Game: Chang Cheng

Thread: Re: Chang Cheng - Review

wallover — 2008-10-29T14:00:47+00:00

About to-be-filler-or-not-to-be-filler theme, for me it's more a matter of mind work, instead of time. Nothing about fillers, I love them more than others kind of games, for their quick setup, easy learning and the right thinking challenge in a medium-short playing time. CC in my opinion is more an halfway between a traditional filler and a medium weight game, for playing time and difficult. With good bits (usually not found them on fillers).
From my side, I'm happy to have found a niche in the large gaming market, hoping to satisfy casual and experienced players (and not disappoint all them...).
In any case, it's just a matter of label :-)

Thread: Re: Chang Cheng - Review

gschloesser — 2008-10-22T23:47:02+00:00

billsaints wrote:
gschloesser wrote:
Falke wrote:
Filler length? Is it really that short? That might change my view of this game drastically.
I have this standing unplayed, now I really want to try it.

Also, good review.

Thanks!

No, I would not consider it a filler. Our games take 45 minutes - 1 hour to complete. For me, a filler takes 30 minutes or less. I guess some groups could get the game to fit in that time length, but I feel most games will clock-in at the time frame I've experienced.

First game maybe takes that long, but after a couple of plays we have it down to 20-30mins, its is almost a filler or superfiller. Turns are really quick once you've played a couple of times. A really underrated game in my opinion, at any other Essen it may have stood out, but as last year was so strong it kinda got lost.

20 - 30 minutes??!! Wow! That is amazing. I've known some "super-speed" players before, but this ranks right up there with the fastest I've ever heard.

Thread: Re: Chang Cheng - Review

billsaints — 2008-10-22T20:40:49+00:00

gschloesser wrote:
Falke wrote:
Filler length? Is it really that short? That might change my view of this game drastically.
I have this standing unplayed, now I really want to try it.

Also, good review.

Thanks!

No, I would not consider it a filler. Our games take 45 minutes - 1 hour to complete. For me, a filler takes 30 minutes or less. I guess some groups could get the game to fit in that time length, but I feel most games will clock-in at the time frame I've experienced.

First game maybe takes that long, but after a couple of plays we have it down to 20-30mins, its is almost a filler or superfiller. Turns are really quick once you've played a couple of times. A really underrated game in my opinion, at any other Essen it may have stood out, but as last year was so strong it kinda got lost.

Thread: Re: Chang Cheng - Review

gschloesser — 2008-10-22T11:46:32+00:00

Falke wrote:
Filler length? Is it really that short? That might change my view of this game drastically.
I have this standing unplayed, now I really want to try it.

Also, good review.

Thanks!

No, I would not consider it a filler. Our games take 45 minutes - 1 hour to complete. For me, a filler takes 30 minutes or less. I guess some groups could get the game to fit in that time length, but I feel most games will clock-in at the time frame I've experienced.

Thread: Re: Chang Cheng - Review

Falke — 2008-10-22T11:25:25+00:00

Filler length? Is it really that short? That might change my view of this game drastically.
I have this standing unplayed, now I really want to try it.

Also, good review.

Thread: Re: Chang Cheng - Review

Admiral Fisher — 2008-10-22T05:13:11+00:00

It's a very good game - fun, attractive and thoughtful. Another good thing about it is its length. It's about filler length, and there's not much else out there of it's type at that length.

Thread: Chang Cheng - Review

gschloesser — 2008-10-21T15:41:34+00:00

Note: This review was first published in Counter Magazine

Design by: Walter Obert
Published by: Tenki Games
2 – 4 Players, 1 hour
Review by: Greg J. Schloesser

Few monuments constructed by man have stood the ravages of time as well as the Great Wall of China. Construction began over 2500 years ago, and work continued for hundreds of years. Eventually, over a million men were needed to patrol its 6000-kilometer length. Ultimately, the wall proved ineffective against the rampaging Mongol hordes, but it still survives today as a major cultural icon … and tourist attraction.

Chang Cheng – “Great Wall” in Chinese -- is the latest game from designer Walter Obert and Tenki Games. True to its name, the game involves constructing the great wall, earning reputation, and fending off the inevitable Mongol invasion. Playable in about an hour, the game is essentially a tile placement game, but instead of cardboard tiles, the game features nice plastic wall and tower pieces. Once the game is complete, there is a mighty impressive 3-D wall that stretches across the boards. It may not be visible from space, but it still is quite a sight!

