Game: Clash of the Gladiators

Image

sauceybugger — 2008-11-12T02:34:36+00:00

Front of rulebook

Image

sauceybugger — 2008-11-12T02:33:38+00:00

Front of box (Better Image)

Image

sauceybugger — 2008-11-12T02:32:29+00:00

Back of box (better image)

Image

sauceybugger — 2008-11-12T02:31:29+00:00

Sample of the board

Image

Yugblad — 2008-06-25T09:45:39+00:00

Gladiator Vs Bear: Miniature variant increases immersion in theme.

Thread: Yugblad's Variant Using Miniatures and Cardplay

Yugblad — 2008-06-13T19:13:12+00:00

It has occurred to me, after being asked about my uploaded photographs of gladiator and beast models, that casual browsers of the Geek might not be able to find my Geeklist detailing my variation of Knizia's Clash of the Gladiators game.

]]>]]>]]>

So this thread is a signpost pointing the interested in the direction of my previous article.

http://www.boardgamegeek.com/geeklist/32004

I'm especially interested in new ideas for cards or rules, so please make an addition if you can.

I wanted to try and integrate Ludus Gladitorious' rules for the Emporer dice, and also find a way to allow two friendly gladiators to be able to fight on the same space - so if a germ of an idea like these grows in your mind, please add it here or there.

Image

Yugblad — 2008-06-09T23:02:57+00:00

An example of the 22 models you'll need to convert this game into a miniatures system.

Image

Yugblad — 2008-06-01T15:21:43+00:00

Blue Player struggles against a wily Lioness - the Leopards are no pushovers either!

Image

Yugblad — 2008-06-01T15:18:21+00:00

Replaced all the beast tokens with Lion, Tiger, Bear, Leopard, and Lioness miniatures.

Image

Yugblad — 2008-06-01T15:14:27+00:00

Miniature Variant: Red player fights off two ravenous tigers.

Image

Yugblad — 2008-05-23T20:44:26+00:00

Miniature Variant: Replaced lion tokens with Gladiator War lion models I painted.

Thread: Re: Solitaire?

bucklen_uk — 2008-02-14T18:52:27+00:00

You could also just use 1 team and play to beat the animals and keep a track of how different team mixes perform.

Thread: Re: Solitaire?

Gyges — 2008-02-14T14:41:28+00:00

Solitaire as in you pretend to be two different players and just play? Yes, I imagine Clash would work very well.

Thread: Solitaire?

Watti — 2008-02-14T14:03:18+00:00

this game sounds good but I am usually without playing partners these days. Is this easy/short enough/ to play solo?

Thread: Movement rules

Gyges — 2007-11-15T20:46:23+00:00

The rules say that you can move if your team a) has no available targets, AND/OR b) has three or fewer gladiators. The rules also say that you stop your movement when there's an available target.
Does that mean that a 3 gladiator team must stop its movement the instant it has a target? I would assume not. Does it therefore mean that any team that can move can move as many spaces as it wants before stopping, regardless of which target(s) it bypasses along the way?

Thread: Re: SQUAD FUSION VARIANT

theruler — 2007-08-01T18:44:46+00:00

The wounds are not a problem. If there is a star in one team, there will be a star in the resultant team too... and if there is a star in both teams... so a gladiator must perish (remove one of your choice).
I would even allow a team of 2 added to a team of 3 (in case of two wounds)... 5 gladiators don't fit a base... but one will die in any way.
I would not allow the same thing, if there aren't star (or only one), only to sacrify a gladiator (less points for the enemies)... better go into a Lion's mouth...

Ok that the rearrange thing would devalues initial strategies... but in the same way some dirty dies throw does.
We all know that a good choice af warriors could be useless against a damn lucky player... so the reason I thought about some sort of "cure".
Anyway I understand your feelings.

If you think we could pull out something good from this idea we could discuss it more.

I'll try all your suggestion, and I'll let you know.
cheers.

Thread: Re: SQUAD FUSION VARIANT

Gola — 2007-08-01T15:38:54+00:00

Now that I think about it some more, there's an even bigger problem with rearranging: what happens with wounds?

It's a bit of a problem with combining, too. You could say that wounds always move over when you're combining, but what if both teams have wounds? It doesn't quite make sense that a gladiator would just up and die because two smaller teams joined together. Conceivably the result could be a team with two wounds, and so two hits would kill two gladiators.

Thread: Re: SQUAD FUSION VARIANT

Liumas — 2007-08-01T15:32:29+00:00

I don't like the 'rearrange' thing.

It devalues the start-of-game selection process.

An option for either of these variants

[c] [/c]Combine
[c] [/c]Rearrange

...is to force the player to discard one of the involved gladiators as part of the transaction (their choice). Thus, combining a size 2 and a size 2 becomes a size 3.

By 'discard', I of course mean 'put to the sword'.

Thread: Re: SQUAD FUSION VARIANT

theruler — 2007-08-01T14:10:26+00:00

Yes, it should do the trick.
Voluntary stall... I did not think of it... You're both right.

From lesser to greater do not works, I think.
anyway the merging option is good. Gotta try it! THANKS GUYS!

I still like the idea of "rearrange" the gladiators between squads...
How we could obviate the problem? any ideas?

Thread: Re: SQUAD FUSION VARIANT

Liumas — 2007-08-01T13:58:57+00:00

On first reading this, I got to thinking that maybe it might work to be able to move from a lesser or equal team to another.

But I think Joe is right - only allow combining teams, any overflow gladiators are discarded. Either allow this in any direction, or only from a lesser-to-greater team (player choice if equal).

Thread: Re: SQUAD FUSION VARIANT

Gola — 2007-08-01T13:03:25+00:00

My concern would be that if a player wanted to stall and wait for the other players' teams to weaken, he could spend turn after turn moving gladiators back and forth. If more than one person did this, the game would slow down to a crawl.

What about if players can only combine teams?

Thread: SQUAD FUSION VARIANT

theruler — 2007-08-01T08:16:18+00:00

Hi all.
I would like to submit a personal variant to make the game more strategic, and a bit longer, and let unlucky players last more rounds.

The Game is like the original except a little change in the attack phase:
Instead of attacking a squad you could transfer, from one squad to another adiacent squad (it is possible to move one of the squad near the other and then make the transfert), any number of gladiators (no swaps, only one-way movement).

Doing so you can balance squads, let a full squad go out (removing a gladiator) from a stall situation, make one full (and tough) squad from two weaker squads, acquire the right gladiator for a specific situation from a friendly squad... etcetera.

What do you think?

Thread: 2 Player

Liumas — 2007-06-19T06:10:13+00:00

For a viable 2 player game:

SETUP: Reduce total available Swordsmen to 17, and 5 of each of the rest.

PLAY: The current Attacking team (group, holder) may remove one of their own gladiators from the game before they move/attack (in order to reduce a team of 4 to a team of 3, thus allowing that team to move).

Setup Comment: The reduced setup pool will now provide some angst on choosing team members, but still allow enough gladiators to go around. Some gladiator types will be completely snarfed up, depending on your style of play.

Play Comment: There's nothing worse than having a great team stuck somewhere unable to move because they are at full strength (likely pinned down by an animal). This is even 'more worse' in a 2 player game. So a 'guy' stays behind to deal with the threat; the main team is reduced in strength but can now go forth in a blaze of glory as befits a Gladiator.

We just wanna fight and enjoy this addictive game. I ain't no punk.

Thread: Re: Statistical Studies #1: How Useful are Spear Holders?

pwn3d — 2007-04-25T11:29:12+00:00

Nice! I love this game and have been wanting to run some simulations with a few different team configurations.

Thread: Re: Statistical Studies #4: What's the Deal with Net Casters

Octavian — 2007-03-09T19:31:33+00:00

BudsBalkan wrote:
Why are calcualting with Teams of 5 members?
I know this game just with 4er Teams.

You get 1 die automatically, +1 per swordsman - max possible of 5 dice with 4 swordsmen.

-MMM

Thread: Re: Statistical Studies #4: What's the Deal with Net Casters?

ccarlet1 — 2007-03-09T19:21:23+00:00

You get one dice for your team.

Thread: Re: Statistical Studies #4: What's the Deal with Net Casters?

BudsBalkan — 2007-03-09T19:04:10+00:00

Why are calcualting with Teams of 5 members?
I know this game just with 4er Teams.

Thread: Statistical Studies #4: What's the Deal with Net Casters?

