Game: Patrician

Image

richtoosoon — 2008-11-15T01:09:49+00:00

Custom pieces for 'The Messangers' variant, with pieces scrounged from Parker Brothers "Long Shot".

Image

mschacht — 2008-11-13T11:41:20+00:00

Board for "the Messengers" Expansion (4+5 players) / Spielplan für "Die Boten Erweiterung" (4+5 spieler)

Image

mschacht — 2008-11-13T11:39:28+00:00

Board for "the Messengers" Expansion (3+4 players) / Spielplan für "Die Boten Erweiterung" (3+4 spieler)

Thread: Re: [Review] Patrician

Pedrator — 2008-10-05T08:24:21+00:00

Well... I don't know how you studied latin. I studied it for only 4 years, and since my own language is latin originated (meaning that it mutated "Via populare" + "Via eruditae" till it became portuguese... but also spanish... litallian.... french...) But there is some fair agreement among portuguese scholars that latin did have different pronounications throughout it's "imperial time"... but in the end.... who can tell for sure...

Thread: Patrician: Towering Glory!

jimmcmahon — 2008-09-18T13:25:05+00:00

(image by ArtEmiSa64)

The Middle Ages was an interesting time in Italy. If you had wealth and influence, chances are you would need to prove that you were actually important. The Patricians had wealth and influence. Who are the Patricians? According to Wikipedia, "in modern English, the word patrician is generally used to denote a member of the upper class, often with connotations of inherited wealth, elitism, and a sense of noblesse oblige." Therefore, they had to prove they were important. How? Why by building tall, magnificent towers in the cities of the land, of course. And somebody has to build these towers (because they sure as heck weren't going to build their own towers). That's where the master builders come in.

That is the theme of Patrician. The players are the master builders, each one trying to have built the most floors of the towers. The Game board has a number of cities, each of which has areas to build two towers. There is a card face up next to each city showing some combination of one of the cities, a special action, or a portrait of a Patrician.

(image by edroz)

Players also have a hand of three cards. The players place one of their cards on the table, and the city shown on the card is where they build. Building involves putting one level of a tower in one of the two building areas and then taking the card that is showing, which then gets replaced from the deck. Each city has a number showing the total number of tower pieces which may be placed in that city. Points are scored by the player who has the most number of tower pieces in each building after the allowed number of tower pieces have been placed. Each city has two "prestige tokens" which are point values. The player who claimed the taller of the two towers gets the higher value token, and the palyer who claimed the shorter tower gets the lower value token. At the end of the game players look through the cards that they have played and score an additional six points for every matching set of three Patrician Portraits they have.

(image by Ceryon)

Patrician is a fairly simple game to learn and plays quickly. I liked the way it plays; you need to think about where you want to place a piece so you can claim a tower as well as getting a card that will help you on a later turn. However, there isn't a great deal of strategy involved, as the card placement is completely random. And just because you have what looks to be the majority of pieces in a building, it may not stay that way. One of the special actions that can be done is the ability to move the top floor of one building to the other tower in a city. This is not a game to play if you are not willing to try to win, because it is all about having the most levels in the tower. There are plenty of opportunities to "screw" the other player(s). Being the nice guy will not get you the win here.

(image by kilroy_locke)

I thought the game was fun to play, but it isn't a very heavy game. I would say that it is more than a filler game, but not a lot more. I would certainly play it again, though I am glad that I got it on sale.

Jim

Thread: Re: [Review] Patrician

tmredden — 2008-09-15T19:57:39+00:00

Pedrator wrote:
Actually... I don't think any scholar would agree with any of you. Fact is that Latin evolved along the time, especially the people had a strong influence in the way words or letters were pronounced (as still today), so most probably, and this the scholar I think might agree with, at some time the romans would have pronounced it "patreekina" and later on (a few decades or even centuries) they would have pronounced it "patrishian", it's quite possilbe even that they might have pronounced it "patrissian" somewhere between "eek" and "ish" I'd guess...

Have you studied Latin as I have? Latin is a very structured language and did not tend towards Romans tweaking the pronunciation of the letter C at their whim and whither. C was always given a hard pronunciation as in K. So, I think you are mistaken about how scholars might agree with you.

