Game: Wooly Bully

Thread: Re: The Abandonment Bonus

franchi — 2008-12-01T13:05:32+00:00

But by "play all the tiles" I understand play them normally. The normal consequences of play should apply: you can kill a wolf, or add a wolf close to another player's terrain, or draw tiles if there are still left...

Otherwise they should have stated explicitly the things you cannot do on your last turns?

Thread: Re: The Abandonment Bonus

Yokiboy — 2008-12-01T11:48:59+00:00

franchi wrote:
If they don't explicitly say that he cannot draw new tiles, to me it means that he can.
Thanks Miguel, and I tend to agree with you. However, the rules listed on the game's web site say the following:

The Rules wrote:
and the last receives no bonus (but will be able to finish quietly by playing all the tiles which remain in their hand).
It's that reference to "tiles remaining in their hand" that made me question what was meant by the rule.

Thread: Re: The Abandonment Bonus

franchi — 2008-12-01T10:46:35+00:00

If they don't explicitly say that he cannot draw new tiles, to me it means that he can.

Thread: The Abandonment Bonus

Yokiboy — 2008-12-01T10:21:58+00:00

I have a question regarding the emphasized part of the following rule.
The Rules wrote:
Each player can choose to stop playing before the end of the game. The first player to stop will have a no-claims bonus of +6 at the end of the game; the second, +3, the third, +1 and the last will receive no bonus (but will be able to finish quietly by playing all the pawns which remain in her hand).
So the last player to stop playing is allowed to play out the rest of the tiles in their hand, but do they still draw new tiles for each one placed as per normal? That would seem to even out part of the abandonment bonus and make for a harder choice of whether to quit or keep playing, which is something I like personally.

Thread: Re: What if no exact match? Pass...??

Yokiboy — 2008-12-01T10:14:45+00:00

As the rules state that not being able to play tiles is an endgame trigger, I say that you're never allowed to pass without quitting and hopefully scoring a few bonus points.

Thread: Re: Why is such precision necessary?

Yokiboy — 2008-12-01T10:06:12+00:00

I'm surprised there's been no official reply to this interesting question.

Image

LudwigVanB — 2008-11-24T08:15:55+00:00

Boxfront, French edition

Image

rober — 2008-11-13T14:53:21+00:00

overview

Image

dracoPL — 2008-09-20T11:21:27+00:00

Tip: how to hang tiles in one hand

Thread: Re: What if no exact match? Pass...??

cratex — 2008-08-02T18:24:24+00:00

I would like to know what will happen if a player doesn't have any matching tiles in his later turns?

My totally and completely unofficial answer is just pass - this is what is done in most games and is the simplest answer.

Also, could a player deliberately pass a turn, even though he has matching tiles?

Again, my totally and completely unofficial answer is yes. The alternative is that in the case where the player couldn't play he would have to reveal his tiles to the other players to prove he couldn't play, which defeats the purpose of keeping them hidden. However... I've found when playing with younger kids (and some adults) that they may simply be missing a play somewhere and some help is all that is needed. Utimately, do what is FUN for your group.

Thread: What if no exact match? Pass...??

free_planet — 2008-08-02T14:02:00+00:00

Section "Get Going!" (page 3) of the game rules says that the starting player can pass if he doesn't have a Tile with a "Village" edge.

I would like to know what will happen if a player doesn't have any matching tiles in his later turns?
Is he forced to stop and get that 6 bonus points?
Or, he is allowed to pass in this situation?

Also, could a player deliberately pass a turn, even though he has matching tiles?

Thank you very much.

Image

Carrotteer — 2008-06-22T10:25:29+00:00

Boxback of dutch edition by 999 Games

Image

Carrotteer — 2008-06-22T10:20:46+00:00

Boxfront of Dutch edition by 999 Games

Thread: Using meeples as shepherds

kjardine — 2008-04-03T18:29:44+00:00

We found playing Wooly Bully using the standard rules to be frustrating because we drew lots of tiles with the wrong coloured sheep that we couldn't use.

So we decided to use meeples as shepherds instead!

Each player was given five meeples of the same colour from our Carcassone box and the four Wooly Bully shepherd tiles (with the question marks on the back) were mixed in with the rest of the Wooly Bully tiles.

We used the meeples to claim sheep pens - so each person could have up to five sheep pens in play at once - the meeples determined who controlled what sheep pen rather than the colour of the sheep.

Beyond that tweak, we kept the rest of the rules the same.

It will take a few more games to decide for sure, but we have already found that this variant seems to make the game more interesting.

Image

pdclose — 2008-03-23T17:39:39+00:00

I made a matching tile-drawing bag for my game. Those sheep are just too cute!

Thread: Re: Wooly Bully Review

Reprint — 2008-03-03T00:08:13+00:00

It helps to say "me-e-eh, baa-ha-hah" a lot while you're thinking.

Thread: Wooly Bully Review

Odin_Knight — 2008-02-29T10:22:12+00:00

I've bought this game because I lacked a small game that could be played under 30 min. This game is a tile laying game which has the objective of building the largest pen whith only sheeps of your color.

Out of the Box
In the box there's a well done manual, a bag and tiles. The manual is very simple and the rules are well done but in some ocasions not clear. They are sometimes a problem during play because of some asynchronous tasks you can preform such as saying "hunter" or "wolf" that interromps the other player game for you to play those tiles. Beside of that they're simple rules and i've tought them to new players under 5 minutes. The bag is a good addition since the game relies on drawing tiles.
There are only squared tiles in this game, all of them double sided, the design is simple but it works.

rating:

Mechanics
The objective is to build the biggest closed pen of your sheeps in order to win. There's also a quitting bonus, the player who quits first guet's +6 to his biggest pen, the second +3 and the third +1. You start with a few tiles but each time you lay a tile you get the same amount of tiles as the amount of tile sides your placed tile touches.
Since the tiles are double sided there's always a place to put your tile. So this is the main mechanic, lay tile and get the same amount of tiles your played tile connects. There's also an asynchronous part in the game, where a player says "wolf" or "hunter" and can stop the game, put his wolf/hunter tile, get the same amount of tiles from the bag as the number of tiles it touched and play another time. This could be a nice idea but it thends to be the most problematic part of the game because the rules are not clear to situations of players shoutting wolf/hunter at the same time and since it's a competition game it tends to lead to debate and discussion. Despite it starts fast the game kind of drags middlegame. This is mainly caused because of the double sided tiles, you keep flipping them over in order to choose the best one, and sometimes you've got 10+ tiles on your hand.

rating:

Strategy
This game is mainly individual, you concentrate on building your pen and try to make it the biggest in the fastest way possible to be the first to quit and get the +6 bonus. This tends to reaveal who will be the winner midgame, a situation that only makes the game loose it's interest. You can also difficult other player life's using the wolf tile or protect your biggest pen with a hunter tile.
There's only co-op playing when you need to screw some other player's pen. There are some tactics to make your opponent not able to close is pen but they mainly work if your playing 3+ games, since you can force him to need an unnexistant tile to close the pen. With two players this can only work when you use a hunter or a wolf (which allow another play) because if he notices he will try to correct that before you can block is pen using your second tile. Besides this there's almost no strategy to play your tiles, it's mainly luck drawing them from the bag.

rating:

Conclusion
I enjoy this game but I think it misses something, it's kind of a shallow game lacking more strategy. But this game works great with new players because of it's simple content and it's great for people who want a game that can be played without thinking too much and still can be fun. It's not the greatest filler between main games but there's still space for it especially when younger players are wanting to join you in play.