Gola — 2007-03-09T16:27:38+00:00

Aaron and Balthazar are finishing drafting their teams. Aaron's turn is before Balthazar's, and he completes a four-swordsman team adjacent to Balthazar's unfinished team, which currently holds three swordsmen. At the completion of this homogeneous team, Aaron brazenly vows to attack Balthazar's adjacent team with his first move, no matter what.

Q: Statistically speaking, what are the offensive or defensive advantages for Balthazar if he includes a net caster in his team rather than a fourth swordsman?

Let's first look at the difference between the two choices from a defensive standpoint. If Balthazar defends with five swordsmen, Aaron attacks with five dice. There are 7,776 (six to the fifth power) possible combinations on five six-sided dice; below is a table showing all the possible outcomes (ignoring wounds), the number of combinations associated with those outcomes, and then the probability of rolling each particular outcome.

0-1 stars, 0 kills: 1053/7776 (13.5%)
2-3 stars, 1 kill: 3285/7776 (42.2%)
4-5 stars, 2 kills: 2642/7776 (34.0%)
6-7 stars, 3 kills: 730/7776 (9.4%)
8-10 stars, 4 kills: 66/7776 (0.8%)

If Balthazar instead includes a net caster, Aaron the attacker rolls four dice instead of five. There are 1,296 (six to the fourth power) possible outcomes on four six-sided dice; below is the table showing all the possible outcomes (ignoring wounds), the number of combinations associated with those outcomes, and then the probability of rolling each particular outcome.

0-1 stars, 0 kills: 297/1296 (22.9%)
2-3 stars, 1 kill: 636/1296 (49.1%)
4-5 stars, 2 kills: 318/1296 (24.5%)
6-7 stars, 3 kills: 44/1296 (3.4%)
8 stars, 4 kills: 1/1296 (0.08%)

It would seem that Balthazar's odds are improved from a defensive standpoint; the chances of a whiff increase and the chances of multiple kills being scored reduce from 44.2% to 28%. The offensive comparison is not as easy to make, however. Overall we can say that fewer losses to Balthazar's team means that he will be rolling more dice against Aaron on average, except for those cases when Aaron whiffs completely and Balthazar could have rolled five dice in retaliation had he included the fourth swordsman. What are the exact probabilities, though?

First we need to make one assumption, which is that if Balthazar takes any hits, he will assign one to the net caster so that he can retaliate with the maximum number of dice against Aaron. With that in mind, we can figure out Balthazar's offensive probabilities by taking the tables above and adding in some additional calculations. In the case of every different outcome—i.e., Aaron scores 0 kills, Aaron scores 1 kill, et cetera—we can calculate the probabilities associated with Balthazar's retaliation because we will know how many dice he is throwing; if Aaron scores two hits, Balthazar then will roll three dice in retaliation. We can do this for every outcome and construct the following table for the "fourth swordsman" scenario:

Aaron: 5 dice, 0 kills: 1053/7776 (13.5%)
xxxxxBalthazar 5 dice: 0 kills: 1053/7776 (13.5%)
xxxxxBalthazar 5 dice: 1 kill: 3285/7776 (42.2%)
xxxxxBalthazar 5 dice: 2 kills: 2642/7776 (34.0%)
xxxxxBalthazar 5 dice: 3 kills: 730/7776 (9.4%)
xxxxxBalthazar 5 dice: 4 kills: 66/7776 (0.8%)
Aaron: 5 dice, 1 kill: 3285/7776 (42.2%)
xxxxxBalthazar 4 dice: 0 kills: 297/1296 (22.9%)
xxxxxBalthazar 4 dice: 1 kill: 636/1296 (49.1%)
xxxxxBalthazar 4 dice: 2 kills: 318/1296 (24.5%)
xxxxxBalthazar 4 dice: 3 kills: 44/1296 (3.4%)
xxxxxBalthazar 4 dice: 4 kills: 1/1296 (0.08%)
Aaron: 5 dice, 2 kills: 2642/7776 (34.0%)
xxxxxBalthazar 3 dice: 0 kills: 81/216 (37.5%)
xxxxxBalthazar 3 dice: 1 kill: 107/216 (49.5%)
xxxxxBalthazar 3 dice: 2 kills: 27/216 (12.5%)
xxxxxBalthazar 3 dice: 3 kills: 1/216 (0.5%)
Aaron: 5 dice, 3 kills: 730/7776 (9.4%)
xxxxxBalthazar 2 dice: 0 kills: 21/36 (58.3%)
xxxxxBalthazar 2 dice: 1 kill: 14/36 (38.9%)
xxxxxBalthazar 2 dice: 2 kills: 1/36 (2.8%)
Aaron: 5 dice, 4 kills: 66/7776 (0.8%)
xxxxxBalthazar 0 die: 0 kills: 1/1 (100%)

Now, if a person wanted to know the chances of any one particular outcome—for example "Aaron rolls five dice, kills two of Balthazar's swordsmen, Balthazar rolls three dice and kills two of Aaron's swordsmen"—one would simply multiply the chances of Aaron's outcome by the chances of Balthazar's outcome as found on the subtable beneath Aaron's outcome. In this case it would be 34% times 12.5%, or 4.25%. We know that this approach works because if one adds up the percentages of all the individual outcomes the result is 100% or 1.

The last step is to add up all the matching results for Balthazar—that is, adding up the probabilities of him scoring each number of kills without regard to how many kills Aaron scored or how many dice were thrown. What we arrive at in this case is:

0 hits: 30.6%
1 hit: 46.9%
2 hits: 19.5%
3 hits: 2.9%
4 hits: 0.1%

One can perform the same calculations for the net-caster case, the two differences being that Aaron attacks with only four dice, Balthazar retaliates with a maximum of four dice, and Aaron's first kill is ignored because it is assigned to the net caster.

Aaron: 4 dice, 0 kills: 297/1296 (22.9%)
xxxxxBalthazar 4 dice, 0 kills: 297/1296 (22.9%)
xxxxxBalthazar 4 dice, 1 kill: 636/1296 (49.1%)
xxxxxBalthazar 4 dice, 2 kills: 318/1296 (24.5%)
xxxxxBalthazar 4 dice, 3 kills: 44/1296 (3.4%)
xxxxxBalthazar 4 dice, 4 kills: 1/1296 (0.08%)
Aaron: 4 dice, 1 kill: 636/1296 (49.1%)
xxxxxBalthazar 4 dice, 0 kills: 297/1296 (22.9%)
xxxxxBalthazar 4 dice, 1 kill: 636/1296 (49.1%)
xxxxxBalthazar 4 dice, 2 kills: 318/1296 (24.5%)
xxxxxBalthazar 4 dice, 3 kills: 44/1296 (3.4%)
xxxxxBalthazar 4 dice, 4 kills: 1/1296 (0.08%)
Aaron: 4 dice, 2 kills: 318/1296 (24.5%)
xxxxxBalthazar 3 dice, 0 kills: 81/216 (37.5%)
xxxxxBalthazar 3 dice, 1 kill: 107/216 (49.5%)
xxxxxBalthazar 3 dice, 2 kills: 27/216 (12.5%)
xxxxxBalthazar 3 dice, 3 kills: 1/216 (0.5%)
Aaron: 4 dice, 3 kills: 44/1296 (3.4%)
xxxxxBalthazar 2 dice, 0 kills: 21/36 (58.3%)
xxxxxBalthazar 2 dice, 1 kill: 14/36 (38.9%)
xxxxxBalthazar 2 dice, 2 kills: 1/36 (2.8%)
Aaron: 4 dice, 4 kills: 1/1296 (0.08%)
xxxxxBalthazar 0 dice, 0 kills: 1/1 (100%)

The totals are as follows:

0 hits: 27.8%
1 hit: 48.8%
2 hits: 20.8%
3 hits: 2.6%
4 hits: 0.06%

Comparing the two results, we can see that there is actually a very slight improvement except for an almost-negligible 0.3% reduction in the chances of scoring 3 or 4 hits.

Overall we can say that in this case there is a defensive advantage to including the net caster plus a very slight offensive one as well; if one suspected that one were going to be attacked first, the net caster is clearly the better choice. The net caster can also be useful when attacking, in that he can disable the pesky shield carriers. For that reason, a net caster may be the best option when one has a team that is surrounded by both aggressive and defensive neighbors. The one disadvantage, however, is that the net casters have no effects on animals.

Thread: Re: Statistical Studies #2: How Worthwhile are Prong Bearers?

cornjob — 2007-02-07T22:57:39+00:00

Hey, where is the statistical study of the net-casters? Huh!?

Thread: Re: Statistical Studies #1: How Useful are Spear Holders?

Gola — 2007-01-11T20:57:46+00:00

Linnaeus wrote:
Slow day at work, Joe?
My employers insisted that I compile these important numbers for the good of all geekdom.