Thread: Re: [Review] Patrician

Pedrator — 2008-09-09T09:45:53+00:00

Actually... I don't think any scholar would agree with any of you. Fact is that Latin evolved along the time, especially the people had a strong influence in the way words or letters were pronounced (as still today), so most probably, and this the scholar I think might agree with, at some time the romans would have pronounced it "patreekina" and later on (a few decades or even centuries) they would have pronounced it "patrishian", it's quite possilbe even that they might have pronounced it "patrissian" somewhere between "eek" and "ish" I'd guess...

Image

petegrey — 2008-09-07T00:18:14+00:00

Patrician with custom Messengers. I repainted 6 figures from Horse Sense game.

Thread: Re: Draw a replacement building card action

steveoliverc — 2008-06-19T01:27:20+00:00

The printed rules clearly state you draw and place a card in the "newly empty city space" which depends on where you took your card. It's got nothing to do with whether or not the city is scored.

I play a lot of games online and it places a card on scored cities as needed. Take a closer look in your next game. It might be the deck was out when you saw that.

In fact I'm in a game right now with the designer and he's killing me

Thread: Draw a replacement building card action

brokasaphasia — 2008-06-18T17:35:54+00:00

This only minorly affects gameplay, but I am confused by a point associated with the "Draw a replacement building card" action.

By the rules, I believe that you _DO_ replace the building card of a newly scored city... thus locking that card in place until someone plays a "?" special action or until someone plays in a city without a building card (and so can take any card on the board).

However, when I played the online version on Michael's website, I thought that it actually did NOT replace the building card on a newly scored city (even though there were still cards in the draw pile.)

Which method is the intended one?
A) YES, replace building card in newly scored city
B) NO, do not replace building card in newly scored city

Thanks!

(and if anyone can help me beat the Hansa Java AI, I would really appreciate that! I NEVER WIN!)

Thread: Re: Master Builders vs. Predetermined Randomness

Websteria — 2008-06-12T22:09:59+00:00

Bingo! :-) I can't wait to try it with the Delegates expansion!

Thread: Re: Master Builders vs. Predetermined Randomness

steveoliverc — 2008-06-12T21:12:00+00:00

I'm no longer a fan with 5 players, now that I've played it online where the 5-player option is not available. 4 players is very good, and 2 / 3 players is excellent. Especially if you use the Messengers expansion.

Thread: Re: Master Builders vs. Predetermined Randomness

Websteria — 2008-06-12T20:22:54+00:00

I played with 4 today and it seemed a little more than with 3. 2 is awesome, and 3 is very good... 4 gets a little more out of control and 5 is just.... crazy. :-)

And I LOVE this game, don't get me wrong.

Thread: PATRICIAN, a portuguese review

fs1973 — 2008-05-29T15:29:33+00:00

Previously posted at SpielPortugal

PATRICIAN (2007) Michael Schacht | Amigo Spiele e Mayfair Games | 2 a 5 jogadores | +- 30 minutos | regras em português | Joga PATRICIAN on-line

Schacht nunca me convenceu, os seus desenhos sempre me pareceram um pouco caóticos e abstractos e apenas consegui apreciar o rápido COLORETTO e um curioso HANSA. Por isso, sempre que há minha frente encontro uma caixa de jogo por si desenhada acabo inevitavelmente por torcer o nariz. E PATRICIAN não fugiu à regra. A primeira vez que li sobre este jogo, quase nem lhe liguei, mas aos poucos os comentários positivos que tem colhido acabaram por me convencer a dar-lhe uma segunda oportunidade e assim, li as regras.

Basicamente, PATRICIAN é um area control muito simples e básico. Tão simples e básico que irrita. E irrita porque é bom e por ser tão simples e básico. Cada jogador tem 3 cartas na mão e um conjunto de peças de madeira que encaixam perfeitamente umas em cima das outras e que representam pisos de uma torre. No tabuleiro encontramos abstractamente representadas 9 ou 10 cidades italianas, cada uma delas com espaço para a construção de apenas duas torres. Estas cidades têm um limite máximo de pisos permitidos, que pode ser de 5, 7 ou 9. Ou seja, numa cidade cujo limite é 5, só podem existir duas torres de 3 e 2 pisos respectivamente, ou de 4 e 1 pisos.

As cidades estão identificadas por cores distintas tal como as cartas dos jogadores e um uso astuto destas permite colocar 1 ou 2 pisos nas cidades e com isso ir ganhando influência e maiorias e refrescar a mão com novas cartas. Em cada cidade existem bónus maiores para as torres maiores e quem contribuir com mais pisos para a torre mais alta leva o respectivo bónus. As cartas jogadas podem ou não ter uma imagem de três possíveis figuras da época e que dão pontos extra no fim do jogo se um jogador tiver usado 3 ou múltiplos de 3 destas figuras. Um pormenor curioso, que torna mais complexa a decisão da escolha de cartas a jogar. No fim é só somar pontos e ganha quem tiver mais, claro!