Each of the four boards depict three provinces, with base values ranging from 3 – 5, which are equal to the number of wall segments that will be constructed in that province. Along the northern edge of the provinces are spaces to place the walls, protecting Chinese territory from the gathering Mongols. Initially, only two boards are in play, but more will be added as the game progresses. A reputation counter is randomly placed on each province, while a facedown Mongol tile is placed on the northern border, waiting to invade.

Players receive a collection of wall segments, which include one tower and one double-wall piece. In addition, each player receives an identical set of six action tiles, which can be placed into the provinces to alter the scoring or majority status.

Each turn, players choose one action to perform. This can include:

• Placing two walls into two different provinces.
• Placing two action cards into different provinces. Action cards are placed facedown.
• Placing one wall and one action card into the same province.
• Place the double wall block or the tower.

Contrary to what is printed in the rules, the designer has clarified that when placing any wall or tower, the player may peek at the Mongol counter threatening that province. These counters range in value from 2 – 4, and will cost the player having the majority of wall segments in that territory to lose a corresponding number of points at game’s end. A player can protect himself in a few ways, including using his tower or a special action card.

When a player places his double-wall block, he instantly receives reputation points equal to the number of provinces and Mongol territories touched by that block. The tower piece also reserves one adjacent space for its owner. Players only have one of each of these pieces, so the timing and location of their placement must be made with great care.

Once all walls segments in a province have been erected, the province is “complete” and is immediately scored. Action tiles placed in the province are revealed and their effects implemented. If there are two or more of the same action tile in a territory, they cancel each other and are removed, with any remaining tiles being resolved in numerical order. Tiles convey a variety of special effects, including granting the owner extra “virtual” wall segments when determining majority status, increasing or decreasing the value of the province, removing an opponent’s tile or an adjacent Mongol tile, or even allowing the player to swap two wall segments. These tiles can be quite powerful, but must be used judiciously and wisely as once used, they are discarded.

Once the tiles are resolved, the value of the province is determined. This is equal to the sum of the number of wall segments in that province, the reputation counter, and any action tile modifications. The player who has the majority of wall segments protecting that province receives these points. Ties are friendly, so all tied players receive the points.

When a province is completed, an emperor tile is placed upon it. As soon as three emperor tiles are placed, a new segment is added to the board. Unless the game is being played with only three players, a fourth board will be added when this occurs again.

The game ends as soon as all wall segments have been erected. At that point, the Mongols invade. The player having the most wall segments facing the territory from which a Mongol invades suffers the loss of points depicted on the tile. The board is arranged in a fashion so that some wall pieces are adjacent to a province, but may not be affected by the Mongol invading that province. Thus, sometimes a player who has the majority of wall segments protecting a province is not the player who suffers the effects of the Mongol incursion into that province.

After points are deducted for all of the rampaging Mongols, the player with the most reputation points wins the favor of the Emperor, as well as the game.

While there really isn’t anything startling new here and the game isn’t very complex, it does require careful thought and timing. Choosing where and when to place walls and action tiles is a constant dilemma, and often the placement of just one segment or tile can result in a substantial swing of points. The “Mandarin” action tile, which allows the swapping of two wall segments, can suddenly and dramatically alter the majority status of a province, and have implications when the Mongols invade. These actions do require careful observation and proper timing. In spite of its relative simplicity, there is ample opportunity for shrewd and clever play.

The game also includes a variant wherein players can attempt to achieve the requirements listed on two event tiles, thereby earning more reputation points. I’ve not yet played with these tiles, but they are intriguing.

I am well pleased with Chang Cheng. It is a middle-weight game filled with a continuous stream of important decisions. Shrewd play and clever tactics are richly rewarded. Yet, the game is easy to learn and should be accessible and enjoyable for both families and more serious gamers. I’m looking forward to my next visit to the Great Wall.