Thread: Re: Statistical Studies #2: How Worthwhile are Prong Bearers?

chaddyboy_2000 — 2007-01-11T20:41:23+00:00

I would really like to use a whole chariot full of Ditkas. It would statistically be pretty much invincible.

Thread: Re: Statistical Studies #3: How Valuable are Shield Carriers

cornjob — 2007-01-11T20:18:00+00:00

My son has made teams with just 4 net-casters before (he was 4 at the time) and done pretty well with them. Seems kind of silly to me, but they do about even head to head against my scientifically-created optimum forces. It always makes me smile.

Thread: Re: Statistical Studies #2: How Worthwhile are Prong Bearers

Gola — 2007-01-11T20:08:20+00:00

cornjob wrote:
Yeah, but what if the Prong-Bearer is a certain six inch tall Coach Ditka?
That sounds like the intro to a really filthy joke.

Thread: Statistical Studies #3: How Valuable are Shield Carriers?

Gola — 2007-01-11T20:06:05+00:00

Aaron and Balthazar are finishing creating their teams. Aaron's turn is before Balthazar's, and he completes a four-swordsman team adjacent to Balthazar's unfinished team, which currently holds three swordsmen. At the completion of this homogeneous team, Aaron brashly vows to attack Balthazar's adjacent team with his first move, no matter what.

Q: Will Balthazar improve his chances of scoring a kill against Aaron if he includes a shield carrier with his team?

First we'll look at what happens if Balthazar defends with five swordsmen. Aaron attacks first with five dice, and there are 7,776 possible combinations on five six-sided dice. Below is a table showing the possible outcomes (ignoring wounds), the number of combinations associated with those outcomes, and then the probability of rolling each particular outcome.

0-1 stars, 0 kills: 1053/7776 (13.5%)
2-3 stars, 1 kill: 3285/7776 (42.2%)
4-5 stars, 2 kills: 2642/7776 (34.0%)
6-7 stars, 3 kills: 730/7776 (9.4%)
8-10 stars, 4 kills: 66/7776 (0.8%)

To what degree does a shield carrier reduce these losses? To answer the question we have to find out the number of instances in which the shield carrier will prevent a second, third or fourth kill, since a shield carrier that absorbs a single kill is, from an offensive standpoint, functionally the same as a dead swordsman.

Here is the breakdown of possible outcomes of Aaron's five dice:

0 stars: 243/7776 (3.1%)
1 star: 810/7776 (10.4%)
2 stars: total 1485/7776 (19.1%)
....2 singles, 3 blanks: 1080/7776
....2 doubles: 405/7776
3 stars: total 1800/7776 (23.1%)
....3 singles, 2 blanks: 720/7776
....1 double, 1 single, 3 blanks: 1080/7776
4 stars: total 1590/7776 (20.4%)
....* 4 singles, 1 blank: 240/7776
....* 1 double, 2 singles, 1 blank: 1080/7776
....2 doubles, 3 blank: 270/7776
5 stars: total 1052/7776 (13.5% )
....5 singles: 32/7776
....1 double, 3 singles, 1 blank: 480/7776
....2 doubles, 1 single, 1 blank: 540/7776
6 stars: total 530/7776 (6.8%)
....* 1 double, 4 singles: 80/7776
....* 2 doubles, 2 singles, 1 blank: 360/7776
....3 doubles, 2 blanks: 90/7776
7 stars: total 200/7776 (2.6%)
....2 doubles, 3 singles: 80/7776
....3 doubles, 1 single, 1 blank: 120/7776
8 stars: total 55/7776 (0.7%)
....* 3 doubles, 2 singles: 40/7776
....4 doubles, 1 blank: 15/7776
9 stars: 10/7776 (0.1%)
....4 doubles, 1 single
10 stars: 1/7776 (0.01%)
....5 doubles: 1/7776

Adding up the totals of all the outcomes with asterisks—the outcomes for which the shield will prevent the death of the second, third or fourth unit—we arrive at 1,800 of 7,776 instances, or 23.1% of rolls. Overall the probabilities are as follows:

0 kills: 2133/7776 (27.4%)
1 kill: 3525/7776 (45.3%)
2 kills: 1762/7776 (22.7%)
3 kills: 330/7776 (4.2%)
4 kills: 26/7776 (0.3%)

Compare that to the first table and you will see that there is a significant improvement defensively.

The next question is whether the saved lives will translate into an offensive advantage despite the disadvantage of only having four dice to roll in the cases when the attacker whiffs entirely.

In both the four-swordsman scenario and the three-swordsmen-one-shield scenario, we can map out all the possible outcomes of both rolls (always assuming that the first kill would be assigned to the shield carrier) and then calculate the probability of each particular outcome by multiplying the probability of Aaron killing X number of Balthazar's units by the probability of Balthazar's return fire with the number of dice left to him after removing losses. For example, the chances of Aaron scoring two kills on five dice when facing a four-swordsman team are 2,642 in 7,776, or 34%; the chances of Balthazar scoring one kill on the three dice left to him are 107 in 216, or 49.5%; multiply those two together and you arrive at 16.8%. If one then adds all of Balthazar's matching results together, regardless of how many dice he rolled to arrive at those results, one can know the probabilities of his counterattack even before Aaron picks up his dice.

First, the table for the shield-carrier scenario:

0 kills: 28.0%
1 kill: 48.6%
2 kills: 20.8%
3 kills: 2.6%
4 kills: 0.06%
I had miscalculated this table originally; this is the corrected version. The odds are significantly improved!

Compare that to the table of probabilities had Balthazar instead included a fourth swordsman:

0 kills: 30.6%
1 kill: 46.9%
2 kills: 19.5%
3 kills: 2.9%
4 kills: 0.1%

One can see from the foregoing that in this case there is no offensive disadvantage to the inclusion of the shield bearer. If anything, one could argue that there is an overall improvement of the odds.

Additionally, it should be mentioned that we are taking a rather narrow view of the shield carriers insomuch as we are only considering them from a short-term offensive standpoint. They will also be preventing a wound in 3,872 of 7,776 or 49.8% of cases when attacked by five swordsmen. A wound does not affect the immediate turn, of course, but, as the smell of blood draws in the sharks, a limping team offers an attractive target for all the other players. It's also worth considering whether simple longevity has any long-term offensive advantage for a team; conceivably in the latter half of the game a defense-oriented team may find itself to be the strongest offensive force when compared to a field which has spent the entire game hacking itself into bits.

Next: What's the Deal with the Net Casters?

Thread: Re: Statistical Studies #2: How Worthwhile are Prong Bearers

cornjob — 2007-01-10T20:18:24+00:00

Yeah, but what if the Prong-Bearer is a certain six inch tall Coach Ditka?

Thread: Statistical Studies #2: How Worthwhile are Prong Bearers?

Gola — 2007-01-10T20:15:09+00:00

Situation #1: Aaron wonders whether it is more effective to attack with a team made up of four swordsmen or with a team of three swordsmen plus a prong bearer, assuming that the target does not have any prong bearers of its own.

For a baseline, let's look at the breakdown of the possible outcomes if Aaron attacks with four swordsmen. In rolling five dice with six sides, the number of possible outcomes are 6 to the 5th power, or 7,776.

0-1 stars, 0 kills: 1053/7776 (13.5%)
2-3 stars, 1 kill: 3285/7776 (42.2%)
4-5 stars, 2 kills: 2642/7776 (34.0%)
6-7 stars, 3 kills: 730/7776 (9.4%)
8-10 stars, 4 kills: 66/7776 (0.8%)

In other words:

There is a 13.5% chance of whiffing.
There is a 42.2% chance of inflicting one kill.
There is a 44.2% chance of inflicting more than one kill.

What happens when Aaron includes a prong bearer depends on the policy he adopts with respect to rerolling dice. Let's assume that Aaron is risk-averse and merely wishes to avoid the possibility of scoring no kills; therefore he will only reroll the dice if he does not roll at least two stars.

Below is the breakdown of the possible outcomes if Aaron attacks with three swordsmen (i.e., four dice) plus a prong bearer. In rolling four dice with six sides, the number of possible outcomes are 6 to the 4th power, or 1,296.

0-1 stars, 0 kills: 297/1296 (22.9%)
2-3 stars, 1 kill: 636/1296 (49.1%)
4-5 stars, 2 kills: 318/1296 (24.5%)
6-7 stars, 3 kills: 44/1296 (3.4%)
8 stars, 4 kills: 1/1296 (0.08%)

In other words:

There is a 23% chance of whiffing.
There is a 49% chance of inflicting one kill.
There is a 28% chance of inflicting more than one kill.