E tudo isto demora 30 minutos ou pouco mais. O jogo é sobretudo um jogo táctico, um jogo de aproveitar oportunidades, mas que deixa espaço para alguma estratégia sobretudo mais para o fim do jogo. É divertido, é estimulante e sobretudo é rápido. Claro que a sorte das cartas é importante, mas não determinante. Eu diria que em PATRICIAN, a sorte das cartas faz parte do universo de caos que Schacht costuma construir em torno dos seus jogos, é a sua marca pessoal.

Claro que neste jogo não há tema, o que aliás também é habitual na sua obra, mas mesmo assim eu gosto muito deste jogo. O jogo pelo jogo vale um 7, mas na categoria dos fillers rápidos e inteligentes, vale um 8 ou mais. Para mim é o meia-leca do ano. Bem produzido e sobretudo bem simples é um jogo que vai andar sempre na caixa de jogos que trago na bagageira do carro e que me acompanha para todo o lado.

NOTA FINAL: 7

Thread: Re: Patrician expansion part II: The Delegates

steveoliverc — 2008-05-20T12:07:18+00:00

whoo hoo! can't wait to try it!

Thread: Re: Patrician expansion part II: The Delegates

richtoosoon — 2008-05-19T03:04:24+00:00

Thanks, Michael! Another great addition to Patrician. I've already cut out the pieces and mounted them to foamboard, so they are nice and thick.

Now I just have to get the game back to the gametable soon...

Thread: Re: Patrician expansion part II: The Delegates

mschacht — 2008-05-17T15:15:43+00:00

> Will this be available for PBW, too?
> Incidentally, will the basic (Messenger-free) version be up on your site, too?

i’m thinking about both.
unfortunately i havent learned the progamming language so far...

Thread: Re: Patrician expansion part II: The Delegates

snoozefest — 2008-05-17T14:12:31+00:00

Will this be available for PBW, too?

Incidentally, will the basic (Messenger-free) version be up on your site, too?

Thread: Patrician expansion part II: The Delegates

mschacht — 2008-05-17T13:02:20+00:00

just launched the second part of the expansion on my website.

http://www.michaelschacht.net/p/patriXP2US.pdf
(english, letter)

http://www.michaelschacht.net/p/patriXP2D.pdf
(german, DINA4)

Image

mschacht — 2008-05-17T12:46:41+00:00

part 2 of "the delegates" expansion.

Image

mschacht — 2008-05-17T12:44:37+00:00

part 1 of "the delegates" expansion.

Thread: Re: Messengers -- last city scores only 2 points?

steveoliverc — 2008-05-16T21:06:00+00:00

I took note of your comment online: the 2 point scoring is to compensate the last player, and that did a lot to help me understand the rule. It definitely gives you something to think about in playing out your last 3 cards because you want to control which is the last city to score.

I have to say that playing Patrician online has been a lot of fun! The rules improvements, the Messengers expansion, and also just having the interface take care of the housekeeping. I've since played Patrician several times face to face using the Messengers (without the 2-point last-city scoring) with the open-face card scoring, and my group also enjoys the game much more this way. I even took a Sharpie marker to my board to note where the Messengers are placed, much to the horror of the other game collectors

Also, back to the Messengers, the -3 "bonus" awarded at the end made for a very close 3 player game. The score was a 3-way tie 62-62-62 until the "bonus" was awarded, and the game ended 62-62-59.

Thread: Re: The Messengers - Improved rules 31.3.

mschacht — 2008-05-16T17:37:47+00:00

yes, the boardgame and the online variant are different at the point. see also the other thread.

Thread: Re: Messengers -- last city scores only 2 points?

mschacht — 2008-05-16T17:22:47+00:00

Steve,

you’re right: the boardgame expansion and the online expansion is different.
the "online end" is an experiment to deal with the full informations you have online (you can note all players turns).
that was also the impulse for the whole messengers variant.

at the moment there are different options concerning the further development of online Patrcian.
One thing which is negative is that i can handle the programm code by myself :-)

i will think of making the "online end" optional and perhaps other things ...

thanks for your input.