Thread: Re: Theoretical tower question

wallover — 2008-10-06T11:31:26+00:00

mvettemagred wrote:
wallover wrote:
Thaur wrote:
The question is, who could place a wall between the two towers? Blue? Red? Both of them? None of them?
Both of them. But it's easy for the Red player to take the free space with a red block, because he plays for first.
...
I guess I just viewed a space claimed by an adjacent tower as no longer being an "open space", even though it doesn't yet contain a tower piece.
Yes, I see your point of view. In my example is not useful to place the blue tower in that place, because is easy for red to get the free place, playing before the blue. So is not really meaningful in my opinion. But I know, it can be useful, in the right time, have a "only your" place to play.
These are the final rules in the box, but if you like the other way you can play as you prefer, and to post your variant in the specific forum on these pages. Thank you for attention, WO

Thread: Re: ALTERNATIVE RULES FOR 2-PLAYER GAME (by the designer)

wallover — 2008-10-06T11:07:07+00:00

calbearfan wrote:
Hmm, haven't played yet (just ordered on Tanga), but it seems that the tiebreaker should be that the player with the lower top score (and therefore more balanced scoring between the two colors) would win. What is the reasoning for the other way?
I'm sorry for the late, I read only now this question.
It's only a question of point of view. I wish to add a more "chinese" feeling in this tie-breaking rule. As you play in 4 players, shared for 2, I desire to reward the most powerful player between the "4" players, avoiding the add too foggy conditions (you can read "a la Knizia"...). Anyway, it's only a tie-break condition with little probabilities of being applied. Thank you for playing CC!

Thread: Re: Questions re: 2-player rules

wallover — 2008-10-06T10:54:42+00:00

mvettemagred wrote:
A friend and I played Chang Cheng last night with the 2-player rules as written in the English-language rulebook. We came away with the following questions:

1. Do the neutral blocks count toward majority? I.e., can the neutral color win a Chinese province, thus preventing the "real" players from getting points from that province? If so, does this mean the neutral color also can have majority against the Mongols, thus protecting the "real" players from taking a penalty from that Mongol region?

2. A related question: does the neutral color score?

We suspected the answer to questions #1 and #2 is "no". I just want to confirm the purpose of the neutral blocks are simply to prevent the other player from placing in certain spots, and to have enough blocks to complete the wall.

3. When using card #6, can the blocks being swapped include neutral blocks?
1. Yes. The neutral color can win a Chinese province. Maybe it's useful for grab out points from the other player, or closing a province sharing the points with it.
2. No. The neutral colors doesn't score on the scoring path.
3. Yes. Is possible to swap all blocks in the game.

I suggest to you to try the alternative two players rules set, on this pages --->
http://www.boardgamegeek.com/thread/220696

Thread: Re: Theoretical tower question

mvettemagred — 2008-10-03T13:19:16+00:00

wallover wrote:
Thaur wrote:
The question is, who could place a wall between the two towers? Blue? Red? Both of them? None of them?
Both of them. But it's easy for the Red player to take the free space with a red block, because he plays for first.
Wallover,

I know this is your game, but that wasn't the answer I expected. Since the red tower was placed before the blue tower, according to the tower rules, the red player lays claim to the one open space next to his tower. That is now his space (and only his space) for the rest of the game. I would have thought that claim would hold true, even when the blue player places his tower next to the claimed space.

I guess I just viewed a space claimed by an adjacent tower as no longer being an "open space", even though it doesn't yet contain a tower piece.

Thread: Questions re: 2-player rules

mvettemagred — 2008-10-03T12:58:54+00:00

A friend and I played Chang Cheng last night with the 2-player rules as written in the English-language rulebook. We came away with the following questions:

1. Do the neutral blocks count toward majority? I.e., can the neutral color win a Chinese province, thus preventing the "real" players from getting points from that province? If so, does this mean the neutral color also can have majority against the Mongols, thus protecting the "real" players from taking a penalty from that Mongol region?

2. A related question: does the neutral color score?

We suspected the answer to questions #1 and #2 is "no". I just want to confirm the purpose of the neutral blocks are simply to prevent the other player from placing in certain spots, and to have enough blocks to complete the wall.

3. When using card #6, can the blocks being swapped include neutral blocks?

Thread: Re: 2 player rules?

mvettemagred — 2008-10-03T12:02:06+00:00

jearles wrote:
Racinrod wrote:
Could someone please explain to me how to play with 2 players without using the optional 2 player rules?

There simply aren't enough pieces when playing with two to fill all the spaces on the 3 boards. Do incomplete areas go unscored? Are we supposed to still score incomplete areas even after all pieces are placed?

I'm not seeing how this game is supposed to be played with just 2 players after reading the English rules. Any help would be appreciated.