Final rating:

Image

Artax — 2008-02-27T20:23:22+00:00

Hungarian edition box back

Image

Artax — 2008-02-27T20:22:08+00:00

Hungarian edition box front

Thread: Re: Two variants for a more strategic and more manageable game

ececec — 2008-02-27T02:12:20+00:00

definetely agree - I would keep the hand limit at 3 and remove the extra draws/turns for multiple sides. thanks!

Thread: Re: Sheep Thrills

Tomaton — 2008-02-22T08:17:27+00:00

I loved the title of your review!

Image

YuZJannowitz — 2008-02-19T17:01:20+00:00

Board

Thread: Snow Day? Pull the wool blanket up and snuggle in.

dsmeyer — 2008-02-18T21:01:18+00:00

We had another ice storm come through the midwest. That left us home for the day. With temperatures of 5 below, my daughters and I cannot think of a better way to spend a snow day than playing games and watching movies. Started off watching Shrek the Third. Then we each chose a game to ply a couple of times. First games of the day, Olivia's choice: Wooly Bully.

First game:
All three of us choose our shepherd, and then the fun begins. Madeline starts off right away building a fairly large yellow field. I try a couple times to close it off, but she pops out her shepherd and makes it much more difficult to close. About that time Olivia is building a large pin field. This allows all three of us to quickly determine what color each of them are playing. I have blue, so I trying building both blue and black field so that neither of them will know what color I am playing.

I finally get Madeline's field closed, with the help of Olivia, at 28. That is a huge field and going to be tough to beat. We flounder around some building small enclosures trying not to let each other's get too big. I get my shepherd out and now everyone knows that I have blue and the left over color is black. We get Olivia's big field closed at 12 sheep. I have a blue field that is at 18, but a tile was played that will make it almost impossible to finish.

We all try our to build a second field that will be bigger than the ones we have built. I am able to pull a couple of wolves and hunters and one of them is in my color, so I start a second field. The two girls both have big fields going too. I get mine up to 13 with one side open but Olivia closes it off for me on her next turn ending my score with 14. There are still some tiles left, but not enough to get over the big scores earlier. So, I focus on trying to close my other field. Olivia gets her second big field up to 26 before we can get it closed. Madeline puts a wolf on my big field and is able to get her second field closed at 20. I had a hunter and was able to save my closed field, but was never able to close my bigger field.

Final score:
Madeline 28 (but also had a 20), Olivia 26, and me 14.

Second game's score:
Olivia 22, Madeline 20, and me 21.

On to the next game: Madeline's choice: Thing-a-ma-Bots.
Thanks for reading.

Thread: Re: Wooly Bully (Lobo):Review in Portuguese

Purple_FairyQueen — 2008-02-13T21:09:00+00:00

Obrigado para sua revisão.
Eu não estava ciente que tinha sido traduzido a portugese.
Agora sei.
Gabriela de Asmodee

Thread: Two variants for a more strategic and more manageable game

NateStraight — 2008-01-12T05:06:05+00:00

There are a few problems with the game's rules as written, as I see it. (I've played the rules as written a number of times, so I'm not just making new stuff up for a game that already "works" well.)

First, the end is very anticlimactic, as you can usually see who will have the biggest pen long before all the tiles have been used. There's very rarely anything you can do to change the outcome of the game after about midway through the tiles.

Second, it's way too hard to go through the huge hand of double-sided tiles you amass throughout the game. The rule about drawing two or more tiles if you match two or more sides would be fine if there was ever a way to get rid of those extra tiles, but there isn't. This snowball effect leads to insane "analysis paralysis" for such a light-hearted game.

Variant 1, to fix the first problem, is this: Score all penned-in sheep at game end, not just each player's largest pen (possibly exclude 2-tile/2-sheep pens). This way, a player whose large field they were building the whole game will still stand some chance if their field gets killed by a wolf or completely blocked by an opponent. Another player who gets lucky and avoids this fate won't run away with the game.

Variant 2, to fix the second problem, is this: Instead of allowing extra tile draws if you match up more than one side, give the player a bonus turn (a maximum of one such bonus turn per game turn, but can be combined with other bonus turns allowed in the rules) instead. Also, cut the hand size to just 3 tiles. Having only 3 tiles to choose from each turn seriously cuts down on paralysis and forces you to think more strategically.

I played a 3-player game tonight with these two variants and it worked out very well. The game was much more tense, with a lot more ebb-and-flow between the players. It wasn't clear until about 3 or 4 plays before the end who was going to wind up winning. In fact, I upped my rating by a half a point because of the improved gameplay with these two variants. Your mileage may, of course, vary, but it's certainly worth a try to consider these or other similar variants next time you pull this one out.

Image

Jordi Gené — 2008-01-03T09:59:14+00:00

Thread: Re: Why is such precision necessary?

russ — 2008-01-01T22:42:20+00:00

DSHStratRat2 wrote:
I like this game, but let's face it--no rule in a turn-based game should ever say that you can do a certain thing "at any time." That's just asking for trouble.

I agree. Real-time shouting to do an action "at any time" is an annoying problematic mechanic. We have been experimenting with a house rule that you can place hunters and wolves during your own turn (only), and that seems to work fine, and solves all the timing conflict problems.

Thread: Why is such precision necessary?

DSHStratRat2 — 2008-01-01T01:14:52+00:00

The rules of this game are a little murky in spots, but it's certainly fun to play the darned thing. There is one rule, however, that seems to be overly specific about something:

"Wolf and/or Hunter Tiles may be played at any time, during a player's turn or not. A player wishing to play one or more Wolf/Hunter Tiles must say out loud the type(s) and number of Tile(s) to be played and then play them in that order."

Because the first sentence of this rule is so vague, the second sentence seems oddly precise.

1. First is the timing issue--if two players cry "Wolf!" at the same time, which one is placed first? My group assumes they are placed in turn order.

2. Same situation--if two players cry "Wolf" at the same moment, are they both required to play them? For example, if the first player puts his Wolf into the only forest on the board, is the second player still required to add his Wolf to the same forest? In such a case, it's pretty obvious that they both intended to drop a Wolf into the same forest, so if the second player doesn't want to waste his Wolf in the same forest, is he allowed to "take back" his cry of Wolf?

3. Situation #2 again, but this time with two forests on the board. If the first Wolf player puts his Wolf into the forest that the second player wanted to put his into, is the second player required to play his Wolf into the second available forest?

My take on simultaneous cries of either "Wolf!" or "Hunter!" is that the tiles are laid in turn order, and nobody beyond the first crier is required to play his tile. The turn order should really break ties here because things would get very messy otherwise...

Finally, the big issue we couldn't solve:

4. Since the first sentence of this rule lets you cry "Wolf!" or "Hunter!" at any time, then what's the point of the second sentence of this rule? Why is it so picky about saying out loud which tiles you're playing, or in what order you're playing them?

The murkiness of this rule leaves an awful lot of timing questions. My wife thought that the rule made you lay the tiles you stated, but that you must then give other players a chance to react in some way--either by countering your Wolf with their Hunter, resuming the game at whatever point you interrupted, etc. She didn't think it should be legal for me to call "Wolf!," lay a Wolf tile, then call "Wolf!" again as soon as I saw that no one was going to immediately counter my first Wolf with a Hunter. Of course, my position was to take the rule literally--that I could cry "Wolf!" at any time, whether it was my turn or not.

