Game: Legend of Landlock, The

Thread: Cooperative Variant

chris1nd — 2008-06-16T13:37:59+00:00

My five-year old and I came up with this variant last night.

2 to 4 players play cooperatively. The goal is build a board 1 piece at a time while forming as many Islands (1 pt each), Ponds (1 pt. each) and facing gnomes (1 pt.) as possible. The catch is that a gnome must be able to walk a continuous path from one end of the board to another and swim from one end to another.

So each player draws and places a tile with as much discussion as desired. If a gnome can both walk and swim from one end (either left-right or top-bottom) the group wins. They then total points and see how well they did compared to other plays.

Kind of group puzzpe building.

Thread: Re: Island and pond question

dagny21 — 2008-06-02T04:11:42+00:00

The rules do show the island as being surrounded by stream and the pond surrounded by path.

However, the rules ALSO state that one of the purposes of the tussocks is to help you create islands or ponds.

Therefor, you don't HAVE to surround your islands with path or vice versa.

Thread: Re: "A Tussock! What's a Tussock?"

ralpheous — 2008-06-01T12:08:22+00:00

When I worked at a game store I thought the age recommendation on this one was out of whack. After all, Carcassonne says 8+ and Landlock is nowhere near as complex as Carc. I think as long as there's an adult to read the rules for the kids, it should be considered a 5+ game. I mean CHESS is a 6+ game for crying out loud!
But I agree with your review, and it makes a good gateway game for the little ones, especially if Carc is a favourite with the older family members.

Thread: "A Tussock! What's a Tussock?"

dagny21 — 2008-06-01T01:39:06+00:00

"A tussock! What on earth is a tussock?" was my 7-year-olds' first question when I started showing him the tiles of this new game and explaining them to him. I'm ashamed to say I had to get out the dictionary, but then I was able to tell him that a "tussock" is a tuft or clump of grass.

Tussocks are one of the more charming features of a very charming game.

We love games at our house. For a long time, I've been hearing good things about this game. So, when the book and toy store where I work got this game in stock I snapped it up right away.

What You Get
~40 tiles (17 stream, 17 land path, 3 bridges, 3 tussocks)
~rule booklet
~scoring pad
~pencil

How To Play

Set Up
This game is for 2 players or teams. Start by mixing all of the tiles and putting them in a loose pile, or a few draw stacks. To determine who goes first, each player takes turns flipping over tiles until one of them turns up a gnome. That player gets to choose to play as either land or stream, and has the privilege of going first. At this point, all tiles are again mixed into a loose pile or a few draw stacks.

Play
Play is exceedingly simple. On his turn, a player simply draws a tile and places it. Except for the first turn of course, the tile must be lined up squarely against another tile. All surfaces must match. Meaning, water must line up with water, etcetera. As you are building, the Landlock map can be built in any direction, but it can only be 6 squares high by 6 squares wide. In the end, you will have a map that takes up 36 tiles, with 4 tiles left over. When the map is complete, it's time to score.

Scoring
The main goal while you're building your map is to make a continuous path (land or stream) that connects all 4 sides of the map. If you manage this, you get 10 points. If you connect only 3 sides you receive 7 points, and 2 sides earns you 5.

Another way to score is by making ponds (if you are the land player) or islands (if you are the stream player). For every pond or stream still on the board at the end of the map, the appropriate player receives 4 points. Ponds are made by placing four tiles in a square, where each tile has one corner of water. Islands are made in the same fashion, but with land corners instead. Scoring on islands and ponds is not done until the end, as there are bridge tiles that can be used to turn ponds into streams and connect islands to another path.

If a player turns up a tussock tile during the game, he immediately receives 1 point which should be written on the scoring pad immediately (all other scoring is done at the end).

The final way to score is with roaming gnomes. There are stream gnomes and path gnomes. Stream gnomes belong to the stream player and path gnomes belong to the land player. Gnomes are worth nothing without their matching friends. When you place a gnome tile, if it's your gnome you want to place it in such a way that it is facing another gnome. Either on side by side tiles, or tiles that are connected by corners. Gnomes are always at the corner of a given tile. If your tile contains a gnome that belongs to your opponent, you should try to place him in such a way that your opponent will not be able to match him up with another gnome. For every gnome you have facing another gnome at the end of the game, you receive 1 point.

Bridges
The game is played simply by taking turns drawing and placing tiles, except in the case of using bridges. When you turn a bridge tile over, you must find a tile on the board to remove and replace with the bridge. You cannot remove edge tiles, tussocks, or separate facing roaming gnomes. The major purpose of the bridge is to help you connect paths/streams, or to mess up an island or pond your opponent has created. Once the bridge has been placed, hand the removed tile to your opponent. They must now place this tile rather than drawing a new one.

Age Range?
Kids love this game, and the game play is very simple, with no reading required. An adult should be on hand to read and explain the rules, and help children initially figure out the various strategies. Also, an adult may need to help make sure that the map doesn't extend beyond a 6 x 6 square. Once explained and played through once, most children over the age of 6 should be able to play and enjoy this game. The box says 8 and up, but my 7 year old does just fine with this one. And, as an adult I enjoy it. So, I would place the age range at 6 to 106?