Thread: Messengers -- last city scores only 2 points?

steveoliverc — 2008-05-12T19:06:11+00:00

I enjoy the Messengers very much and think the 2 point tokens and -3 token add an interesting layer of decision to the game.

However, the printed PDF for the Messengers doesn't have this rule, but the PDF for the online game has this --

For the towers of the last scored city in the game the winners just receive 2 points.

I really don't like this rule. Since there is a fixed number of cards (and turns) in the game, the last player is always the last player and has the special burden of holding onto a card they either know will give 2 points to their opponents, or lose points for themself. The other players don't have this worry. It's the opposite of a first player advantage, but without any way for the other players to do anything about it.

I wonder why this rule is online but not in the original printed PDF?

And what am I missing here -- why was this rule added?

Thread: Re: The Messengers - Improved rules 31.3.

steveoliverc — 2008-05-12T19:01:11+00:00

Although having played Messengers a few more times, I realize there is a rule online (not in the printed PDF) that the last city scores only 2 points regardless of who plays the last card. Not sure I like that one and will post a new thread on it to clarify.

Thread: Re: Prestige tokens and Portrait VPs

steveoliverc — 2008-05-09T06:28:09+00:00

The online version of the game keeps both tokens and cards face up, so you always know who has collected how many points. I like this much better and makes the game more tense. You need to carefully watch those portraits. Yes, I suppose you could try and remember who has collected which cards, but this is an enjoyably light game and it's just easier to keep the cards open.

Thread: Re: The Messengers - Improved rules 31.3.

steveoliverc — 2008-05-09T06:25:04+00:00

The Messengers is great!!! Tried it online first and tonight in person for the first time. Seems to fit perfectly into the game. Gives you a reason to think about when to play the star cards. Adds a level of strategy to the game without adding a lot of complexity in the rules.

Thread: Re: Less info, More strategy

steveoliverc — 2008-05-09T06:20:34+00:00

I definitely agree with the open scoring. That's how it's played online and I like it much, much better than the hidden scoring. Adds a lot of tension to the game, and gives you more to think about.

Thread: Re: more info, more strategy

steveoliverc — 2008-05-09T06:17:42+00:00

Agreed!

My first few games were by the rules (played cards piled face-down), but after seeing how it's played online (open scoring), I just played my first game like that. Definitely better! You've got to make sure the others don't score a set, or take a card just to keep someone else from getting it.

So it seems you played the game it was meant to be played, since that's how the game designer is playing it on his web site

Thread: Re: Patrician online game

steveoliverc — 2008-04-29T02:26:59+00:00

Very nice!

Thread: Re: Patrician online game

richtoosoon — 2008-04-28T23:58:11+00:00

Very nice, Michael! I'll be there for games of Patrician. Thanks for offering PBEM of another great M.Schacht design.

~richtoosoon

Thread: Re: Patrician online game

mschacht — 2008-04-28T18:12:36+00:00

i assume it worked finally :-)

Thread: Re: Patrician online game

richardtempura — 2008-04-28T17:34:02+00:00

Never mind...

Thread: Re: Patrician online game

richardtempura — 2008-04-28T17:33:11+00:00

Tried to create an account; never received the email confirmation....

Thread: Patrician online game

mschacht — 2008-04-28T14:56:08+00:00

Just launched an online game platform on my site (with a little help of MaBi) with the game "Patrician" - playable with the "messengers" variant.

http://www.michaelschacht.net/pbm

Thread: Re: [Review] Patrician

tmredden — 2008-04-25T10:41:33+00:00

ejohnson7 wrote:
tmredden wrote:
One question: I was corrected by one player when pronouncing the name of the game as "patrishin" because the Latin pronunciation of the day would be "patreekian". Does anybody know how the name of the game should be pronounced?

Since there are no ancient Romans left to ask, no one knows for certain how Latin was pronounced (though one can take clues from poetry apparently intended to rhyme and from studying the development ecclesiastical Latin).

However, I believe that most modern scholars would agree with your friend's Latin pronunciation. On the other hand, "patrician" is also an English word pronounced more or less as you have indicated, so perhaps you're both right. Pick which ever version makes you happy.

I'm going with the modern pronunciation until I hear the game designer pronounce it differently. After all, when in Rome ... (argh)

- Todd

Thread: Re: [Review] Patrician

ejohnson7 — 2008-04-25T03:00:29+00:00

tmredden wrote:
One question: I was corrected by one player when pronouncing the name of the game as "patrishin" because the Latin pronunciation of the day would be "patreekian". Does anybody know how the name of the game should be pronounced?