However, Aaron is committed to rerolling the dice whenever he fails to roll a kill, and on 77% of those rerolls he will score a hit. In other words, he reduces his chances of a whiff to only 23% of 23%, or 5.3%—a clear improvement on the 13.5% chance of whiffing on five dice. However, the chances of scoring more than one hit with this approach are also reduced, being only 28% plus 28% of 23%, or 34.4% (down from 44.2%). The full table is as follows:

0-1 stars, 0 kills: 5.3%
2-3 stars, 1 kill: 60.3%
4-5 stars, 2 kills: 30.2%
6-7 stars, 3 kills: 4.2%
8 stars, 4 kills: 0.1%

Whether or not this trade-off represents an improvement on the four-swordsman team is perhaps a matter of taste and risk profile. Those who want the highest possible chance of drawing blood should opt for the prong bearer, while those who hunger for the thrill of wiping out an entire team with one roll will want that fourth swordsman.

If we assume that Aaron is a risk-taker who will not be satisfied with only one hit and will reroll three stars and fewer, the chances of scoring more than one hit are 28% plus 28% of 72%, or 48.1%. This is only a small improvement on the 44.2% chance of multiple kills on five dice, while the chances of a whiff also increase slightly to 16.6% (23% of 72%).

Situation #2: Aaron is risk-averse and chooses to include the prong bearer in his team. However, this team has been attacked first and he has suffered one kill. Aaron would like to return the favor and score at least one kill off the attacker. Does it make more sense to remove a swordsman or the prong bearer?

If Aaron keeps three swordsman, the chances of his scoring at least one hit are the same as listed above in the second table: 77%. If he instead keeps his prong bearer and two swordsmen, there are six to the third power or 216 possible outcomes when Aaron returns fire with three dice. Here is the breakdown of possible rolls:

0-1 stars, 0 kills: 81/216 (37.5%)
2-3 stars, 1 kill: 107/216 (49.5%)
4-5 stars, 2 kills: 27/216 (12.5%)
6 stars, 3 kills: 1/216 (0.5%)

In other words:

There is a 37.5% chance of whiffing.
There is a 49.5% chance of scoring one kill.
There is a 13% chance of scoring more than one kill.

Since Aaron has again decided to reroll all results of one or zero stars, his chances of whiffing reduce to 37.5% of 37.5%, or 14.1%. This is a nice improvement over the 23% chance of whiffing with four dice. Of course, the trade-off is that the chances of scoring more than one kill are only 13% plus 13% of 37%, or 17.8% (down from 28%).

One can go yet another step and compare two swordsmen vs. one swordsman and a prong bearer—that is, three dice versus two dice with a reroll. There are thirty-six combinations on two dice, boiling down to:

0-1 stars, 0 kills: 21/36 (58.3%)
2-3 stars, 1 kill: 14/36 (38.9%)
4 stars, 2 kills: 1/36 (2.8%)

If Aaron rerolls anything less than a kill, his chances of whiffing reduce to 58.3% of 58.3%, or 34.0%. This is almost a negligible improvement on the 37.5% chance of whiffing on three dice. Meanwhile, his chances of scoring more than one hit reduce to 2.8% plus 58.3% of 2.8%, or 4.4% (down from 13%). This would seem to suggest that if a swordsman–swordsman–prong bearer team suffers a hit, the prong bearer should probably be jettisoned.

One last thing that bears mentioning is that a prong bearer's usefulness may be considered to increase when attacking a team with a shield carrier, since in that case the chances of a whiff are much greater—27.4% with five dice, to be precise. Including a prong bearer instead of a fourth swordsman chops this possibility down to a more palatable 15.7%.

Next: How Worthwhile are Shield Carriers? http://www.boardgamegeek.com/article/1270548

Thread: Re: Statistical Studies #1: How Useful are Spear Holders?

Linnaeus — 2007-01-10T18:10:54+00:00

Slow day at work, Joe?

Thread: Statistical Studies #1: How Useful are Spear Holders?

Gola — 2007-01-10T02:21:41+00:00

The situation: Aaron and Balthazar are finishing creating their teams. Aaron's turn is before Balthazar's, and he completes a four-swordsman team adjacent to Balthazar's unfinished team, which currently holds three swordsmen. At the completion of this homogeneous team, Aaron brashly vows to attack Balthazar's adjacent team with his first move, no matter what.

Q: To What degree will Balthazar improve his chances in the fight by including a spear holder instead of a fourth swordsman? In other words, how much better is it to attack first with four dice than to defend with five dice?

Let's first take a look to see what the probabilities are should Balthazar choose to include the spear holder and so roll first with four dice. On four dice with six sides, the number of combinations are 6 to the 4th power, or 1,296. Below is a table showing the possible outcomes (ignoring wounds), the number of combinations associated with those outcomes, and then the probability of rolling each particular outcome.

0-1 stars, 0 kills: 297/1296 (22.9%)
2-3 stars, 1 kill: 636/1296 (49.1%)
4-5 stars, 2 kills: 318/1296 (24.5%)
6-7 stars, 3 kills: 44/1296 (3.4%)
8 stars, 4 kills: 1/1296 (0.08%)

In other words:

There is a 23% chance of whiffing, allowing Aaron one more die of return fire than Balthazar rolled.
There is a 49% chance of inflicting one kill, reducing Aaron to four dice, the same number that Balthazar rolled.
There is a 28% chance of inflicting more than one kill, reducing the amount of return fire and reducing the chances of a loss.

What are the probabilities if Balthazar opts for the fourth swordsman instead?

In this scenario Aaron attacks first, and below is the breakdown of the 6^5 or 7,776 possible combinations of Aaron's five dice:

0-1 stars, 0 kills: 1053/7776 (13.5%)
2-3 stars, 1 kill: 3285/7776 (42.2%)
4-5 stars, 2 kills: 2642/7776 (34.0%)
6-7 stars, 3 kills: 730/7776 (9.4%)
8-10 stars, 4 kills: 66/7776 (0.8%)

In other words:

There is a 13.5% chance of Aaron whiffing.
There is a 42.2% chance of Aaron inflicting one kill; this leaves Balthazar with the same chances of inflicting a kill as he would have had if he had included the spear holder and had attacked first.
There is a 44.2% chance of Aaron inflicting more than one kill, causing Balthazar to roll fewer dice than he would have if he had chosen to include the spear holder.

If Balthazar chooses to include a fourth swordsman instead of a spear holder, there is only a 13.5% chance that he will be able to roll all five of his dice, and a 44% chance that he will be rolling fewer than the four dice that he would have been guaranteed if he had included the spear holder. Meanwhile, if he had gone the opposite route and chosen the spear holder, Balthazar would have had a 28% chance of knocking out more than one of Aaron's swordsmen and thus ending up rolling more dice than his attacker.

Can we calculate the overall probable number of kills resulting from an ill-advised decision to include the fourth swordsman, even before Aaron has rolled his dice? Yes, we can. There are 13,042,506 possible combinations of rolls which can be mapped into eighteen possible outcomes, again ignoring wounds (for example: Aaron rolls five dice, inflicting two kills, Balthazar rolls three dice, inflicting one kill). The probabilities of each of these outcomes can be arrived at by multiplying the probability of Aaron killing X number of Balthazar's units by the probability of Balthazar's return fire with 5-X* dice; the chances of the parenthetical example stated above occurring are 16.83%, while other outcomes are far less likely (for example, the chances of Aaron scoring three kills and then Balthazar turning around and scoring two on two dice are only about 1 in 380). If one then tallies all the matching outcomes for Balthazar—i.e., how many times he scores X hits regardless of how many hits were scored against him—the results are as follows:

0 kills: 30.6%
1 kill: 46.9%
2 kills: 19.5%
3 kills: 2.9%
4 kills: 0.1%

Comparing those probabilities with the ones listed in the first table, one can see that there is a marked offensive advantage with the inclusion of a spear holder rather than a fourth swordsman. If nothing else, note the 30.6% chance of a whiff with the fourth swordsman versus the 22.9% chance of a whiff with the spear holder.

Next: How Useful are Prong Bearers? http://www.boardgamegeek.com/thread/144952

* With the exception that if X = 4 there is no return fire.

Thread: Kick 'em When Their Down

ccarlet1 — 2006-11-19T00:12:59+00:00

Despite the low rating for this game, my wife and I looked forward to getting and playing this game. After a couple of plays we found that there was quite a bit to this game, and that it was much more than just a dicefest.

