game after the first few hands. I feel a different usage of the Thief card might spice things up a bit: when it gets drawn, everyone(!) has to sacrifice a hand card (Master-Thief = their highest) to the Marketplace. It does mean that over time the Marketplace increases in value, probably with low value cards that are worth quite a bit in large sets, encouraging the exchange for high value cards, something which now is usually counter-productive. It also makes collecting sets a lot riskier and harder than it is now (sets are hardly ever cashed in before completion). The weighty luck-of-the-draw action could also be made more gamer-friendly, so maybe having the choice of 2 exposed or the top blind one, or divide game in rounds with shifting start player, expose that many cards and people pick in turn, or one more, and the remaining one goes to the marketplace at the end of the turn, or.... anything!. The card mix might not suit any of these suggestions without any tweaking, but it would be a shame if a game this nice and with this much potential stays on the shelf.

Still tweaking our variant, but with few changes it is already a lot more up our street (rating: 7).

I will post a separate thread in the variants when we have settled on a definitive version it (still testing), but my comments should be enough to give you an indication in which direction we are looking. We haven't tried it with 2, as I am not convinced this is a 2-player game.

Come to think of it, our other house-rule we are toying with, a hand limit, might be great when you play our suggested variant with 2.

One thing we did notice is how well the current values suit the variant. Common items are frequently sold (swapped) to the Marketplace to gain rarer ones, but when the common ones builds up, suddenly valuable cards are put back in to gain large sets of common ones, to make a complete sets for a maximum bonus. With broken items (tablets especially) it is even better. People are quite happy to trade them in as in shatters they are worthless, but when it is obvious that someone can get all fragments to make a complete piece, people are utterly reluctant to chuck in the penultimate shard. (note: in our variant keys can be sold to the marketplace as well). Depending on in what sequence the chests are opened, it can be relatively safe to sell a single key to the marketplace to get a rare item, when only the 3-key chest remains to be opened, and the keys are split between 3 players. All considerations that spice up the game. In the end-game (last turn), keys are also swapped out to make the most of the multitude of items on offer, so opening a chest is no longer guaranteed to be the best automatic thing to do with a key, and players have let the 1-key chests slip for that reason, with mixed results.

Using the thieves to steal items from all players and then add them to the marketplace works thematically as well, but for gameplay the biggest bonus is that the marketplace has become VERY lively with the total value of the Marketplace increasing as more items are unearth, and thieves come out. If you want to increase the luck factor, exempt the player who draws the thief card from having to hand in a item card to the market place. We prefer it as a communal hand-in round without exceptions.

We believe that this game works great in its current form for certain players, but I fear that the initial print-run has been gobbled up by players who are after a bit more, and that might skew the reactions/reviews accordingly.

I think Phil had other players in mind than you and me Randy, but maybe our variant is enough of a tweak to make it a more attractive filler for you. It did work for us.

EDIT: Variant now posted: http://www.boardgamegeek.com/thread/165634.

Thread: Re: Very, Very Light

Randy Cox — 2007-05-10T03:31:11+00:00

Sagrilarus wrote:
Randy,
Could you please take a moment to assign a weight rating, as it is currently null.

Done. I never think to do that because I can't give fractional ratings. This game deserves something like a 1.4 or 1.5, but you can only give it a 1 or 2. I was kind and gave it a 2.

The problems with integer rating scales.

Thread: Re: Very, Very Light

Sagrilarus — 2007-05-09T22:33:18+00:00

    Randy,

    Could you please take a moment to assign a weight rating, as it is currently null.

             Sag.

Thread: Re: Very, Very Light

Randy Cox — 2007-05-08T15:03:25+00:00

Hello Phil,

I hope I didn't make my review too bleak. I do expect to have some fun with this and, yes, that probably means with 'lighter' gamers. In fact, my uncle and his new bride are in town this weekend and I may get them to try it.

Funny you should mention the thematic elements of the complete artifacts vs. items that are simply more value in greater number. I figured that was your goal, but while playing the game (and this is true of just about every game I play), I never really thought about the theme. I was just looking for cards that say "Statue" or "Coins", with no regard for the theme. In fact, that's why I put things like 'marketplace' in quotes. To me, it's just the 'move stuff around' space on the board.