I like this game, but let's face it--no rule in a turn-based game should ever say that you can do a certain thing "at any time." That's just asking for trouble.

Of course, in the mean time, my wife's interpretation is being used. Hey, I'm no fool!

Thread: There's a wolf under my bed!

MGBM — 2007-11-16T21:34:15+00:00

Another day, another session. For a starter we decided to play a game of Wooly Bully. Since we were five, I chose to sit out of the game. Catia, Rui, Artur and Nelson were the players. After choosing randomly their colours and a starting player, which was Artur, the game began.

In the first turn a lot of yellow sheep were placed in play, while Rui managed to draw two tiles. Second turn saw the first enclosure of yellow sheep, 6 in total. By turn three there was still one village that had grown to an enormous size, in fact there were more village spaces than sheep, an unusua phenomenon in this game.

By turn six the board was shown to be very compact and regular and nobody had revealed their colours or guessing each other's colours. Turn seven saw six black sheep being closed and twelve red sheep being closed as well. The game was advancing at a rather slow pace, due to the fact that the tiles are double-sided and that increases the problem of analysis paralysis and, therefore, the downtime of the game as well.

By turn nine there was only one forest capable of receiving a wolf while the board was getting larger but with a regular, compact shape. There were few enclosed spaces with more than five sheep each in fact. Turn eleven and Nelson plays his shepherd, revealing he is the yellow. His play was brilliant and managed to almost grab a huge enclosed space. Catia also plays her shepherd, revealing she's the black colour, while Rui passes and wins the 6 points for passing first.

By turn twelve, Nelson encloses his sheep and passes. He encloses 22 sheep in one fell swoop, sealing the game there and then. Catia passes in third place, receiving one extra point.

Turn fourteen and it's only Artur in play, so he reveals he is blue, plays the shepherd and tries to get as many sheep as possible but only manages to enclose 16 sheep. Nelson is the winner.

Final scores:

Nelson - 25
Rui - 18
Artur - 16
Catia - 6

This is a decent game but personally I don't find it to be anything special. The double-faced tiles only add to the downtime of the game as players have to look at both sides to decide which face to play. Add to that the rule that they draw as many tiles as the orthoganally connected tiles to the tile you play and you'll have a hand of far too many tiles, all of which are double-sided, which in the end means spending a lot of time deciding which tile to play. It increases the total game length unnecessarily and may turn the game slightly boring.

Still, we found the game decent and would play again if brought to the table.

Our ratings, from 0 to 20:

Nelson - 13
Catia - 15
Rui - 12
Artur - 13

Thread: Wooly Bully (Lobo):Review in Portuguese

MGBM — 2007-10-11T11:49:22+00:00

Originalmente publicado em www.abreojogo.com

Esta review vai ser dificil de fazer. Não porque o boardgame é dificil de analisar, longe disso, mas porque o boardgame é publicado em Português por uma firma Ibérica. Há que sempre motivar e encorajar este tipo de inciativa, publicar boardgames em Português, mas isso não quer dizer que o boardgame seja bom. Não que seja mau, mas também não é nada de além.

Comecemos pelos componentes. O boardgame vem numa caixa pequena e traz bastantes tiles, que são de qualidade superior aos do Carcassonne, embora eu tenha dúvidas se no fim aguentam mais tempo sem dano do que os tiles do Carcassonne. Traz também um saco para misturar os tiles, um bom promenor. Cada tile tem duas faces.

As regras são curtas e simples de perceber, não há razões de queixa quanto a isso.

O jogo é fácil, começando num tile central os jogadores vão colocando tiles de ovelhas de quatro cores de maneira lógica como no Carcassonne. A questão é, uma das cores é a nossa e queremos construir um curral com o maior número de ovelhas contidas lá dentro. No meio temos lobos, que comem as ovelhas adjacentes à floresta onde o lobo se situa, e caçadores, que anulam os lobos. Ganha o jogador que, no fim, tiver o maior número de ovelhas dentro de um curral, ou seja, não conta o número total de ovelhas, só o máximo número de ovelhas de um único curral, o maior que foi construido da nossa cor.

Simples, não é?

O jogo tenta introduzir mecânicas interessantes e originais, mas, a meu ver, falha redondamente na execução dessas mecânicas. Eis a análise.

O jogo, mais que no Carcassonne, é abstracto. Muito abstracto. São ovelhas que estamos a jogar mas podia ser tão facilmente pizzas de cor amarela e preta. Ou seja, é um jogo bem abstracto em que o tema está mesmo colado. Portanto não procurem este jogo pensando que tem um tema forte.

Falemos de estratégia e táctica. Este jogo, ainda mais que no Carcassonne, é extremamente táctico. Enquanto que no Carcassonne tudo pode dar origem a pontuação, aqui o objectivo é construir vários currais de ovelhas da nossa cor. O grande mal é que só o curral com maior número de ovelhas é que conta no fim. Isto torna o jogo tão táctico que o jogo torna-se quase cem por cento táctica. O objectivo de construir o maior curral possivel limita-nos muito, pois a partir do momento em que um curral é fechado pouco mais podemos fazer a não ser tentar construir um novo curral, e enquanto o curral estiver aberto os jogadores simplesmente tentam expandi-lo o mais possivel, muitas vezes esquecendo-se de outros currais da mesma cor. Ou seja, neste jogo os jogadores estão a tentar consolidar a sua posição o máximo possivel e a maneira como isso é feito torna o jogo muito táctico. Para mim esta é uma grande falha, pois limita em muito o factor de estratégia que este jogo poderia ter. Existe alguma pouca estratégia, nomeadamente em saber quando se deve desistir para ganhar pontos de bónus, mas este jogo é puramente táctico. De facto, é dos jogos mais tácticos que tenho na coleção, suplatando até mesmo o Dos Rios.

O factor sorte está presente na forma de sacar tiles aleatóriamente, o que torna o jogo menos previsivel, o que é bom. De resto o facotr sorte é elevado, mas tem que ser dessa forma pois de outra maneira o jogo tornava-se aborrecido.

A interação entre jogadores é de forma directa e activa. Os jogadores podem colocar tiles que modifiquem os currais de outros jogadores, ou seja, quem jogou Carcassonne sabe o que lhe está à espera. A interação é do mesmo género, embora com maior impacto pois só conta o maior curral de ovelhas no fim e os jogadores podem encurtar o tamanho dum curral drásticamente durante o jogo.

Quanto ao peso, diria que o jogo é Middleweight Light. Não é um jogo leve na definição absoluta, pois obriga um jogador a pensar um pouco, mas não é um jogo pesado, nem de longe. Joga-se em vinte minutos e não nos obriga a pensar muito, mas obriga-nos a pensar um pouco.