The drafting of gladiators for your teams is quite creative with only two players as you can both pretty much choose what you want, and we have tried some pretty cool combinations. Here are the teams we chose for this session.

Sw = swordsman
Pr = prongmen
Sp = spear holders
Sh = shield carriers
Nc = Net Casters

Chris' Teams

Team 1: Sp, Pr, Sw, Sp
Team 2: Sw, Sw, Sw, Sh
Team 3: Nc, Sw, Sw, Pr
Team 4: Sw, Sp, Nc, Sw

Penny's Team

Team 1: Sw, Sw, Sw, Sh
Team 2: Nc, Sp, Sw, Nc
Team 3: Nc, Pr, Sp, Sw
Team 4: Sw, Sh, Nc, Nc

In drafting teams, variety is important. You need a heavy hitter team with a lot of swordsman, a mobile attack team with spear holders and netcasters to double up on your opponent, and teams that work well fighting animals (netcasters play no role against animals).

In our initial set up, we only had contact between two teams, and I was able to place some weaker animals close to my teams.

First the two teams in contact with each other went at it, and my team got wiped out, after only taking out two of my wife's team members.

After that we focussed on animals. Animals are an important part of the strategy in a two player game. It can allow a team to move, or not, and thus force your opponent to come to you. Penny bagged two lions, while got a bear and a bull.

That freed up my heavy hitter team, and they went after one of Penny's lighter teams. I wasn't too successful here, so I decided to work on some more animals, and freed up another team.

Penny was fighting a very tough bear, who just wouldn't die, and took two full hits, reducing her team to two gladiators. This was my big chance! I moved in on the injured team and wiped it out. Then I was able to put two teams on one of Penny's still in the corner. Penny only had two teams left, but having the advantage of an extra team and more movement, I was soon able to ereduce her to one team.

Her last team had some tough animals around it and I had not helped her by fighting any of them. She still had a bear with two shields beside her when I moved in two teams against her. Her last team had two netcasters and it did not go down easily. The netcasters are very powerful against other gladitorial teams, although not so good agaisnt animals.

Finally, her last team was defeated, and I won by a large margin as I still had the remains of three teams to put in my holding pen

The key to victory, however, was being able to move in on her team that lost two gladiators to the bear. Having a team free was crucial, and that is something to set up for at the beginning of the game, by ensuring that you have teams with only one or two enemies adjacent to them.

No doubt there is a lot of dice rolling, but being able to capitalize on your good rolls, and your opponent's bad roles is all tactics and strategy.

Thread: Re: Reasons why I like CotG and why you might too!

Albireo — 2006-10-12T17:26:30+00:00

Hi,

Great, energetic review! Thanks! I too have looked at this game and agonised over its low rating, but I think I`ll get it. I`ll ask Father Christmas...

Thread: Reasons why I like CotG and why you might too!

elijah234 — 2006-10-12T10:36:13+00:00

This game didn’t come into my radar until last year and even then, I was a bit worried about getting it given the low ratings on BGG. But the theme was just too good to pass up I liked the movie Gladiator. The idea of gladiators hacking one another in the arena also appealed to my bloodthirsty nature and of course, brought back memories of my RPGing days hacking and slashing at all and sundry. I recently got the game in a trade and I must have played it 10 times already. Here’s why I like it and why you might like it too!

Reason #1 – lots of dice rolling for a short amount of time
Well ok, maybe that’s precisely why you DON’T like it but that’s the fun of the game! Sending your team out to hammer some poor animal or fellow human being, rolling the dice and seeing your enemies fall on to the sand, their life blood spilling out. Let the arena ring with cries of “Die, you barbarian scum!” and you flick your wrist and send your dice/sword on to the table/into his belly. Or not (those dice can be fickle…) The great thing about CotG is that every dice roll appears to matter. The tension is incredible. I think this is because you have to attack every turn, there are enemies all around you and every battle seems critical. The game design is tight enough that you feel that everything hinges upon that dice roll you’re making NOW. And yet, looking at it more objectively, I don’t think this is the case. The dice roll really does average out the more you roll, so in one battle, you could be like that guy in Gladiator who pisses his pants but in another battle, you’re Maximus himself! And since it’s all about “kills” – if you’re attacked more, that just means you have a greater opportunity of scoring. The bottom line is, you may feel like you’re getting shafted by the dice but things are never as bleak as they look and in any case, you don’t really care - you always think you’ll do better the next time you roll that dice.

A dice game is only fun if you keep it short and fortunately for CotG, the game finishes in less than an hour, shorter, if people don’t take too long picking their teams – which brings me to the next reason why I like this game.

Reason #2 – tactical options
I really like the way Knizia designed the five different types of gladiators, their special abilities and how those abilities contribute to the team. You have the spearman, who determines initiative, the net caster, who’s like a guided missile - he chooses someone to get immobilised, the swordsman, who’s the firepower of the team - you roll one dice for each in your team plus one more die, the trident fella, who determines if a side gets to reroll their dice, and the shield bearer, who blocks a normal hit. (The dice feature either a blank face for a miss, a yellow star for a normal hit - two normal hits are required to eliminate a gladiator - or two red stars for a “critical hit” – no shield bearer can block this.)

From these five types of gladiators, you can create a variety of gladiator teams of differing capabilities. (Each team has four chaps.) But how well these teams do also depends on which team they fight. If there’s no spearmen in your team, don’t fight a team with one! More swordsmen are always good, but are vulnerable to net casters. And when teams take casualties and lose firepower, those shield bearers can be hard to kill. So while this is a light, beer and pretzels game, there are many tactical dilemmas that you’ll come across in the game. The usual one is who to eliminate as a casualty - the last remaining swordsman but keep the trident fella so you can reroll one die, or, keep the swordsman so you get two dice? And for the net caster, who to immobilise – the swordsman, so the other side has less chance of inflicting damage, or the shield-bearer, to go for maximum damage?

At the start of the game, some thinking is required in picking your teams. During your turn, you’ll pick one gladiator to place in the arena, wither with an existing team or forming a new team. This continues until every player has placed his teams (the number teams in the game vary based on the number of players playing). It makes for a very interesting challenge, looking at the sort of teams your opponents are forming and figuring out what’s the best counter to them. There is a possibility of analysis paralysis at this stage so some nudging might be in order to speed things up. Don’t be shy about this!

Reason #3 – Knizia is not “pasted-on theme”As mentioned earlier, this is a game of bloodthirsty combat. This is a game where you get off your seat, swing your sword over your head (if you have one, you can always pretend if you don’t have one), shouting, “At my signal, unleash Hell!” Well, that’s not how Maximus said it in the movie but it’s a good quote, nevertheless. Playing the game always evokes the Gladiator movie and my RPGing days, rolling the dice and slaying baatezu. In this game, you are the Gladiator! You think clinically about what’s the best way to take down your opponent but when battle is joined, the blood rises to your head and you go berserk!

When players start to think too long about who to attack, I’ll point at the spectator stand and say, “You must attack! Roman senators pay good money to see blood!” This is not some Eurogame where players think deep thoughts about whether they should pick the Captain or the Prospector, or whether they should bid 1,300 for the Jester. This is blood and guts!

Reason #4 – Beastmaster!
There are fierce animals in this game, which your gladiators can kill. Even better, you can become an animal! The game ends when there’s only one player’s gladiators left in the arena. But if all your gladiators are eliminated before that point is reached, don’t worry. The game doesn’t end for you. Now, you get to control an animal to attack your rivals. These are not cute and cuddly animals, these are fierce bears, bulls and lions! You can ask for no more from this game. Nuff said.

Conclusion

If these reasons are good enough for you, I highly recommend CotG. Although people might sniff at the idea of a dice game, a key point is that this is not dice-rolling for the sake of dice rolling. The connection to the theme is strong and that is what gives the game its fun and excitement. As this game plays easily and quickly and is just so much fun, this is a game that to me, has very high replayability.

Thread: Clash of the Gladiators: Review

gschloesser — 2006-02-23T00:03:26+00:00

Review by: Greg J. Schloesser
Designer: Reiner Knizia
Released by: Rio Grande Games & Hans im Glück
Number of Players: 2 – 5
Time: 30 – 45 minutes

EDITOR'S NOTE: This review first appeared in Moves Magazine.

It seems many folks remain fascinated by the civilization of Rome. Even though that empire ceased to exist over 1500 years ago, the modern world is still flooded with books, movies and articles on this fascinating empire and the impact it has had on western society. Even our beloved hobby of board games has borrowed heavily from this time period, with dozens of games utilizing themes somehow connected to the glory of Rome.