Rodney, I'm a little confused. Do you want to play two player without using the two player rules in the rule book, or is it the fact that the two-player rules are labeled "optional" that makes you think you can play a two-player game without those rules? They are "optional" because they are used only when playing with two.

For two players, in addition to the player towers, you should use 12 single towers of a third (neutral) color. This gives both players a total of 46 space filling towers - 14 + 14 + 12 + 4 (2 double walls) + 2 towers = 46; 3 boards have only 39 spaces to fill. Without using the extra color you would be left with only 34 spaces worth of towers which would leave 5 empty spaces (which seems to be the problem you are asking about).

See http://www.boardgamegeek.com/thread/220696, which in addition to explaining this point also describes the 2-player variant posted by the designer (where each player uses 2 colors).
The heading of the 2-player rules is poorly worded, as is many other sections of this rulebook. If the rules regarding using a third neutral color are required when playing with only two players, then it should have been labeled "Additional rules required when playing with only two players." Using the word "Optional" at the beginning of the heading conveys a very clear meaning that what is to follow is not required to play the game.

Also, My game came with 15 single wall blocks of each color, which would leave two colors only 3 blocks short of completing 3 boards.

My friend and I had several other questions about the 2-player game rules that I will post in a fresh thread.

Thread: Re: Threat counters

wallover — 2008-09-22T14:49:08+00:00

Oh, you are right for sure.

This is the correct way to play:
- Place single wall block
- Place single wall block
- Look at threat counter
- Look at threat counter

Thread: Re: Threat counters

mvettemagred — 2008-09-22T13:38:13+00:00

I think Buds question was to the order of actions. Is it:

- Place single wall block
- Look at threat counter
- Place single wall block
- Look at threat counter

Or:

- Place single wall block
- Place single wall block
- Look at threat counter
- Look at threat counter

Even though you must place the second wall block in a different province, that province could line up with the same mongul region as the first province. Being able to look at the threat counter before placing the second block provides more strategy to the game, IMO.

Thread: Re: ALTERNATIVE RULES FOR 2-PLAYER GAME (by the designer)

calbearfan — 2008-08-11T18:41:17+00:00

Hmm, haven't played yet (just ordered on Tanga), but it seems that the tiebreaker should be that the player with the lower top score (and therefore more balanced scoring between the two colors) would win. What is the reasoning for the other way?

Thread: Re: Extra components

wallover — 2008-07-22T08:30:54+00:00

GSReis wrote:
My copy contains 15 single wall blocks of each color, but the rules say 14. Is every copy like that? Which is the correct number?

Also, there are blank action cards, but the rulebook only mentions 6 cards per player. Do the blank cards serve any purpose? They might be used for bluffing or to delay placement of a player's last wall block.
All the extra material is for replacement purpose only. I find this a nice production touch. Of course, you can use it like you want: new cards, variants, etc.
Best regards, WO

Thread: Extra components

GSReis — 2008-07-22T03:31:21+00:00

My copy contains 15 single wall blocks of each color, but the rules say 14. Is every copy like that? Which is the correct number?

Also, there are blank action cards, but the rulebook only mentions 6 cards per player. Do the blank cards serve any purpose? They might be used for bluffing or to delay placement of a player's last wall block.

Thread: Re: 2 player rules?

GSReis — 2008-07-22T02:54:15+00:00

I was confused by the use of the word "optional", too. I played without those rules, and only when the game was nearing its end I realized there were not enough pieces to fill all the spaces.

Image

Rainforhar — 2008-07-21T08:11:52+00:00

Image

Rainforhar — 2008-07-21T08:10:58+00:00

master's card

Thread: Re: 2 player rules?

MisterCranky — 2008-07-06T20:12:38+00:00

Okay, I don't know if this is more Canadian bullshit, but when you see the word "optional" in reference to a rule, you don't immediately think that it will EVER be a "required" rule. The third "mystery" player crap is so tired, so miserable, so old...if a rulebook even hints that this not mandatory, you can be sure that any number of players will avoid it. As did I. Erroneously. Perhaps, in Canada.

Thread: Re: Expansion of the map

wallover — 2008-07-04T11:50:38+00:00

Yes, reputation counters on chinese side (visible) and threat counters on mongol side (face down).

Thread: Expansion of the map

Tony Kan — 2008-07-04T11:08:27+00:00

When a new map is added, should we put the reputation counters in it?

The rulebook didn't mention it.But in BGG's pictures, every map has reputation counters.