Since there are no ancient Romans left to ask, no one knows for certain how Latin was pronounced (though one can take clues from poetry apparently intended to rhyme and from studying the development ecclesiastical Latin).

However, I believe that most modern scholars would agree with your friend's Latin pronunciation. On the other hand, "patrician" is also an English word pronounced more or less as you have indicated, so perhaps you're both right. Pick which ever version makes you happy.

Thread: Re: The Messengers - Improved rules 31.3.

moonie — 2008-04-14T06:01:11+00:00

Thank you Michael!

Thread: Re: The Messengers - Improved rules 31.3.

mschacht — 2008-04-13T20:14:38+00:00

Attila,

aaargh, you’re right. i forgot to delete the two sentenses when i made the improved rule.
sorry about that and thanks for your hint.
i corrected the file and - hopefully - it should be correct now.

and to your question: it is not allowed to place the messenger at the city where you built in the same turn.

nice dice
Michael

ps. there will be a PbM version soon, where you can try the variant.

Thread: The Messengers - Improved rules 31.3.

moonie — 2008-04-07T06:39:52+00:00

Do I misunderstand something, or are the rules not consistent?

The rules say:
Game play
The messenger has to be placed in between two cities ...
- None of the two cities is allowed to be the city in which he just
has built.

Special situations and comments
- If a player places in his turn the last floor in a city and then places at this city a messenger ...
- You don’t have to place the messenger at the city of the played card.

Can I place a messenger at the city in which I just have built, or not?

Image

ArtEmiSa64 — 2008-03-20T03:58:35+00:00

english box cover

Thread: Re: My Thoughts on Patrician

pezpimp — 2008-03-19T12:49:48+00:00

It is better at two, however it would still not be high on my list of game to play and I generally play with at least 3 people.

Thread: Re: My Thoughts on Patrician

dcjackso — 2008-03-19T08:02:35+00:00

In the 2P game, you have a high degree of control over your card draws, and it is possible to "see" 3-4 plays in advance. Each turn you have 3 choices (of a possible 9) of cards to pick up; if you have a special card you have 9/9. I feel this is a great 2P game, with little or no luck involved. I would say that "going last" is NOT a key strategy; rather, using the fewest tower pieces to achieve double victories is the key.

Image

kilroy_locke — 2008-03-18T02:37:20+00:00

Nearing game end

Image

kilroy_locke — 2008-03-18T02:35:26+00:00

Black steals the majority!

Thread: Re: Resolving Ties - have I missed something?

richardtempura — 2008-03-17T14:00:37+00:00

Thanks Grzegorz!

I've just seen a critical error in my reading of the rules: the double crested cards.

Thanks!

Thread: Re: Resolving Ties - have I missed something?

Ponton — 2008-03-16T22:30:47+00:00

There is no way that a city will be completed before all of the cards of this color are played. There are exactly as many symbols of one color as the city of that color takes pieces. E. g. the red one takes 9 pieces, so there are cards with nine red symbols altogether (some are doubles, some are singles).

Notice,

* At the beginning of the game you give each player a card with an asterisk - the remaining cards with asteriks are shuffled with the other cards wothout asterisks to form the draw pile.

* If a card shows one symbol of a color, you play just one piece in that city, if there are two, you play two.

* Ignore the nobles during gameplay, they count at the end of the game. Just place the one tower piece in the city of the given color.

* If you play a ? card, you first place a piece in the city of the given color and then take a card from any city. You must NOT place the tower piece in any city.

* If you play a card which shows the shifting symbol, you first place your piece in the city of the given color and then you choose any one city, where you move the topmost tower piece of one of the towers onto the other tower in that same city. You must NOT move a piece from that city to another one.

If you play accordingly (please re-read the rules), then there is NO WAY that cities will be completed before all cards with that color are played and there will be NO unfinished ones at game end. I assume you misunderstood the cards which allow you to move pieces and you moved pieces all over the board. This is wrong.

Thread: Re: Resolving Ties - have I missed something?

richardtempura — 2008-03-16T19:41:21+00:00

Let's say the yellow city is locked because it was scored.

There are still some yellow cards on the board up for grab.

There are no more cards on the pile so you can't refresh cards on the board.

This means the yellow cards aren't worth anything, except for the nobles on the cards.

If I have a card with two crests on it, I can't play any of my pieces when I play the card, neither in the city of the color of that card or any other city.

I've played two games last night and on both occasions, there could've been a situation where both towers would've been the same height. Some towers in at least one city wasn't complete.