E infelizmente isso traz-me a um conceito interessante na prática mas que na realidade está mal executado. O factor de analysis paralysis neste jogo é gigantesco para o jogo que é. Porquê? Por duas razões. Primeiro, os tiles têm duas faces diferentes, o que obriga o jogador a estudar ambas as faces. Segundo, quando se coloca um tile saca-se um número de tiles igual ao número de tiles que estejam ligados ortogonalmente ao tile acabado de colocar. Como não há limite de tiles que se pode ter na mão, pelo menos não vi nenhuma regra desse género, isto origina a que os jogadores fiquem muito tempo a olhar para a sua mão de tiles e a estudar as possibilidades de jogo. Como durante o jogo um jogador acaba por ter muitas tiles na mão, isto origina analysis paralysis duma maneira que acaba por prejudicar o boardgame e torna o jogo mais longo do que deveria ser. Portanto se o vosso grupo é dado a analysis paralysis, este não é o jogo certo para vocês.

Este game é um verdadeiro filler, não esperem nada com muita substância. É um jogo para se jogar entre jogos principais como o Caylus ou o Goa, nem se faz passar como algo mais que um filler.

A longevidade do jogo é outro ponto menos forte. O jogo joga-se bem nas primeiras partidas, mas o replayability do jogo é fraco se o grupo de jogo tratar-se de gamers veteranos. Este jogo funciona muito bem jogado com uma familia em que o objectivo é divertirem-se em familia, mas com gamers este jogo perde a sua graça mais depressa do que devia.

O dinâmismo do jogo é engraçado. Os currais crescem e são fechados, mas a natureza táctica do jogo impede o boardgame de chegar a niveis memoráveis. Este é um jogo com um potencial bom dinâmismo mas que no fim acaba por não se concretizar da melhor maneira. O jogo tem uma dinâmica tipica de tile-laying games, mas que é ainda mais limitada.

No entanto, este é um bom jogo para introduzir a novatos. Este é um jogo que captura a atenção de um novato de uma forma positiva e que deixa uma boa impressão depois de ser jogado. Isso é uma boa caracteristica.

O visual do jogo é muito aborrecido. No fim do jogo, o tabuleiro fica cheio de ovelhas de quatro cores, mas sem grande variedade em termos visuais.

As mecânicas do jogo são, como já disse, interessantes mas pecam na sua execução, o que é uma pena. Os pontos fracos do jogo acabam por aparecer em consequência dos pontos fortes teóricos, ou seja, nas regras. Ter demasiados tiles na mão e só o maior curral contar para a pontuação são dois aspectos que acabam por limitar o jogo. Outro aspecto é a mecânica do lobo. Existem florestas neste jogo, e se um jogador tiver um tile de um lobo na mão, poderá jogá-lo a qualquer altura, mesmo fora do seu turno, adjacente à floresta. A consequência é que o lobo anula todas os currais adjacentes à floresta. Esta mecãnica é muito interessante e divertida se não fosse pelo caçador. O caçador anula um lobo permanentemente e não há maneira de anular o caçador, o que torna o caçador demasiado poderoso. O que poderia ter sido uma mecânica divertida acaba por se tornar aborrecida. Um lobo acaba por não ser uma ameaça grande.

Eis a minha análise. O que acho do jogo? Um jogo com muito potencial desperdiçado.

No entanto, o jogo não é mau, de maneira nenhuma, mas também não é bom. É simplesmente mediano. É um jogo com regras simples que se joga em pouco tempo mas que no fim não é memorável. É um jogo que se joga bem entre jogos principais mas que no fim acaba por não ter staying power sobre grupos de gamers.

O jogo tem o seu charme e é especialmente indicado para novatos, mas pessoalmente acabei por achar o jogo mais chato do que o jogo prometia ser, e é uma pena.

Ao preço que é vendido é uma boa compra, mas não esperem ser entretidos muitas vezes pelo jogo antes dele perder seu apelo perante os jogadores.

Seja como for, não é um mau jogo, e recomendo o jogo para quem gostou do Carcassonne e quer um jogo com mecânicas mais ou menos idênticas, ou para gamers que procurem um filler que dê para puxar um bocadinho pela mente.

Como é produzido para Portugal, eu digo para apoiarem a empresa que publica e comprar o jogo, nem que seja para vermos mais jogos em edição Portuguesa que, esperemos, sejam melhores que este.

De resto, é um boardgame mediano, com mecânicas interessantes em teoria que não se concretizam na prática.

12 de 20.

Thread: Sheep Thrills

Neendy — 2007-07-27T02:14:20+00:00

Woolly Bully is a tile game where players try to build the largest flock of sheep, using the tiles to build pens which enclose their flocks. The tiles also allow the players to build forests with wolves and hunters. The game goes from 2-4 players and takes about 30 minutes to play.

Play begins by giving each player a shepherd tile. This tile tells each player which color sheep belongs to them, and it is dealt face down so that the players do not have to tell the others which color belongs to them. The sheep are colored with cute little patterns: pink with hearts, yellow checkered, blue striped, and black zig-zagged. They wind up looking like little easter eggs. They also have endearing facial expressions, although some of them look a bit constipated. But endearingly constipated, nonetheless.

Now the players each draw four tiles from a tile bag, and the beginning tile, which depicts a village, is laid on the table. The tiles are well-made and are printed on both sides, but with different configurations on each side. Although this gives players more options in placing tiles, it also makes it hard to keep track of what you have, and hard to hide what you have from the other players. The starting player plays a tile with a matching edge, if she has one, otherwise play passes to the next player. Each tile has two sides, and the sides depict a variety of edges and sheep in various combinations. Play continues in this fashion, with each player laying matching tiles and trying to build up her particular flock of sheep.

In order to get the biggest flock of sheep, some rules have to be followed. The sheep have to be enclosed, which means that they are encircled by fence or a forest edge. And the forest cannot contain a wolf, or if the forest contains a wolf, it must contain a hunter as well.

Some cards can be played out of turn. The hunter and wolf cards can be played at any time. In addition, at any time, a player may reveal her color by announcing her color and turning over her shepherd tile, which can then be played, followed by another tile of that player’s choice. This player then gets a shepherd marker in her appropriate color which is displayed in front of her.

Players may also decide to stop playing at any time, and they earn points for doing so. The first player to stop earns six points, the second earns three, and the third earns one. Play continues until all tiles are played, or until all players stop playing. At this time, the sheep are counted, and players are given one point for each of the sheep in their largest flock in a fenced, wolf-free field. These points are added to the points earned for stopping play, if any, and the player with the most points wins.

This is a fun filler game, which is easy to learn and easy to play. Children would probably like this game.

Thread: Portuguese review

Soledade — 2007-05-14T11:12:32+00:00

Previamente publicado em http://spielportugal.blogspot.com/

Ora então a primeira novidade. A novidade das novidades. O spielportugal foi contemplado com uma cópia de um jogo produzido especialmente para Portugal. Isso quer dizer, pelo menos, uma coisa - há jogos produzidos para o mercado português. E é um bom hábito, parece-nos a nós. nada como captar novos utilizadores (está na moda a expressão) com coisas feitas em português para Portugal. Mas vamos ao jogo...