However, I suspect that more traditional gamers (that being the huge throngs out there who aren't like we BGGers) DO think about theme and would no doubt appreciate the little nuances you mention.

You didn't say what you thought about putting the number of cards in the deck somewhere on the cards themselves (e.g. "Parchment Scrap (12)").

Finally, I was thinking this morning about how I might next play this with BGG type gamers. I think I'll make treasures secretly held in hand and only place keys face up before the player. I may even have a player who uncovers a chest get another draw until s/he gets something they can keep. This will make thieves useless except for stealing keys (which is pretty useful when you think of it), so I might add the ability for a thief to steal cards from the 'marketplace' (replenishing up to six from the deck) or something like that.

To me, the thieves pretty much balance out across all players after several playings anyway, so for grizzled old gamers, the effect becomes pretty much null across several games. Hence, just eliminate that "random psycho factor" completely. I think that may even make for a better experience (again, not for the once-in-a-blue-moon gamer). Essentially, I can't think of more than a half-dozen gamers I know who enjoy "take that" elements in games, so I may just remove it.

Thread: Re: Very, Very Light

Phil81 — 2007-05-08T06:06:05+00:00

Hi Randy,

Thanks for your review. It's funny you should mention Gamewright, as I certainly had their line somwehere in the back of my mind when designing this. I also largely made it for a group of my friends who are very light gamers, and they enjoy the simple gameplay and 'take-that' aspect of the thieving, so your observation there is spot on too.

While I completely agree that this is not a deep game, I think there are some risk management strategies one can employ which make the game more tactical, especially in a 3 or 4 player game with experienced players. Being more conservative with your selling when there are still plenty of thieves in the deck is one obvious example. The decision to pursue keys is another. While in some games, having keys will allow you access to the chests and lots of extra cards, in other games the chests or keys won't come out in time to be used and so will basically be a waste to have chased after. There's also always the chance that there is nothing of value in the wood or stone chest really, and stealing treasures rather than keys earlier in the game may have been more beneficial.

Oh by the way, the idea of the different values in the suits is something like this: parchment scraps, broken tablets and pot shards are all worth nothing extra until the full parchment, tablet or pot is constructed. Broken masks and cups have simply been broken in two and need to be re-joined. Most of the other treasures simply are worth more in sets, in the sense that a museum might prefer a whole collection of something rather than just one of it. I realise this isn't exactly the strongest thematic element (and perhaps could have been made more explicit in the rules) but there you go!

Anyway thanks again and I'm glad you had some fun with the game! I hope you find some opportunities to try it with some lighter gamers sometime too.

All the best,
Phil

Thread: Very, Very Light

Randy Cox — 2007-05-08T04:11:32+00:00

Let me say that I was astonished when this home-made game arrived today. First off, it sure arrived in a hurry, all the way from Australia. Secondly, it's beautiful. I can't tell exactly what kind of printing is going on (e.g. the box art), but it's quite stunning. The cards are a little non-uniform along the edges, but not so much as to affect the game; just enough to make a stack look like they were cut at home, which they were.

The components

A deck of cards. There are a bunch of treasure cards reminiscent of the commodity cards in Civilization. Each card has a value for 'trading' (simply swapping cards with those on the board in the exchange area...aka 'the marketplace') and along the bottom is a series of numbers (like in Civ) showing the monetary value if you sell a set of cards. Unlike the Civ cards, the payouts aren't arithmetic progressions. Some treasures have low payout and others high with no real explanation as to the difference (e.g. two 'suits' with the same number of cards in the deck will have different payout progressions). Oh, and the cards are mighty sturdy.

My only complaints are 1) that the quantity of each card in the deck should appear on the card somewhere. We'd see that five Statues were out on the table (everything is played face up--absolutely nothing is secret) and have to check the component list to determine if that was all or if there were extras in the deck. Given how the rest of the game is streamlined to make for simple game play, I would think this would have been covered. And 2) the thief cards should mention somewhere on the card that you pay dollars to activate them (a number is in the corner, but doesn't say that this is a dollar amount). Having read the rules, I knew this, but others didn't and questioned if I knew the rule properly since it wasn't on the card anywhere.

Some money. This was a bit of overkill. These chits remind me of something Dirk Henn would come up with back when he home-manufactured games under the dbSpiele name. In fact, you could keep track of the score on paper, but these are certainly servicable.