Thread: Alternative use of cards (by the designer)

wallover — 2008-07-01T14:00:52+00:00

Partially revealed cards

The first card played in a province is placed face down, as usual.
When a player wants to play a card on a province containing a face down card, he first turns face up the card already there and then chooses which of his cards to place there (face down). Thus there will always be only one card face down in any province (the last one played there).
Note that if a player puts two cards in the same province as his move, the first one will reveal the previous face down card (if any) and then will be turned face up by the second card.
The effects of all the cards are still resolved as usual only when the province is scored.

Thread: Re: 2 player rules?

Racinrod — 2008-06-01T03:08:44+00:00

I guess I was confused on the use of the word optional. I assumed optional meant a different way to play with two players than the way the rules originally were written.

I understand the way it plays using the optional rules. I just thought it could be played with 2 without using those rules. My bad.

Thread: Re: 2 player rules?

jearles — 2008-06-01T00:06:12+00:00

Racinrod wrote:
Could someone please explain to me how to play with 2 players without using the optional 2 player rules?

There simply aren't enough pieces when playing with two to fill all the spaces on the 3 boards. Do incomplete areas go unscored? Are we supposed to still score incomplete areas even after all pieces are placed?

I'm not seeing how this game is supposed to be played with just 2 players after reading the English rules. Any help would be appreciated.

Rodney, I'm a little confused. Do you want to play two player without using the two player rules in the rule book, or is it the fact that the two-player rules are labeled "optional" that makes you think you can play a two-player game without those rules? They are "optional" because they are used only when playing with two.

For two players, in addition to the player towers, you should use 12 single towers of a third (neutral) color. This gives both players a total of 46 space filling towers - 14 + 14 + 12 + 4 (2 double walls) + 2 towers = 46; 3 boards have only 39 spaces to fill. Without using the extra color you would be left with only 34 spaces worth of towers which would leave 5 empty spaces (which seems to be the problem you are asking about).

See http://www.boardgamegeek.com/thread/220696, which in addition to explaining this point also describes the 2-player variant posted by the designer (where each player uses 2 colors).

Thread: 2 player rules?

Racinrod — 2008-05-31T19:34:06+00:00

Could someone please explain to me how to play with 2 players without using the optional 2 player rules?

There simply aren't enough pieces when playing with two to fill all the spaces on the 3 boards. Do incomplete areas go unscored? Are we supposed to still score incomplete areas even after all pieces are placed?

I'm not seeing how this game is supposed to be played with just 2 players after reading the English rules. Any help would be appreciated.

Thread: Re: Tower extending game

wallover — 2008-05-29T07:05:56+00:00

feydjm wrote:
In this situation, is the red player forced on his next turn to complete a full action, meaning his single block and an action card MUST be played since that would be the only FULL turn he could take? Or could he take turns placing single action cards in the province until he had what he wanted in there, then place the tower block?
If a complete action it's possible, it must to be made. Partial actions are granted only if it is not more possible to play complete actions.

Thread: Tower extending game

feydjm — 2008-05-24T22:49:52+00:00

We were playing this game the other day and this situation came up: Two empty spaces at the very end of the last board in play. Red places a tower so that there is one more space at the edge of the board next to the tower. The block his tower is next to is not his, thus the one at the edge of the board would be his alone. Obviously this situation could happen anywhere on the board, this is just where it happened for us.

It seems like at this point he can prolong the game artificially and remove from others the ability to end the game to their advantage. If all the other blocks are full and it's the only open one remaining.

In this situation, is the red player forced on his next turn to complete a full action, meaning his single block and an action card MUST be played since that would be the only FULL turn he could take? Or could he take turns placing single action cards in the province until he had what he wanted in there, then place the tower block?

Thread: Designer Notes - Using the cards

wallover — 2008-05-12T10:53:28+00:00

If using blocks is the basic work to obtain victory points, a smart use of cards is needed to win a game. I want to speak here about some different use of the cards (no, not as tongue-depressor as someone says ). The format of the traditional oriental playing cards was particularly proper for the narrow spaces of the Chinese provinces:
http://www.gamesmuseum.uwaterloo.ca/Archives/Wilkinson/Wilki...
It's possible to use them in different ways during a match. I hope to help the players to play better with these advices:

- Timing is very important in CC: using the right card at the right moment is not easy; you must plan the possible evolution of the game in the different provincies in order to have the best result
- You can play a card for last before to close a chinese province: use this for gain more points, draw them, lower them or decide who's the winner (usually the lower score player)
- Play differently: if you note that anyone plays cards at the start of the game, you can place some "traps" for the next turns or close easily some little provinces.
- Every card can be countered by a similar one: take note of the played cards in order to know your possibilities
- Remember the value of baddiest mongol tokens: this will be useful at the end of the game, especially with the Mandarin card and his dirty tricks
- Victory points are counted at the end of the game: don't worry about your low score during the game. Wait for the right time when your opponents are using precious cards, often crashing them each other
- Every card in your hand at the end of the game is a lost resource for you (at least if you don't using the Event Card C: "Imperial Reward - Every player gains 2 Reputation Point for each Action Card not played"

Let's see the cards:

1 - Warrior
The Warrior is the best defender for your province. It plays for first, and his player can decide what card to destroy. Useful at the end of the game, for avoiding terrible Mandarin effects (his preferred target). Check before use it the different options for the next played cards (if there any). Beware: the Warrior ever destroy a card: be careful that card is not yours. The Warrior loves company: keep it always with other players cards.

2 - Traitor
A good, often underrated card. Easy destroy a block for win/share victory. More unusual to see it destroy a YOUR block in order to avoid the mongol's majority when you lose the majo. In alternative, it's a good way use it for aggressive play, taking provincies without the tower protection.

3 - Flood
Originally named "Alluvial terrain", this is the Card of Indecision. If you have no idea of the province's winner, it's the good choice for raise / lower the VP, or as bluff card. Good for every province, it's easy to see it neutralized by the same card used from another player.

4 - Builder
A really useful card with double effect. His "virtual block" has a nice collateral effect: use the Buider to win mayorities without negative blocks on the mongol side. This is the more useful card of the set, never ending a game without have used it.

5 - Master Builder
Really powerful for win, it's very strong for the biggest provincies battles; in combo with another card (es. Warrior o Builder) it's possible to gain mayorities without playing blocks, and leaving the opponents blocks to face the mongol ordes.

6 - Mandarin
The most tricky card of the set. Swapping the right blocks at the end of the game is the best action you can do. For make so it's very important to place it on a "safe" province, near to be closed from an other player, just before the end of the game.
At that time take the pleasure to see the face of your opponents when you decide the winner and the loser.
On some tournment, in order to avoid his possible "kingmaking" effect, the Mandarin become unusable when the last board comes into play.

Thread: Re: Reputation counters?

Racinrod — 2008-05-10T12:14:18+00:00

Yes that's the picture. I'll assume the wording is correct and they are all to be placed face up.

Thread: Re: Reputation counters?

jearles — 2008-05-07T23:38:40+00:00

Racinrod wrote:
Actually their is a picture of the repution counters all with a X marked on them making me wonder if they are supposed to be face up or down.

Are you talking about diagram A? The +X symbol is simply indicating a generic reputation counter, with an unspecified bonus (+0 to +4).

Thread: Re: Reputation counters?

Racinrod — 2008-05-07T22:08:06+00:00

Actually their is a picture of the repution counters all with a X marked on them making me wonder if they are supposed to be face up or down.

Thread: Re: Reputation counters?

tool — 2008-05-07T20:42:04+00:00

Racinrod wrote:
Yet the rules say nothing about having the ability to look at threat counters by placing single walls, but the pictures say otherwise. Do I believe the pictures or the words?

Entirely different. If there were any indication in the rules that you placed reputation counters face-down, then that would certainly raise questions, but as far as I know there isn't. When the rules contradict themselves, then there is a question.

Thread: Re: Reputation counters?

Drew1365 — 2008-05-07T20:31:47+00:00

Racinrod wrote:
Yet the rules say nothing about having the ability to look at threat counters by placing single walls, but the pictures say otherwise. Do I believe the pictures or the words?

Believe the pictures. This is discussed on another thread, but the designer has weighed in. Poor translation in the English rules. Placement of any wall piece -- single or double -- in a region, allows you to look at the threat counter.

Thread: Re: Reputation counters?

Racinrod — 2008-05-07T19:58:47+00:00

Yet the rules say nothing about having the ability to look at threat counters by placing single walls, but the pictures say otherwise. Do I believe the pictures or the words?