Lobo é um jogo de "tira tile põe tile" - à semelhança de Carcassonne, um dos clássicos mais jogados de sempre - com uma produção muito acima da média, pelo menos, em termos de qualidade dos componentes. Os tiles que vêm na caixinha são muito bons, com um desenho muito bonito, embora algo infantil, de resto, como o próprio tema, e com um saquinho escuro de onde se tiram os tiles. Não tem grandes coisas lá dentro mas, o que tem, apresenta-se bem e é competente. Com uma ligeira excepção. Os tiles têm desenhos de ovelhas e pastos e aldeias e florestas e caçadores e, la pièce de résistence (o autor é francês e, portanto, isto serve de homenagem) de lobos que, para além disto tudo, têm duas faces. Ou seja, em termos práticos, a visualização das peças não é, de todo, simplificada. As decisões, não sendo muito difíceis, tornam-se algo "pesadas" devido a esta escolha do melhor tile a colocar em determinada situação, também porque esta visualização não é facilitada. Se, ao invés, cada peça tivesse somente um lado, a decisão era mais simples e facilitava a vida do jogador. Mas, quem sabe, não será este um objectivo do jogo? Para além disto há também a questão do limite de peças que cada jogador tem na mão. este limite não existe. Ou seja, a determinada altura, podemos cerca de 10 peças na mão (vinte faces) e as decisões arrastam um bocado.

Como objectivo o jogo é simples - ganha o jogador que conseguir colocar o maior prado de ovelhas da sua cor, a salvo do lobo mau. A curiosidade/originalidade de Lobo reside, então, em dois factores. O primeiro tem que ver com o facto de, cada jogador, jogar com a cor do seu rebanho, escondida. Ou seja, até ser revelada a cor, opção feita durante o desenrolar da partida, ninguém sabe que cores têm os seus adversários. A segunda, e aqui entra a maior dificuldade, é a altura em que se desiste de colocar tiles. O jogo termina quando, ou todos os tiles tenham sido colocados ou todos os jogadores passem. Passar em primeiro oferece 6 VP's, em segundo, 3VP's e, em terceiro, 1 VP. Não havendo muitas decisões difíceis no decorrer do jogo, esta, a da desistência é, sem sombra de dúvida, a mais complicada. Porque dá um bónus muito importante ao jogador que opta por abandonar em 1º lugar mas com riscos muito elevados. Ou seja, depois de abandonar o jogo, quem o fizer, não pode colocar mais tiles na mesa e, portanto, ficará à mercê dos lobos que possam atacar o seu rebanho sem que, contra isso, possa fazer alguma coisa. Por outro lado, mesmo sendo atacado, os 6 VP's do primeiro e corajoso desistente, podem ser determinantes para a vitória.

No conjunto, Lobo é um jogo divertido, familiar, com uma produção boa, mas com alguns problemas, nomeadamente, em relação à leitura dos tiles. Esta dificuldade de leitura provoca também algum tempo morto que pode prejudicar a fluidez num jogo que, claramente, não pode demorar mais de 30 minutos.

De louvar o facto de ser produzido em português pela Morapiaf que, esperamos, continue a produzir para Portugal mais alguns títulos porque, só desta forma, espalharemos a semente dos jogos de sociedade. A eles fica também, e uma vez mais, o agradecimento de toda a equipa do spielportugal.

Material: 2.5/3 Interacção: 2/3 Mecânica: 1.5/3 Tema: 1.5/3 Estratégia: 2/3 Tempo/Diversão: 2.5/4 Regras: 1/1

Classificação: 13/20

Paulo Soledade

Thread: Who's the bully?

dsmeyer — 2007-02-24T19:00:20+00:00

]]>
A big ice storm, so my family dicided to play games all day.
My oldest chose Wooly Bully for one of her games.
The game starts off good. I have a large farm going. My youngest daughter even helped me out a little.
The girls both have smaller fields but they are safe and working on bigger ones. My wife has a large field that is rivaling mine.
The girls notice that my field is getting rather big and start to work intervention.
First Olivia places a tile that with town on one side which will make it difficult to close. (1)
Then my wife places a tile which will be difficult, but can be closed. There is only one tile that can fit in the spot. Two blue with a pink on the third side. I happen to have it though. (2)
My turn. I play the piece that my wife thought was the knock-out punch.
Madeline's turn. She places a forest tile one tile from Olivia's and says, "You got mom's but there aren't any like that. Which of course is correct. NO tiles have both town and forest, so my huge field is lost.(3 - Knock out)

Bad luck for me, my next largest field is six, but covered by a wolf, then I have to go down to a field with only 4 sheep. Ouch.

My wife wins = 12 sheep
Olivia and Madeline tie for second 10 sheep each.
I finish last = 4 sheep with an unclosed field of 18 sheep.

Sometimes your the wolf, sometimes the lamb.
Dan

Thread: Re: Wooly Bully

AngusBull — 2006-11-29T19:30:42+00:00

You're not alone in this. I recently picked up the game because I thought that my wife would like it being similar to Carc but with a cute theme. She really had a hard time working against the puzzle nature in this game and she doesn't like it at all now, after several plays.

I thought it was OK but it's not likely to remain in my collection long.

Thread: Wooly Bully

Miss Panda — 2006-11-14T01:09:12+00:00

Jim wrangled me into playing Wooly Bully before the Browns game on
Sunday. I should blame Mike and Wendy for leaving their game behind but I'll just suck it up and admit that 1. I lost and 2. I didn't like the game. It started out simple enough (similar to Carcassonne) but as the game progressed it started to get very confusing. The problem was I had to really really concentrate on the pictures of the sheep. I was very busy shepharding my blue sheep into the pen while twisting and turning my pieces (which by the way, I had to hold in my lap). Jim took advantage of my ADD and quickly filled his pen with his cute pink sheep. Before I knew which lamb chop I wanted for dinner, he called stop, so he and his 12 pink sheep won. I can't figure out if this game made me hungry, or kept me awake last night.

Thread: Re: Contents

Purple_FairyQueen — 2006-10-19T20:07:22+00:00

I got Wooly Bully 2 weeks ago played with my 6 yr old nephew and he kicked my ass and that of his mother's we both loved the game. Including his mom. I am glad nothing was missing. He loved it...So I LOVED IT!!!

Thread: Re: Contents

surlyduff — 2006-03-24T19:13:07+00:00

Thanks Ender. I didn't even think to check the images. I mostly wanted to know so I could inform customers about the error when they purchase the game. I haven't played the game yet, but it looks good, even without the bag 8^)

Thread: Re: Contents

EndersGame — 2006-03-24T18:21:08+00:00

See also what I posted previously on this subject here:
http://www.boardgamegeek.com/thread/89240

Thread: Re: Contents

EndersGame — 2006-03-24T18:19:06+00:00

I contacted the publisher with the same question after obtaining the game recently, since I also noticed that my box didn't include "1 Small Cloth Bag" although it was mentioned in the game contents on the back of the box as pictured here:
]]>

I received a very courteous and apologetic response, informing me that this was an error on the box, and that none of the English editions were intended to include a small cloth bag. Of course, it is non-essential for the game, so we need not be too disappointed. Enjoy the game!

Thread: Contents

surlyduff — 2006-03-24T16:38:40+00:00

I opened my game and read the rules, which metion a small cloth bag, which is also listed under contents on the back of the box. I didn't see a small bag included however. Did anyone get one in there English edition?

Thread: Re: Question about when you can claim the bonus points

SentientGolem — 2005-12-15T08:17:05+00:00

EndersGame wrote:
SentientGolem wrote:
EndersGame wrote:
2. At what moment can a player claim the "early stoppage" bonus points? There are several possibilities:

a) Any moment. In this situation, you could place a tile, and say that's the last tile I will play, I hereby stop and claim the +6 bonus. Or for instance when someone plays a tile that closes your biggest field, you could immediately realize there's no point in playing on, and even though it isn't your turn, you could announce that you are out of the game and claim the +6 bonus.
That is correct.
I suppose this would be consistent with the rules about playing hunters/wolves, and your shepherd: they can be done at any moment as well. But couldn't it lead to some chaotic situations? Imagine that player C puts down a tile that closes the door for future expansion for player A and B, what if A and B both decide at the same moment to stop playing? Is it just the person who yells the loudest or the first in such a case? Or are such cases virtually non-existent?