Back in the 1970’s, Battleline released a package containing two games set in Rome – Gladiator and Circus Maximus. Avalon Hill subsequently purchased many games from the Battleline family, including these two, which they released as separate titles. I remember thoroughly enjoying these two games, but, alas, they have begun to show their age a bit.

Back in 2001, a group of my gaming friends had the opportunity to playtest a new game at Alan Moon’s Gathering of Friends from prolific German game designer Reiner Knizia. The game was tentatively titled Clash of the Gladiators and involved mortal combat between gladiators in the amphitheaters of ancient Rome. Even an assortment of nasty, carnivorous beasts were involved in the struggles. Sounds fierce and intense, doesn’t it? Well, apparently that was not the case as the group had a rollicking good time, claiming afterwards that the game was very light and filled with dice rolling, but also loads of fun to play. Sadly, I didn’t get the opportunity to try it, but my interest was certainly piqued.

At the 2002 edition of the Gathering of Friends, Clash of the Gladiators had just been released and a few copies were available for play. I managed to play it a few and actually was a bit disappointed. My friends were certainly spot-on regarding their description – very light with lots of dice rolling. There really isn’t much in the realm of strategic planning or tactics. This one falls squarely in the “roll the dice and bash your opponents” category, what is often described as a "beer & pretzels" game. In the right mood with the right crowd, this is a fine fit for this genre. If you’re looking for a detailed simulation of gritty, hand-to-hand gladiatorial combat, however, you won’t find it here. That is really not very surprising considering German games tend to minimize violence and combat. Further, the game’s designer has a reputation for being VERY opposed to violence and combat in his other games is nearly always depicted in a very abstract manner. Even in this game, the rules never claim that gladiators are killed. Rather, players capture them and place them in their "holding pens". OK ...

So what about the components? Unlike most German games, there’s a lot of cardboard in this game and not a single wooden cube in sight. Fortunately, the cardboard is thick and appears very durable. The board graphics are functional, but rather uninspiring. I’d love to see what a company like Eagle Games could have done for a game such as this one. I picture some really neat gladiator and animal miniatures and a gorgeous map of the coliseum in Rome. Oh, well, this one does serve the purpose. Rounding out the components are the dice, wooden ‘hit’ counters and 20 light-weight plastic bases, each containing space for four gladiators.

Players begin the game by forming three teams of gladiators, each consisting of four individuals. The recruitment pool consists of the following types of gladiators:

Spear Holders - The team with the most spear holders has the initiative and rolls the battle dice first. If tied, the attacker rolls first.

Net Casters - The Retarius. For each net caster in a team, the player can neutralize an opponent's gladiator. That gladiator isn't dead (err ... removed), but he cannot participate in the current combat. He can, however, be removed as a casualty.

Swordsmen - For each swordsman in a team, the player rolls one more battle die in combat.

Prong Bearers - The team that has the most prong bearers may re-roll the battle dice once. However, the player MUST accept the results of the second roll.

Shield Carriers - Each shield carrier in a team blocks one simple hit.

Choosing which gladiators to add to your teams is the main element of strategy in the game. A wide variety of combinations are available. Do you want to field an offensive juggernaut filled with four swordsmen, or do you prefer a strategy of disabling your opponent’s gladiators with a few net casters? If you would like to block a hit or two, then you must add some shield carriers. Want to improve your chances of getting a good roll? If so, then you might want to consider a prong bearer or two. Rolling first in a conflict can be very advantageous, so don’t overlook those spear holders.

What team is best? Really, that’s hard to say. Swordsmen are certainly very important since they are the only gladiators that can actually inflict hits on your opponents. I also tend to add a net caster and a shield carrier to a team, but I’ve seen some players load up on swordsmen for offensive firepower. These teams can be countered, though, by the use of teams that contain a net casters and a spear holders, so they are not invincible. I don’t think there is one omnipotent team formation, which does help keep things interesting.

Once all players have formed their teams and positioned them into the arena, the battle begins. Players take turns assaulting neighboring gladiator teams or animals. A player cannot move a gladiator team unless there are no animals or teams in adjacent spaces OR the team has 3 or fewer gladiators remaining. Thus, early on, you are usually fighting neighboring teams or animals.

A battle is very simple. Determine initiative (the team with the most spear holders rolls the dice first), neutralize opponent's gladiators if you possess net casters in your team, then roll the dice. Each team rolls a number of dice equal to the number of swordsmen present in their team plus one. The dice depict single stars (a single hit), double stars (two hits) or blanks (no hits). It takes two hits to dispatch a gladiator and up to 4 to eliminate an animal. Single-star hits accumulate on a gladiator team (and are marked with appropriate counters) until two hits are achieved, which results in the elimination of a gladiator. A full hit (2 stars) cannot be blocked and immediately eliminates a gladiator. Both players roll the appropriate number of dice, results are applied and the combat round ends. If a team loses its final gladiator, the base is removed and the victor must occupy that space.

Gladiators lost in combat are given to the opposing player, who keeps them in his 'holding pen'. Each gladiator captured is worth 1 point, while conquered animals are worth 2 points. Further, any surviving gladiators are added to the player's holding pen at the end of the game and are also worth 1 point each.

If a player loses his final gladiator team, he is not out of the game. Rather, he can now control animals and use them to attack opponent's gladiators. A player can use any of the animals already in the arena, or may add a new beast. Any gladiators he dispatches while attacking with animals are added to his holding pen. Often, if you only have one or two gladiators remaining, it is a wise choice to cause them to be eliminated so you can then control a more powerful animal.

After one round of combat, play then rotates to the next player. This entire procedure continues until only one player has gladiators remaining, at which time the game concludes. Players tally the value of their holding pens to determine the winner.

Yes, after the initial selection of gladiators, the game is fairly mindless. Bash your opponents and hope you get lucky with the dice. Other than a few minor and usually obvious decisions, there is not much more to it than that. It does require a certain 'mind adjustment' to play. Forget strategic options, clever tactical moves, etc. Enter with the idea that you'll be rolling lots of dice and hopefully causing lots of carnage. Perform your best Kirk Douglas, Victor Mature or Russell Crowe gladiator imitation and have fun. With the right attitude, this game can be fun ... especially if you have a lust for blood, a desire to test your worth in the arena … and it is very late at night!

Thread: Session Report

Gregarius — 2005-02-09T20:14:47+00:00

Steve had missed out on all the previous plays of this one, and had been eager to give it a try. It's basically just a kill-or-be-killed dice-fest, but that's appropriate to the theme. Drafting different guys for your team and choosing who to fight add some strategic elements, but for the most part it is just a light slug-fest.

Paul pulled out to an early lead, helped by taking out one of the starting animals. The rest of us bashed on one another pretty good, but just couldn't manage to get many kills. Although Paul successfully diverted attention to Steve (who seemed to have the strongest position), it was really Paul's unnatural ability to roll red stars that clinched his victory.

Thread: User Review

teaguewebb — 2004-09-04T20:52:33+00:00

Clash of the Gladiators is a tactical, dice-based simulation of a massive brawl in a Roman-ish arena between rival gladiators and various animals.

The initial setup is a little unusual. The arena is ingeniously separated into parts through use of the theme, such as drag marks left by an unfortunate gladiator, dropped equipment, etc. Players begin by “drafting” gladiators from the different types available (more on them later) and placing them onto plastic trays (which hold 4 gladiators each and represent one “team”) in the spaces of the arena. The number of “teams” per player varies depending on the number of players, but there’s always a few spaces left over for the animals (more on them later).

Let’s talk about the different types of gladiators.

1) Swordsman-each swordsman in the team adds one additional die to the one base die per team on attack and counter-attack rolls.
2) Shieldman-each shieldman blocks the effect of one yellow star rolled (see attacking) by an opponent against his team.
3) Netman-each netman can nullify the effect of one of the opponent’s gladiators. NOTE: they do not work against animals!
4) Mancatcher/Prongman/Trident-the team involved in combat that has the most of this type on their team may re-roll their entire attack/counter-attack once.
5) Spearman-Normally, the attacker rolls first (see attacking), but if the defender has more spearmen than the attacker, the defender rolls first.

Attacking- Once the setup is complete, the players take turns activating one of their teams and attacking either an opponent’s team or an animal. The basic attack consists of the attacking player rolling the appropriate number of attack dice, the defender removing any losses, and then counter-attacking with any remaining gladiators. The attack dice are six-sided, with each having three blank sides (miss), two yellow stars (1 hit each), and one red double star (2 hits each). Each gladiator has 2 hit points. The shieldmen block one yellow star each, but have no effect on double red stars. Damage is carried over, so that if only one hit is done to a team, the next player to attack that team needs only one more to get a kill. There can also be multiple gladiators killed in one turn, if there are enough hits rolled.