The thing is that the double crested cards will let you play in some cities other than the color the card is, so some of the other simple crested cards will be locked up when that city is finally scored.

Maybe it's just me, maybe there's a rule I don't get, but seems to me that there's always one city in which the towers aren't complete at the end of game....

Thread: Re: The Messengers -3 token

mschacht — 2008-03-13T08:10:24+00:00

thanks, i will update the rules text soon.

Thread: Re: The Messengers -3 token

Bobby4th — 2008-03-12T18:00:28+00:00

Maybe the following will work? The first sentence is kind of wordy and not as clear as I would like it to be, but I think it should be clear enough.

The player who has the fewest towers with any number of their floors in the cities with messengers gets the -3 point token.

In case of a tie, the player with the fewest floors in those towers gets the token.

Should there still be a tie, no one gets the token.

Thread: Re: The Messengers -3 token

Bobby4th — 2008-03-12T15:37:54+00:00

mschacht wrote:
Eric is right.
any suggestions for a better wording?

Hmm. Let me work on it this afternoon. It will give me something to think about during meetings.

Thread: Re: The Messengers -3 token

mschacht — 2008-03-12T10:27:20+00:00

Eric is right.
any suggestions for a better wording?

Thread: Re: The Messengers -3 token

richardtempura — 2008-03-11T02:57:58+00:00

" The player, who is represented in the few towers in cities with messengers, gets the -3-Punkte-Chip. With a resembling and the player, who is represented with the few floors there, gets it. With a renewed resembling and gets no the chip."

Babelfish does not help....

I think Eric is right though.

Thread: Re: The Messengers -3 token

hymie — 2008-03-10T19:52:27+00:00

The player who has the fewest towers with own floors in cities
with messenger gets the –3 points token.
In case of a tie the player gets it with the fewest floors there.
In case of another tie no one gets the token.

It sounds to me (and I freely admit I've read nothing but the above quote) that you are counting the number of towers in which you have at least one floor.

Thread: Re: The Messengers -3 token

richardtempura — 2008-03-10T19:11:03+00:00

Kinda hard to deciipher some of the lines....

Thread: The Messengers -3 token

Bobby4th — 2008-03-10T18:29:09+00:00

I've downloaded the English file for the free "The Messengers" expansion and I am confused by the scoring for the -3 token. The rules state:

The player who has the fewest towers with own floors in cities
with messenger gets the –3 points token.
In case of a tie the player gets it with the fewest floors there.
In case of another tie no one gets the token.

Does this mean count the number of floors each player has in the cities with Messengers pointing to them and the player with the fewest number of floors gets the -3 token?

I'm also not clear what to check in the case of a tie. Maybe someone who has read the German rules might be able to clear it up for me?

Thanks!

Thread: First Play - 3 Players

feydjm — 2008-03-04T01:45:20+00:00

I bought this on a whim since it was a Michael Schacht game and I've really enjoyed some of his other work. So we finally got it on the table yesterday.

The rules are obvious and straight forward. So we quickly got into the game. I was very surprised at how quickly the game played. I started by trying to collect cards with matching patrician values, thinking the point bonus would be worth it in the end. As a result I got a lot of single tower cards. My wife seemed to only ever have options of single tower cards so also tried to collect patricians, but her efforts meant her towers were too spread out and fairly ineffective. My buddy focused more on the double tower pieces as much as possible.

I was able to get some early towers in some low point cities early to take the lead. The other two seemed to be trying to build in the higher point cities. I continued to get matching patricians and taking small cities hoping to get enough points to win.

As the game progressed my wife was being shut out of most places, and my buddy was beginning to have a foothold in the bigger cities. Soon enough cards were running out and the last pieces were played. I was only able to grab the second best tower in a big city.

In the end, my buddy's strategy paid off and he was able to achieve the win. He beat me by only 6 thanx to me getting more bonus points than him, and my wife finished 3rd.

All in all we found it light and fun, but also found that, at least in a 3 player game, it's not too difficult to get shut out and be distanced from the other players.

Image

grandfather — 2008-02-19T11:57:15+00:00

Patrician in Akihabara - Japan.

Thread: Re: Prestige tokens and Portrait VPs

Fledermaushaus — 2008-02-05T18:23:12+00:00

The original German rules actually say that the prestige tokens should be kept face-down in front of you. The odds are that this is probably a mistranslation in the Mayfair rules rather than an intentional change.