Indeed, I've been in situations where you are watching carrefully what is happening and have to be the quickest to say: "I quit", but honestly, it's very rare.

Thread: Re: Question about when you can claim the bonus points

EndersGame — 2005-12-14T19:26:25+00:00

SentientGolem wrote:
EndersGame wrote:
2. At what moment can a player claim the "early stoppage" bonus points? There are several possibilities:

a) Any moment. In this situation, you could place a tile, and say that's the last tile I will play, I hereby stop and claim the +6 bonus. Or for instance when someone plays a tile that closes your biggest field, you could immediately realize there's no point in playing on, and even though it isn't your turn, you could announce that you are out of the game and claim the +6 bonus.
That is correct.
I suppose this would be consistent with the rules about playing hunters/wolves, and your shepherd: they can be done at any moment as well. But couldn't it lead to some chaotic situations? Imagine that player C puts down a tile that closes the door for future expansion for player A and B, what if A and B both decide at the same moment to stop playing? Is it just the person who yells the loudest or the first in such a case? Or are such cases virtually non-existent?

Thread: Re: What happens when a "wolf" forest & a "hunter" forest join?

EndersGame — 2005-12-14T18:30:22+00:00

I just discovered that the official FAQ also answers my question, when it says:
Q: When one forest contains a hunter, another wolf, and the two are connected by a forest tile (see illustration), what happens?
A: The hunter does not kill the wolf; the wolf thus remains active and cancels all the fields bordering the forest, unless and until a hunter tile is placed on top of him. On the other hand, it is now forbidden to place another wolf in this new large forest, since there is already a hunter in it.
Source: http://www.wooly-bully.net/faq/index.html

Thread: Re: Question about when you can claim the bonus points

SentientGolem — 2005-12-14T11:48:58+00:00

EndersGame wrote:
Each player can choose to stop playing before the end of the game. The first player to stop will have a no-claims bonus of +6 at the end of the game; the second, +3, the third, +1 and the last will receive no bonus (but will be able to finish quietly by playing all the pawns which remain in her hand).

I have two questions about this rule:

1. In a three player game, does the third player still get the +1 bonus point?
Yes.

What about a two player game - does player two still get a +3 bonus?
Yes.

2. At what moment can a player claim the "early stoppage" bonus points? There are several possibilities:

a) Any moment. In this situation, you could place a tile, and say that's the last tile I will play, I hereby stop and claim the +6 bonus. Or for instance when someone plays a tile that closes your biggest field, you could immediately realize there's no point in playing on, and even though it isn't your turn, you could announce that you are out of the game and claim the +6 bonus.
That is correct.

b) During your turn. This seems more logical, because if players can claim bonus points at any moment, it can be rather chaotic. With option (a), you might also get some disagreement about who was first, e.g. if two players announce at the same time that they don't intend to play any further.

But if the bonus can only be claimed during your turn, there are still two options for how this can happen:
i. by claiming the bonus after playing a tile.
ii. by claiming the bonus instead of playing a tile, i.e., when it is your turn you "pass" instead of playing, and thereby claim the +6 bonus.

There is quite a difference between these two possibilities.
For instance, assume that option (b.ii) is the correct way to play. Now imagine a game where the player who plays before you has just completed a field with 12 sheep, and you strongly suspect he will claim the +6 bonus by passing on his next turn. Your largest field is 10 sheep, so instead of playing, you pass and claim the +6 bonus, and the best your opponent can do is get a +3 bonus, so you'll win with a total of 16 to 15.
But if option (b.i) is the correct way to play, your opponent can place a tile to close the field with 12 sheep, and then announce a he is stopping play and claim the +6 bonus. The game will be more interesting if a player can't do this, but needs to wait till his next turn to "pass" and then claim the bonus, because it gives other players an opportunity to stop playing first.

For these reasons, I'm inclined to think that option b.ii. is the most sensible way to play, i.e. a player can only claim the bonus during his turn, by passing instead of playing a tile.

What is the correct way to play this? I'd appreciate any comments/direction!

For more FAQ and rules variants, check www.wooly-bully.net

Thread: Question about when you can claim the bonus points

EndersGame — 2005-12-12T16:22:56+00:00

Each player can choose to stop playing before the end of the game. The first player to stop will have a no-claims bonus of +6 at the end of the game; the second, +3, the third, +1 and the last will receive no bonus (but will be able to finish quietly by playing all the pawns which remain in her hand).

I have two questions about this rule:

1. In a three player game, does the third player still get the +1 bonus point? What about a two player game - does player two still get a +3 bonus?

2. At what moment can a player claim the "early stoppage" bonus points? There are several possibilities:

a) Any moment. In this situation, you could place a tile, and say that's the last tile I will play, I hereby stop and claim the +6 bonus. Or for instance when someone plays a tile that closes your biggest field, you could immediately realize there's no point in playing on, and even though it isn't your turn, you could announce that you are out of the game and claim the +6 bonus.

b) During your turn. This seems more logical, because if players can claim bonus points at any moment, it can be rather chaotic. With option (a), you might also get some disagreement about who was first, e.g. if two players announce at the same time that they don't intend to play any further.

But if the bonus can only be claimed during your turn, there are still two options for how this can happen:
i. by claiming the bonus after playing a tile.
ii. by claiming the bonus instead of playing a tile, i.e., when it is your turn you "pass" instead of playing, and thereby claim the +6 bonus.

There is quite a difference between these two possibilities.
For instance, assume that option (b.ii) is the correct way to play. Now imagine a game where the player who plays before you has just completed a field with 12 sheep, and you strongly suspect he will claim the +6 bonus by passing on his next turn. Your largest field is 10 sheep, so instead of playing, you pass and claim the +6 bonus, and the best your opponent can do is get a +3 bonus, so you'll win with a total of 16 to 15.
But if option (b.i) is the correct way to play, your opponent can place a tile to close the field with 12 sheep, and then announce a he is stopping play and claim the +6 bonus. The game will be more interesting if a player can't do this, but needs to wait till his next turn to "pass" and then claim the bonus, because it gives other players an opportunity to stop playing first.

For these reasons, I'm inclined to think that option b.ii. is the most sensible way to play, i.e. a player can only claim the bonus during his turn, by passing instead of playing a tile.

What is the correct way to play this? I'd appreciate any comments/direction!

Thread: Re: What happens when a "wolf" forest & a "hunter" forest join?

EndersGame — 2005-12-06T13:45:44+00:00

SentientGolem wrote:
You still need to nullify the wolf by playing a new hunter on top of it. But no more wolf can be added to the forest.
Stephan @ Asmodee

Thanks for the reply! So the only thing the already-placed hunter tile does in such a case is prevent more wolves from being added to that forest? That makes sense, and means that the only way a wolf can be "neutralized" is when it is covered up by an actual hunter tile.