Animals- Each animal has a unique number of hit points and some combination of the same abilities as the gladiators, with the exception that animals have no netman effect and the netmen don’t affect the animals. As long as all players still have gladiators alive, the animals can be attacked, but do not attack the players. The player to the left of the one attacking the animal rolls for it.

Scoring- Each gladiator killed gets the player who killed him 1 point, and each animal killed is worth 2. In addition, the last player standing gets a bonus of 1 point for each of his/her own gladiators still left alive.

Game End- The game ends when only one player has gladiators left alive, but its not simple elimination. Once a player has no gladiators left alive, he/she continues to take his/her turns playing as the animals! Now the animals can move and attack, and any victory points earned as the animals count towards the controlling player’s total for the game.

My thoughts- I enjoy this game very much when I get a chance to play it. It is light and has a fun theme. I like the way the initial draft and placement make for a different setup every time. I also like experimenting with different combinations of gladiators. I particularly enjoy the way it keeps eliminated players involved, with a chance to actually improve their score. In fact, I’ve frequently seen a player that lost all their gladiators first go on to win the game. There is a LOT of dice rolling, with all that comes with it, so this game will definitely not be for everyone. My rating is a 7.

Thread: Session Report

Gola — 2004-08-30T03:38:31+00:00

I took a chance and brought something a little daffy to the early seating of the Sunday Night Gamers, namely Reiner Knizia's dice game Clash of the Gladiators. This was a risky move because Joe Lee is very allergic to dice; I think he actually broke out in hives the one time he was forced to play The Big Idea. Were someone to suggest Yahtzee he might collapse onto the floor entirely. However, he must have recently had some kind of antihistamine injection, because he actually suggested that we try the game out first thing. Sweet! This was my first playing; the other two contestants were Marty McMartin and Chris.

After a quick run-through of the rules we went about recruiting our gladiators, and it seemed that folks were feeling inventive, because all kinds of different combos were cooked up for the teams. The various types of gladiator all have their uses: an advantage in spear holders can be a powerful deterrent against attack, the prong bearers are good insurance against flubbed rolls, and the much-maligned net casters are quite handy for when you'd like to be on the offense but you're facing opposing teams with those damned shield carriers.

When the bell rang and all the rough-and-tumble Romans came out of their corners swinging, the first casualties were the animals. Everyone scored one right off the bat, or rather everyone but me; my first assault ended up with one of my prong bearers getting decapitated by a lion. Aiiieeee! The headless corpse twitched in the sand. The crowd roared. PETA was not available for comment.

Once the more sickly of the animals were dispatched we started hacking away at each other. The fighting was particularly fierce between Martin and I, because Martin is a filthy swine and I only want to kill him, but it turns out that his little cardboard rectangles were too well-trained for me. My dice rolling technique was pathetic at best and criminally negligent at worst, and many a whiff was heard whistling through the arena. Marty McMartin's steel feasted on the blood of my men, and soon his gladiators were covered head to foot in the dripping gore of Golaish warriors.

Joe Lee saw some bad luck as well, but he later made up for his karmic kerfuffle whereas I did not, and although both Martin and Joe lost a full team before I did, I was the first to have all my men eliminated. A little rapid reincarnation was in order, and, reborn into the dark souls of rabid bears and rampaging bulls, I charged at the men still left in the arena; unfortunately, twice in a row this ended in only improving my opponents' scores when I was unable to make a kill and my target counterattacked on his turn and polished off the wounded beast.

When the last drop of blood, bile and barf had been soaked up by the dust of the coliseum, there was one man standing, and it was...Chris. I think. It was hard to tell who it was exactly, what with the missing nose and the intestines wrapped around his head like a turban. It doesn't matter, though, because the winners, tied with the most kills, were Joe Lee and Marty McMartin. They had finished with scores of somewhere in the neighborhood of twenty whereas I came in last, having only barely staggered into double digits. Nuts.

I gotta remember to roll harder next time.

Thread: Re:Session Report

EYE of NiGHT — 2004-05-07T19:35:59+00:00

dwarf (#34862),
It turns out we played it a bit wrong. The stars count as hits against the teams and stay on the board, accumulating damage.

It's a fun game. It evokes the theme of brutal slaughter for fun. It's on heavy discount all over the place. It's fun. Get a cheap copy if you like a bit of fun.

Thread: Re:Session Report

mlvanbie — 2004-05-03T04:27:38+00:00

I have to agree that this isn't a great game. However, the base mechanic is great. I'd love to see it in a CCG-style game in which you could build up animals or groups of gladiators to use in the same way.

Thread: Re:Session Report

GeoMan — 2004-05-02T12:45:04+00:00

dwarf (#34862),

No, it's not a good game. Luck pays a MAJOR role and players constantly attack the weakest team.

There are only a few choices during setup that really doesn't matter when you start rolling the dice...

The only clever mechanic is the use of animals by a losing player but that doesn't add much to the game.

This is a 1+ hour luckfest devoid of any real choices. Avoid!

Thread: Re:Session Report

Octavian — 2004-05-02T05:58:40+00:00

dwarf (#34862),

It really depends on your group, but for most this one is a miss. There are some interesting elements here that involve manipulating probabilities to your favor and some tactical decisions on who it is best to attack, but overall the payoff just isn't there for most.

-MMM

Thread: Re:Session Report

dwarf — 2004-05-01T22:12:05+00:00

EYE of NiGHT (#33076),

Is this game worth getting? Thinking of getting new games for my collection. Did a few geeklist to help. Check them out.

Thread: Session Report

EYE of NiGHT — 2004-04-14T15:59:37+00:00

Finally, in view of the holiday we had for someone else's religious festival, we decided to visit the Roman arena which saw so much bloodshed for sport.

And what sport we had! We didn't bother reading the rules all the way through (tempus was fugiting), and got on with filling our teams. It was only when we started fighting that we discoverd we were a bit short on swordsmen. We'd stocked up on tridents and net-throwers instead. Ooops.

But it didn't make a huge difference because we were still fairly matched. The hacking and slashing began, and Richard seemed unhappy. He reckoned the odds on getting kills were too low. That didn't stop him killing and killing and killing. He roled red after red & soon racked up a string of corpses in front of him. I had kept my teams apart and so was pinned down by wild animals. But my limited squads fought hard, one man slew two of Richards in one attack!

Ian was over the other side of the arena and had a majority over Richard's, but the gods were smiling on Biggus Dickus and his men scored more victories against Ian. Ian switched his attack to the wildlife, but they proved too hard as well, and a bear killed off his men.

We didn't understand when teams could move around though. The rules say when you have fewer than 4 men or no neighbours, but what if you have two squads next to each other. They could never move away. Surely it means no enemies next to you? We didn't start moving teams around until quite near the end of the game.

Ian went out first and brought in the animals, against me! My last squad slew a lion though, and ran to attack another. It rolled double red stars! Wampf, it swallowed both men whole!

Richard was last man standing, but when we counted up the dead, he'd only beaten me by three points. We thoroughly enjoyed Kampf and I'm looking forward to playing again. The rules were easy to grasp, the fights were very quick and exciting. We noticed that some animals needed three hits to be killed, but if a squad has no swordsmen left, you can only roll two hits on 1 die, so you cannot possibly kill it.

The game has a bunch of yellow wooden stars to show the results of combat, but we quickly realised they were pointless and only slowed the game down. More dice would have been better. We also spent a lot of time reeling out gags from Life Of Brian. He's not the son of god, he's a very naughty boy!

Kampf der Gladiatoren is being remaindered cheap. If you want a quick but bloody laugh, hop in your chariot and spear one today. Catch it in your net, slash it, STAB IT KILL KILL HOORAH! Now...where are those Christians...?!

Thread: Re:Making Net Casters Tougher

mlvanbie — 2004-03-22T23:02:10+00:00

cfarrell (#31165) wrote But really, I haven't done the math.

Knizia has -- he even wrote a book about it. If there is a probability p of an unsatisfactory roll the rerolling reduces the probability of the bad roll to p^2. This is a big help on long-shot rolls against shields.

I would like this game to get reworked into a CCG format so that we could build up stands and animals from decks during play.

Thread: Re:Making Net Casters Tougher

cfarrell — 2004-03-22T17:31:31+00:00

Leonardo (#31128),

Yes, you can re-roll all the dice. It clearly can be useful, but in every game I've played the Trident-guys are always stacked up at the end, as people are reluctant to take them. I think our intuition is that while they may be cool if you have a full sled of guys, once one or two get knocked out, you're a lot better off with an extra die than with a reroll. But really, I haven't done the math.