Thread: Re: Reputation counters?

tool — 2008-05-07T14:49:35+00:00

If the rules in the game are contradicted by an unofficial player aid, the way to bet is that the player aid is incorrect. (I don't see any references to face-down reputation counters anywhere else but in that player aid.) Given that the rules are quite clear, I see no reason to doubt them.

Thread: Reputation counters?

Racinrod — 2008-05-07T12:42:24+00:00

The rules state that the reputation counters are to be placed face up on the board during setup, while the threat counters are to be placed face down .

However, I've noticed certain references as well as files available for download here that during scoring of a province that the reputation counters are to be flipped face up indicating that they are in fact supposed to begin face down along with the threat counters. Can someone either confirm or deny this one way or the other?

Thread: Hungarian rules

wallover — 2008-04-23T12:04:43+00:00

http://thaur.uw.hu/tarsaskor/changcheng_hu.pdf

Thread: Re: ALTERNATIVE RULES FOR 2-PLAYER GAME (by the designer)

ggambill — 2008-04-21T02:44:08+00:00

My wife and I just played this for the first time, and we really liked it. Once we added the third board, however, we saw we would be three single wall blocks short of having the great wall completed. We did not play the third party neutral color. In our english version of the rules, it says they are "optional" two player rules, so we just assumed we could play with a third color or not, so we chose to not use it. Once we saw we would have a problem, we decided to play by these rules as our variant.

Whoever has the majority at the end of the game, even in regions that were missing a wall piece, they received the number of points that equaled the number of wall pieces. Empty spaces were not counted, and they were treated as if they were "broken' walls for scoring. We also did not give the prestige bonus for these uncompleted sections since there is no prestige in an unfinished job! We further decided that the mongol threat would still be in full effect for whoever had majority in these uncompleted regions, so players had to balance the risk of the few points for the unfinished region with the full threat of the mongol token.

This variant seemed to make sense to us. It allowed us to finish the game without a mechanical third player neutral, added some calculated risk to investing in provinces that may not be finished by the end of the game, and seemed to fit historically as well as I'm sure (I would think, but I don't know) China would have been attacked many times before the wall was completed. This seems to work for us, and it seems to keep the game balanced and fair for us. I would be curious to hear what anyone thinks of this set of optional two player rules.

Thread: Re: Chang Cheng - Samurai light?

wallover — 2008-04-18T14:00:48+00:00

A pleasure for me to know that someone is interested on my games.
BGG is a wonderful way to share our feelings about our hobby!

Thread: Re: Game board question

Moviebuffs — 2008-04-10T07:14:21+00:00

In short, yes.

Our copy has a/e, b/f, c/g and d/h.

As well as a score board.

N.

Thread: Game board question

maelic001 — 2008-04-10T05:54:11+00:00

Should there be a d/h board? My copy has 1 a/e, 2 b/f, and 1 c/g board.

Thread: Re: Some pictures of the game

longagoigo — 2008-04-04T02:28:49+00:00

Natural fiber vs synthetic is the battle that needs to be fought.

Thread: Re: Chang Cheng - Samurai light?

longagoigo — 2008-04-04T01:43:39+00:00

A nice review! And Walter, thanks for your comments. Very interesting.

Thread: Re: a few basic questions

jerkules — 2008-04-02T12:25:39+00:00

Thanks for the answers. Hopefully I can keep notes for a session report or something.

Thread: Re: action card - wall question

wallover — 2008-04-02T07:28:23+00:00

When you close a chinese region playing the last wall block you MUST start to reveal the cards for the scoring phase, so it's impossible to play more cards at that time. In that way, you are forced to make a block/block move, placing a second block on another region.
The playing order card/block in a friendly game it's not a problem, for me. The things can change on a tournment, where all players fight each others for every single point :-)

Thanks to John for the right answer.

Thread: Re: a few basic questions

wallover — 2008-04-02T07:18:05+00:00

>1) When setting up the board, can you use eith side of all 4 boards, or are you supposed to use either a-d OR e-h?

You are free to use any board as you like, by random or choosing them..

>2) The China card serves no purpose to the game, right?

Yes/No. It's only a reminder to determine which half of the board was on "this" side of the Great Walll (Chinese) and which one was on "that" side (Mongol). (OK, we had a free space on the punchboard ;-)

>3) At the beginning of the game, the start player has no choice, they can ONLY place 1 single wall, right? (I wasn't sure if it meant that if they chose to place walls they could only place 1, or if they HAD to take that action).