Thread: Re: What happens when a "wolf" forest & a "hunter" forest jo

SentientGolem — 2005-12-06T11:46:26+00:00

EndersGame wrote:
Elsewhere some posted this question:
Question: What happens if you have 2 forest, one with a wolf and one with a hunter and the tile placement makes those 2 forest become one?
Does that hunter cancel that wolf? And if there where 2 wolfs?

The game rules state the following, but seem unclear:
"When two or more previously separate forests merge, and one of them has a Wolf Tile and the other a Hunter Tile, the Wolf Tile has to be covered by the Hunter Tile to make the fields on the newly-formed forest's edge safe."

It's not quite clear to me what the rules are saying. Does this mean that at the moment the two forests merge, you actually take the already-placed Hunter Tile and immediately place it on top of the Wolf Tile? Or are the rules saying that you need to get another Hunter Tile and place it on the Wolf Tile in order to cancel the Wolf?

You still need to nullify the wolf by playing a new hunter on top of it. But no more wolf can be added to the forest.

Stephan @ Asmodee

Thread: What happens when a "wolf" forest & a "hunter" forest join?

EndersGame — 2005-12-04T18:17:05+00:00

Elsewhere some posted this question:
Question: What happens if you have 2 forest, one with a wolf and one with a hunter and the tile placement makes those 2 forest become one?
Does that hunter cancel that wolf? And if there where 2 wolfs?

The game rules state the following, but seem unclear:
"When two or more previously separate forests merge, and one of them has a Wolf Tile and the other a Hunter Tile, the Wolf Tile has to be covered by the Hunter Tile to make the fields on the newly-formed forest's edge safe."

It's not quite clear to me what the rules are saying. Does this mean that at the moment the two forests merge, you actually take the already-placed Hunter Tile and immediately place it on top of the Wolf Tile? Or are the rules saying that you need to get another Hunter Tile and place it on the Wolf Tile in order to cancel the Wolf?

Thread: Re: Show your color turn interruption question

SentientGolem — 2005-09-27T07:18:01+00:00

You are right. After revealing color, the game picks up where it left off.

Stephan @ Asmodee

Thread: Show your color turn interruption question

EvilTimmy — 2005-09-27T04:39:43+00:00

The English rules clearly state in the Playing Wolf and/or Hunter Tiles section that after a player has finished the interruption that "the game picks up where it left off." It does not say this for the Show Your True Color section.

Does this mean that showing your true color interrupts the normal turn order/sequence possibly skipping the current and/or other players' turns? That seems unusual.

I presume that it's supposed to work like Wolves/Hunters where the game picks up where it left off after the ? and bonus tiles are placed.

Appreciate any clarification.

Thread: It's called Wooly Bully! - 4 Players

CharlieWonka — 2005-09-21T15:24:37+00:00

....well my version is called Wooly Bully anyway.

I put this in the bag as there was a chance my girlfriend Charli was going to join me playing games tonight. Indeed she did and after playing Diamant she decided that this should be the second game as the group split into 2. David and Jackie joined Charli and I(Mark).

A quick explanation of the rules and it really is quite simple so David and Jackie picked it up easily. They had both been through the country the weekend before travelling back from London so they had a rock, paper, scissors to determine the start player. The order of play ended up like this Jackie, David, Charli, Mark.

The goal was to pen the most sheep in one field of your colour and stop places tiles when you think it is the best you can do or your score is going to be hard to beat.

Everybody played very neatly at first drawing as many tiles as possible to give them more choices. I started with no tiles with my own colour on at all so just played the tiles I had in the best way to draw tiles or to try and cut people off in there initial moves. Shortly into the game and Blue had a large region but was difficult to finish off, Red was building up a slow but very sturdy area that would be difficult to stop. Black was looking strong but anybody could finish the area off with one end bit.

However, Nobody actually did close that area off though as everybody worked on there own colours. I was the first to reveal my colours and had the pieces to close off my pen in two turns and stop places tiles for the six point bonus. The only complete pens were a yellow pen of six and a blue pen of six. My pen would have been 20 strong when complete but how wrong I was. On the next go round the table David placed one of the tiles aiding my penning of sheep but he had edged my pen with forest. seconds later two wolves were gobbling up my sheep played by David and before I could even find a hunter a third wolf had arrived for the overkill and scraps played by my girlfriend Charli. All is fair in love, war and Wooly Bully.

I looked at the tiles I had and there was not much I could do - I drew as many tiles as I could until the bag was empty. Nothing helped. I stopped placing first for 6 bonus points.

Meanwhile Jackie was having trouble finding pieces to enclose her pen after revealing her true colour as blue. She ended up as stuck as me with a largest pen of six. Charli managed to expand her pen a little bit further pushing her luck that David needed to do too much with his own colour to get in her way. She closed off a pen of 22 black sheep and took three bonus points for stopping placing second.

David had found exactly the pieces he needed - he couldn't quite link up a few stray reds in another area to win the game but he had matched the biggest area of penned sheep and took one bonus point.

Good fun game as it always is. Well played all.

Charli - 22 + 3 = 25
David - 22 + 1 = 23
Mark - 6 + 6 = 12
Jackie - 6 + 0 = 6

That finished my night at Churassco's for this week.

Thread: Thursday Zootime

Moviebuffs — 2005-08-19T09:40:56+00:00

We were still with four players, and - thanks to a text message - knew we had a little while until others arrived, and so we went shepherding for a while.

We explained the rules to Susan and began making pastures.

Susan immediately jumped in and expanded the blue field a little, making everyone suspect she was blue!

I placed a tile which halfed helped the blues, but also sneakily (or so I thought) assisted the yellows.

Mark and Sue played on the other side of the town, expanding the pink and black areas, but without making it too clear which was which.

As the game progressed, Susan was building up a pretty large blue field, without caring who knew it or not. This seems to be a pretty good strategy, as other players will happily mess up any colour that is doing well, knowing it isn't theirs, so why stay secret for too long?

Anyhow, blue had a pretty good field going near the town, I (yellow) had a couple of fields on the go, one near the woods and one near the town.

Mark sabotaged the black sheep, making it clear which was which out of him and Sue.

I made my big move and set up my town-based yellow field to finish: I left a three-sided hole which would take my secret tile and give me a huge field which would be simple to complete. I had hunters, and was quite happy.

Unfortunately Mark had other ideas: He placed a tile next to my field, meaning I could only finish the field with a 3 yellow/1 black tile, which I never found (Sue had it!)

I then had to concentrate on my other pasture, which I had already defended with a Hunter.

Susan completed her field (with 14 sheep) and was comfortably ahead, but didn't drop out just yet in case there was some attacking to do.

As the tiles ran out in the bag, I had my new field up to a huge size, but didn't have the one tile that would let me finish it - a yellow sheep next to some trees.

Knowing I was doomed, I started on a new field, knowing it would only get to 4 or 5 at best.

Susan stopped playing, claiming the 6-point bonus.

Mark then realised that he needed to stop second, as Sue had managed to get a slightly larger field together.

Sue then immediately stopped third, taking the last available bonus point and consigning me to an even more embarrasing loss! Maybe I should have stopped first when it all started to go wrong, just to get some points!

Final Scores:

Susan: 14 + 6 = 20
Mark: 12 + 3 = 15
Sue: 14 + 1 = 15
Nick: 2 + 0 = 2

Just for the record, if I had got the tile I needed, my field would have had 21 sheep in it!