A game board. This is just a place to put the cards in an orderly fashion. It works fine.

The play.

On a turn, you simply follow the Yellow Brick Road.

1) Either grab a free collection of cards in one of the 'chests' OR swap a few cards in the 'marketplace'

Basically, if a chest is available and you have the number of keys necessary to claim it, you do. If not, you consider swapping a few of your cards based on their trade value (trade in a few from your hand, which is face up in front of everyone, and grab some of equal value off the marketplace area of the board). Often, you do neither. Too often, in fact.

2) Draw a card. This is a routine action. You just do it. No do-you-or-don't-you thinking involved. Just grab a card.

Now, here is where the random chaos factor comes into play--a lot of luck. If you draw a thief, you can spend a buck to take any one card from another player (there's a super-whammy thief that lets you take 3 cards for five bucks). If you draw a key, you place it face up (like all your treasures) and hope like hell no one steals it. If you draw a treasure, you just put it face up before you. And if you draw a chest, you're screwed. You get absolutely nothing, but the rest of the players say "thanks for opening up that chest" (which means they can spend their collected keys to take the corresponding free stack of cards).

3) Cash in sets of treasures. This you can do at any time during your turn. You simply sell your cards for the progressive set value listed at the bottom of the card. An example would be a set where 1 card is worth 1, 2 are worth 2, 3 are worth 3, and 4 are worth 10. Obviously, it doesn't pay to cash that one in until you reach the big whammie payout. Others have incremental values where you might consider selling early, though it's unlikely. The main reasons to sell a set before it's complete are A) there's no chance to get any more of that set and B) you need cash flow early in the game to pay a thief.

The results.

Well, the game took about 30 minutes with two players for our first attempt. And not much happened. If we drew a thief and there was something worth taking (read: a KEY), we did so. If a chest's contents could be taken into our 'hand', we did. Sometimes, we played with the market to alter holdings, but that's not a huge factor. Essentially, it's all about getting those extra cards, or so it would seem.

In fact, in our first game, I drew 12 fewer cards than my wife. I unearthed each of the chests and she opened two of them (the two biggest ones). We split the thieves. That means she got a 12-card windfall from the chests to my 3 and she got a card the three turns I got stuck with a "the chest is now open" card (these are random timing cards to regulate when chests can be claimed).

So, you'd think (as I did) that I was getting crushed. And I was. But I got to open my piddly little chest on the final turn of the game and steal a Statue from my wife's collection. That turnaround in points gave me a 103-96 victory. Without the last-minute thievery, she would have won. And I didn't feel as though I'd done anything to deserve winning. I just played the most obvious card each turn to maximize my immediate holdings and by some kind of amazing luck, even with fewer cards collected during the game, I eeked out victory.

Not that it matters. I can't really see playing this game to win. You play it to pass the time, and it's pleasant in that regard.

Overall: it's good looking and comfortable but there's no meat behind it and a lot of luck. It'll be good for the kids in a few years and if we have some completely non-gaming friends over, they'll probably love it. It gives you the feeling of playing a game when in fact, you're just directing traffic and watching the results unfold.

All said, this sounds like a very negative review. But it's not. While hardened gamer's game veterans will likely give it only a passing glance, I could see a game like this selling like hotcakes in the Gamewright line. That's where it fits. And if I could release something under that brand, I'd be a happy little game designer.

Image

Phil81 — 2007-05-05T00:01:06+00:00

Playing at the Archaeology launch party!

Image

Phil81 — 2007-05-04T23:58:23+00:00

Playing at the Archaeology launch party!

Image

Phil81 — 2007-04-27T04:59:48+00:00

Inside the box

Image

Phil81 — 2007-04-27T04:52:33+00:00

Close-up of components

Image

Phil81 — 2007-04-27T04:49:11+00:00

Card box and treasure cards

Image

Phil81 — 2007-04-27T04:44:50+00:00

Game components

Image

Phil81 — 2007-04-27T04:41:30+00:00

Close-up of components

Image

Phil81 — 2007-04-20T01:08:32+00:00

Thief and treasure chest cards

Image

Phil81 — 2007-04-19T13:01:28+00:00

Some treasure cards

Image

Phil81 — 2007-04-17T10:05:01+00:00

Game board