Yes, only one wall block.

>4) When resolving action cards, it says "Some cards have two effects. When these cards are revealed the player can choose which effects he wishes to apply." Does this mean "one or the other" or could they apply both?

You can apply one or the other effect.

>5) During final scoring, my tower piece only protects me, right? Other players are NOT protected by my tower? Example, during final Mongol scoring I tie with another player for majority. I have a Tower, they don't. I assume they would lose points and I would not, correct?

Yes.

>6) If there is a layout like this where the Xs are occupied and the #s are empty:

>XXXX123XXXX

>Let's say I put a tower in space 3. According to the rules, space 2 is now reserved for a single wall of mine (assuming the other side is not my piece already). Can another player put their tower into space 1? And if so, would it then be a "first come first served" thing for space 2?

Yes.

>I think that's it. Looks like fun and I'm excited to try it out.

Good! Let me know you feelings after some plays. Remember: you can use the master cards for a more challenging game.

Thread: Re: Placing the double wall over two mongol regions

Axelfudge — 2008-04-01T21:30:35+00:00

Ok, thanks to this thread this game makes a lot more sense.

Thanks Geeks!

Thread: a few basic questions

jerkules — 2008-04-01T20:45:56+00:00

Just wanted confirmation on a few things before playing the game:

1) When setting up the board, can you use eith side of all 4 boards, or are you supposed to use either a-d OR e-h?

2) The China card serves no purpose to the game, right?

3) At the beginning of the game, the start player has no choice, they can ONLY place 1 single wall, right? (I wasn't sure if it meant that if they chose to place walls they could only place 1, or if they HAD to take that action).

4) When resolving action cards, it says "Some cards have two effects. When these cards are revealed the player can choose which effects he wishes to apply." Does this mean "one or the other" or could they apply both?

5) During final scoring, my tower piece only protects me, right? Other players are NOT protected by my tower? Example, during final Mongol scoring I tie with another player for majority. I have a Tower, they don't. I assume they would lose points and I would not, correct?

6) If there is a layout like this where the Xs are occupied and the #s are empty:

XXXX123XXXX

Let's say I put a tower in space 3. According to the rules, space 2 is now reserved for a single wall of mine (assuming the other side is not my piece already). Can another player put their tower into space 1? And if so, would it then be a "first come first served" thing for space 2?

I think that's it. Looks like fun and I'm excited to try it out.

Thread: Re: Chang Cheng - Samurai light?

ggambill — 2008-03-30T13:33:47+00:00

Thanks to both of you for your comments. I'm grateful for the reviews here on Boardgamegeek because they help me decide which games will fit my needs. I'm also always eager and fascinated and, yes, I admit it, a little "star-struck" when I read posts from the actual designers. Does that make me the ultimate geek? I read these posts as if they came from "movie stars", or some other kind of celebrities! Well to me, you all are, because those who design games have brought more fun and enjoyment to my home and kids than Hollywood, that's for sure! Anyway....

I like the fact that this game fits into a shorter time frame. My wife and I love El Grande, and we love the big "epic" games of Antike, and Hamburgum etc, but we don't always have the time/energy depending on the day. Samurai is also another favorite of ours, but can be a little intense (AP) at times for us. This game and the review really have helped me decide to buy it because it scratches the El Grande style "itch" in a time frame that we can deal with on night's when we just don't have the energy for a longer/more intense game. Mr. Vassel's review was also great along with the pictures, as always, to help us visual learners actually see the game and its beautiful bits before deciding to buy. So to all of you reviewers, and to all of you designers, thanks!

Image

olavf — 2008-03-26T12:40:06+00:00

Open box

Image

olavf — 2008-03-26T12:38:50+00:00

Open box

Image

fabricefab — 2008-02-27T17:46:22+00:00

Chang Cheng walls in front of box

Image

Odoren — 2008-01-03T20:37:10+00:00

Playing Chang Cheng (Essen 2007)

Image

dotburn — 2007-11-17T16:12:39+00:00

Game in progress at Great Lakes Games 5

Image

RacingHippo — 2007-11-13T23:40:34+00:00

The four sets of wall pieces from which the Great Wall will be built

Image

RacingHippo — 2007-11-13T23:38:14+00:00

Emperor cards, "China" card and the 4 optional Event cards

Image

RacingHippo — 2007-11-13T23:35:09+00:00

Threat markers (Mongol)