A good game, and a comfortable win for Susan

Thread: User Review: Wooly Bully

sorewinner — 2005-07-29T18:28:07+00:00

Wooly Bully

2-4 players
Ages 7+
30 minutes

Wooly Bully is yet another tile laying game. This time the theme is sheep and
the object is to fence in the largest flock you can, while at the same time closing off your opponents' fences before they get too big. Meanwhile there's the wolf to watch out for.

The game components consist of double side tiles, a lot of them. They are all very nicely made. Very thick cardboard, cute artwork, and a glossy finish. The tiles depict sheep separated by fence sections, woods, or city areas. The game comes with cloth bags to put them in too, which makes it very handy to draw tile during play.

To play the game, the players first draw a tile depicting a sheep color, either black, red, yellow, or blue. I know what you're thinking. Blue and yellow sheep? It's worse. They are decorated like Easter eggs. But nevermind that, it makes them look cute. Players keep secret which color they are playing, but it doesn't take long to figure out who is what color. The starting tile is the town well and it's placed on the table. Players each draw 4 tiles. They also have a secret tile containing 4 sheep of their color. The first player places a tile from his hand that connects to the starting tile. Tiles line up much like in Carcassonne, the edges have to match. After the tile is placed, the player draws a tile for every side he connected. So, if a player lays a tile that lines up 3 of its sides with other tiles, he'll draw 3 new tiles. As you can imagine, it doesn't take long until each player has many tiles in their hand. And with the tiles being double sided, the players often have many options. This is good for playing, but slows the game down while players shuffle through their tiles. And you thought Carcassonne was slow. There are also a couple wolf and hunter tiles. If a sheep flock is bordered by a woods and a wolf tile is adjacent to those woods, that flock doesn't score at the game end. A hunter tile however will negate a wolf.

On a players turn he can declare his color, play his secret tile with 4 sheep, and play again. Usually it's no surprise and playing it only lets the flock get bigger. The game ends when all the tiles have been placed or when all players have passed. The first 3 players to voluntarily pass (not play any more tiles) get bonus points added to his flock total. When the game is over the player with the largest flock wins.

This game plays so-so. It's simple, light, and pretty much mindless. I've tried playing a house rule where ALL completed flocks are counted, and the player with the most total fenced in sheep wins. This keeps the suspense till the final round. Otherwise, one shepherd usually has a monster flock and everyone knows they can't beat it. The wolves and hunters usually don't make much difference since having a woods connected to your flock doesn't always happen.

All in all, it's a nice little game, but it's no award winner. I usually play it with kids because I find it too simple for an adult game. On that note, buy it for your kids, they'll love it.

Thread: Saturdays in Stoke

Moviebuffs — 2005-07-25T11:18:26+00:00

Next, Mark introduced us to a couple of games he'd brought along for the afternoon: This was the first.

Players: Sue, Nick, Mark

Another 'hidden colour' game, although in this one it's much more likely you'll reveal who you are by the game's end.

My first impressions of this game are quite positive. I liked the idea of the game, and the added factor of having double-sided tiles - although it makes sifting through your tiles to decide which to play a bit of a nuisance - makes for some interesting play options.

At one point late in the game, I messed up my own plan by not realising that the two tiles I was going to play were on the back of each other!

The first pen to be completed was of 10 blue sheep, but as it was bordered by a forest, I added a wolf to it to stop it counting (and revealing that I wasn't blue!).

Mark then added his secret tile to another blue pen, making a total of 12 sheep penned in.

I'd managed to get 8 yellow sheep into a pen, but as Mark was right behind me, if I stopped at 8 (plus 6), he could immediately stop at 12 (plus 3) and win by a point.

Meanwhile, both pink and black sheep were looking quite well placed, but Mark was happily playing to mess up the other colours and managed to restrict us pretty successfully.

Even as Sue and I both played our secret tiles, Mark was there to close them down and make them worthless.

I managed to get two different pens with 8 sheep in, and when it became obvious that I couldn't expand it any more, I stopped and took the 6 point bonus.

Mark then immedaitely stopped for three extra points, and Sue was left with no choice but to claim the single point.

Final scores:

Mark - 15 (12 plus 3)
Nick - 14 (8 plus 6)
Sue - 7 (6 plus 1)

Thread: Re: Placing additional wolves?

LoneCleric — 2005-07-02T04:49:12+00:00

As soon as the forests connect, you cannot add new wolves to it, but the existing, visible wolves are still in effect.

Thread: Re: Placing additional wolves?

martin47 — 2005-07-01T14:11:47+00:00

Greetings!

Question: What happens if you hace 2 forest, one with a wolf and one with a hunter and the tile placement makes those 2 forest become one?

Does that hunter cancel that wolf? And if there where 2 wolfs?

Greetings!

Thread: Re: SR: Wooly Bully

markkolenski — 2005-06-15T15:47:41+00:00

jbluestein wrote:

When the smoke cleared, the final scores were as follows:

Mike: No pastures plus a 3 point bonus: 3 points
Mark: An eight-sheep pasture plus a 1 point bonus: 9 points
Josh: A four-sheep pasture plus a 6 point bonus: 10 points

Definitely the lowest winning score I have ever seen in this game,
even a multiplayer version.

Josh knows how good I am at this game (NOT), but in one of my few wins online my score was 8 at the most (it might even have been 6). It was clear (even to me) that no one was going to build a decent size pen, so I
went for the 6 pt bonus.

It was a multiplayer game with I believe 3 players.

FYI, I am NOT the Mark in the above SR!

Thread: SR: Wooly Bully

jbluestein — 2005-06-14T19:04:19+00:00

Mark and Mike were first to arrive, and once I finished putting my son
to bed, we sat down for a quick game of Wooly Bully. As you may
remember, this is a tile-laying game where the goal is to create the
largest enclosure of your color of sheep. This is complicated by the
fact that there are forests which can have wolves placed in them
which, if next to your pasture, make it worthless. There are also
bonus points for quitting early -- the first person to drop out of the
game scores six bonus points, the second scores three, the third scores
one (this is important, as it turns out).

Our particular game involved some of the worst, most drunken
sheepherding you can imagine. Mark kept creating huge pastures of
sheep but not being able to close them, or putting them next to
Dangerous Forests...Mike didn't do much better with his sheep, and I
never really got any tiles that would allow me to expand a pasture in
my color. My one saving grace was that I realized early that there
was nothing I could do to improve my position and dropped out, scoring
my six point bonus. Mike and Mark battled for a while longer, with
Mike dropping second and Mark not really managing much more luck
either.

When the smoke cleared, the final scores were as follows:

Mike: No pastures plus a 3 point bonus: 3 points
Mark: An eight-sheep pasture plus a 1 point bonus: 9 points
Josh: A four-sheep pasture plus a 6 point bonus: 10 points

Definitely the lowest winning score I have ever seen in this game,
even a multiplayer version. As always, it was pretty fun, pretty
random, even with Chris whining about being bored because he had to
wait 10 minutes to join in on a game once he finally showed up.

Thread: Re:User Review

Milarky — 2005-04-25T23:50:48+00:00

arcane1800 (#76221),
totaly agree

laying the tiles seemed like hard work because of the duel sidedness

aside from the sheep its not much going for it. bette title games out there

Thread: Re:Placing additional wolves?

SentientGolem — 2005-04-14T01:57:21+00:00

Tim Synge (#473483),

No wolf can be placed in a forest where there is already a hunter. So the answer is no.

Stephan @ Asmodee