Thread: Re:Making Net Casters Tougher

Leonardo — 2004-03-22T10:06:07+00:00

cfarrell (#17452),
Chris, If you have more trident guys then your opponent I think you get to reroll ALL the dice, not only one. I still havent really played this game (just received my copy)but I think they can be quite useful.

Lets say 4 swords man team fighting against 3 swordsman team + trident gladiator. Wouldnt the odds be in favor of the 3 swordsman + trident team? Since you could actually reroll 4 dice.

Thread: Re:Making Net Casters Tougher

cfarrell — 2003-07-25T16:57:48+00:00

Rick Smith (#17422),

Hmm, the net-casters have always been popular in my games, and I think the answer is just their versatility. While just netting a swordsmen may not be much different than adding a swordsman of your own when both sides have a lot of dice, on the other hand reducing your opponent from 3 dice to 2 dice (or 2 to 1) is a much better deal than increasing your own dice from, say, 3 to 4. Also, negating a trident when your opponent has 3 swordsmen is better than negating a single swordsmen ... but the really big deal is with the shield-bearers, especially once some attrition has set in. Negating one of those is often the difference between a kill and a miss, and if your opponent has two shields, negating one can give you some realistic chance to do damage.

No, I think the net-throwers are fine as they are to be honest. The gladiators that I personally think are underpowered are the trident guys. How often is a reroll really helpful over just rolling another die? Doesn't seem very often.

Thread: Making Net Casters Tougher

Rick Smith — 2003-07-25T16:18:02+00:00

Our group has found the net casters to be just about useless because a) they don't do anything against animals, and b) they can take out your opponent's fighter, but they also take themselves out.

(Some people will argue that they take out someone _useless_ on your side, but take out which ever enemy gladiator is MOST USEFUL on the other side. A bit of a point I guess, but our group would still rather have a swordsman or someone that is always useful and can help against animals.)

A simple fix is to say that net casters get 3 hit points rather than 2. A group with a net caster can have 2 stars rather than one, and still not lose a fighter. (On the next star, the net caster must be lost.) This is a very simple rule change, but makes the unit a bit more worthwhile.

(I'm surprised that the net caster as is made it into the game in its current form.)

Thread: variant: improved abilities

Alan Kwan — 2003-05-13T04:35:58+00:00

Some of my (untested) ideas on improving the powers of the various gladiators:

spear: in case of a tie in spearmen, instead of just giving the attacker the initiative, damage inflicted by the attacker is not applied until after the defender has rolled. After the attacker has rolled, place the stars in the defender's space, but don't remove casualties until after the defender counter-attacks. (At which point, both players remove casualties, with the defender choosing first.) The attacker still uses his net-casters first.

shield: a shield can block a yellow star, or one of two red stars. But one of every two red stars is always unblockable, regardless of how many shields the defender has.

prong: when re-rolling, the player can choose to re-roll part of the dice and leave the rest as they are.

Thread: Session Report

rdsmith — 2003-04-14T13:31:33+00:00

Got to play this one twice. Once with two players, as a little warm up, and later with four players. I was pleasantly surprised that it worked just as well with two as with four, but still generally a more the merrier game.

For the first go 'round, I was slaughtered with having no gladiators left compared to Raymond's four left, but we tied in points (24-24)! A definite moral victory for him.

With the four of us, much more mayhem with incredible bad luck for all of us, making a much longer game than it should have been and swearing that all sides of the dice were blank. Going down to the wire with all of us hovering around 16 points, close to the end of the game I had a killer dice roll of two major hits at one time, oblooterating a group enabling me to do mop up work from then on.

Ray = 24
Raymond = 18
Brian = 18
Michael = 14

Thread: 2 Player variant

GeoMan — 2003-02-28T17:19:28+00:00

To make the game more interesting when only 2 are playing, use only half of each type of gladiator and put the rest back in the box.
Decisions as to what teams to built are now more difficult (as they are in a 4 player game) since the available gladiators are now limited.

Thread: Session Report

gschloesser — 2002-09-18T01:27:48+00:00

I had played this previously a few times at Alan Moon's Gathering of Friends and although the game was enjoyable in a "beer & pretzels" manner, there was not enough there to entice me to purchase it. However, I did select it as one of my choices from the prize table at the recently completed Gulf Games in Savannah, Georgia. Hard to not grab a copy when it is free!

As mentioned by myself and many other posters, the game is very light with little real strategy. Indeed, it can easily be termed a "dice-fest", although I know some shudder at the use of that term. However, it is certainly applicable here.

Players field teams of gladiators engaged in mortal combat with not only other gladiators, but ferocious animals as well. Yes, this is certainly a departure for designer Reiner Knizia, who reportedly has a strong aversion to violence. Still, the rules never claim that gladiators are killed. Rather, players capture them and place them in their "holding pens". OK ...

Players begin the game by forming three teams of gladiators, each consisting of four individuals. The recruitment pool consists of the following types of gladiators:

Spear Holders - The team with the most spear holders has the initiative and rolls the battle dice first. If tied, the attacker rolls first.

Net Casters - The Retarius. For each net caster in a team, the player can neutralize an opponent's gladiator. That gladiator isn't dead (err ... removed), but cannot participate in the current combat. He can, however, be removed as a casualty.

Swordsmen - For each swordsmen in a team, a player rolls one more battle die.

Prong Bearers - The team that has the most prong bearers may re-roll the battle dice once. However, the player MUST accept the results of the second roll.

Shield Carriers - Each shield carrier in a team blocks one simple hit.

Once all players have formed their teams, the battle begins. Players take turns assaulting neighboring gladiator teams or animals. A player cannot move a gladiator team unless there are no animals or teams in adjacent spaces OR the team has 3 or fewer gladiators remaining. Thus, early on, you are usually fighting neighboring teams or animals.

A battle is very simple. Determine initiative (the team with the most spear holders rolls the dice first), neutralize opponent's gladiators if you possess net casters in your team, then roll the dice. Each team rolls a number of dice equal to the number of swordsmen present in their team plus one. The dice depict single stars (a single hit), double stars (two hits) or blanks (no hits). It takes two hits to dispatch a gladiator and up to 4 to eliminate an animal. Single-star hits accumulate on a gladiator team until two are achieved, which results in the elimination of a gladiator. A full hit (2 stars) cannot be blocked and immediately eliminates a gladiator. Both sides roll the appropriate number of dice, results are applied and the combat round ends. If a team loses its last gladiator, the base is removed and the victor must occupy that space.

Gladiators lost in combat are given to the opposing player, who keeps them in his 'holding pen'. Each gladiator captured is worth 1 point, while conquered animals are worth 2 points. Further, any surviving gladiators are added to the player's holding pen and are also worth 1 point each.

If a player loses is final gladiator team, he is not out of the game. Rather, he can now control animals and use them to attack opponent's gladiators. A player can use any of the animals already in the arena, or add a new one. Any gladiators he dispatches are added to his holding pen. Often, if you only have one or two gladiators remaining, it is a wise choice to get them eliminated so you can control a more powerful animal.

After one round of combat, play then rotates to the next player. This entire procedure continues until only one player has gladiators remaining, at which time the game concludes. Players tally the value of their holding pens to determine the winner.

Yes, after the initial selection of gladiators, the game is fairly mindless. Bash your opponents and hope you get lucky with the dice. Not much more to it than that. It does require a certain 'mind adjustment' to play. Forget strategic options, clever tactical moves, etc. Enter with the idea that you'll be rolling lots of dice and hopefully causing lots of carnage. Perform your best Kirk Douglas, Victor Mature or Russell Crowe imitation and have fun. With the right attitude, this game can be fun ... especially late at night!

Michael, Ernie, Jon, Steven and I entered the amphitheater, each vowing to emerge victorious. Apparently, however, Ernie sent in a crew of over-weight merchants whose only experience with a sword was cutting their dinner. He was brutalized and could hit the broad side of a temple. Steven and I didn't fare much better. Jon was doing quite well with his lethal team of four swordsmen, but we eventually knocked this team out. Michael proved to be the king of the ring, however, scoring kill after kill and accumulating impressive amounts of points. In the end, he ruled the day and received the "thumbs-up" from the Emperor.

Finals: Michael 20, Jon 13, Greg 10, Steven 10, Ernie 7

Ratings: Michael 7.5, Greg 5, Jon 4.5, Steven 4

*Important Note: No animals were harmed or killed in the playing of this game!