What We Like

The artwork of this game is attractive and engaging. The gnomes and all other creatures are cute and happy. The colors are lovely. Visually, this game is a real joy to play.

The simplicity of the game play is much appreciated. Draw a tile, play a tile. Keep going until you have a 6 x 6 square.

There is a surprising amount of strategy in this simple game. There are lots of different things to think about here, but not so much that players will spend inordinate amounts of time coming up with their next move.

It's Quick. This game is very quick to play. With only 36 tiles to play, there's only so long the game can last. It takes us about 20 minutes from start to finish.

Great for different ages/abilities playing together. I just hate playing a game with my kid where I have to do poorly on purpose in order for him to ever win. This is not such a game. Because there is significant luck involved, and because the strategy is interesting yet still understandable for young people, an adult can do their best and still not count on winning.

What We Don't Like

Tiles are thinner than expected. The tiles in this game are certainly of an acceptable thickness. However, another tile laying game I have from Gamewright is Castle Keep. That game has really thick, very high quality tiles, so I expected these tiles to be of the same quality. But they are not. My copy of that game is older than this one, though, so maybe the quality has changed with time? Either way, it's a small disappointment.

A little too much luck is involved in this game. This is draw a tile, play a tile, so much depends on the luck of the draw. I would like to have a few more choices. But, there are house rules you could employ to fix this I suppose. Down the road, we just might.

Teams my %$#!
It is a pet peeve of mine, the way some games try to make you think they can or should be played by a wider range of players. This is a two player game, and only a two player game. You could conceivably play it in two teams, but it would be pretty dumb that way. There's just not enough thinking required to play in teams. So, count on this being a 2 player game only, not a 2 or 4 player game.

Final Thoughts
This is a good, fun, and relatively quick game to play for kids and adults. It's an especially good game for adults to play with children. Play is simple, but strategy complex enough to be interesting. And, there are no complaints about artwork here. Definitely an all around good buy.

Thread: Re: Too much complexity, too much luck

Paul65 — 2008-05-26T03:21:47+00:00

In relation to luck, maybe each player could draw three tiles at the start. Once their tile is played, the player draws another tile to return their hand to three. This gives each player 3 possible play options rather than just being stuck with the one they picked.

This is based on a Carcassonne variant, although I know that there isn't the same number of different tiles available in LandLock as there is in Carcassonne. As far as I'm aware, there is only 4 (path, stream, tussock & bridge). This means that there will be a number of times when the three tiles that a player holds will be the same. A possible way of addressing this is as follows,

1. Declare that you have "three of a kind" & show your opponent.
2. Put your tiles aside face down.
3. Either a) draw a new tile which must be played or b) miss a turn.
4. Draw 3 new tiles.
5. Add your discarded tiles to the unplayed tiles.

Another thought is that,

1. At any time a player may declare that they have three of a kind without revealing their tiles.
2. The tiles are put aside face down.
3i) if the opponent doesn't call for proof, the player draws a tile which must be played.
ii) if the opponent calls for proof & there are 3 of a kind, the opponent misses a turn.
iii) if the opponent calls for proof & there isn't 3 of a kind, the player misses 2 turns.
Steps 4-5 above are then performed.

Thread: Re: Question :: What about combining two games and having 8x8 grid

Paul65 — 2008-05-26T03:08:03+00:00

David,

Did you ever get around to combining two sets?
If so, how did it go?

Image

Wake — 2008-02-05T00:40:33+00:00

A couple of interesting islands in this game against my son. Water beats Land 20 points to 12.

Thread: Re: Landlock: A Good, Quick 2 Player Game

EndersGame — 2007-07-11T13:33:35+00:00

jollypirate wrote:
RULES PROBLEMS
Though the game is quite simple, there are a couple issues that could have been cleared up by better wording or more comprehensive examples. For instance, a bridge cannot be played on an edge, but it doesn't specify whether it means the final edge (once the board has gone 6 tiles either horizontal or vertical) or a working edge (one that might not be a final edge). I would tend to say that even a working edge would be forbidden, but then a bridge drawn early in the game couldn't be played, an instance for which the rules make no provision.
The rules certainly aren't clear on this point since they just say about bridges: "Players can't ... take a tile from the edge of the game board." This has been discussed in another thread, with no clear consensus on whether it means working edge or final edge:
http://www.boardgamegeek.com/thread/93392

jollypirate wrote:
Also the rules state "Paths and streams that end diagonally in one of the four corner tiles may only be used to count towards one side." But since ALL roads and streams run diagonally on the tiles, we've wondered if it just meas a R/S that dead ends directly in the corner (so just one end of the R/S touches two sides because of its width) or also if it runs diagonally in the other direction, essentially making a one-tile lone connector between two sides (because of the shifting gameboard edge, it is hard to get those corners definatively, so it isn't as cut and dried a call as it at first may seem).
I'd suggest it's obvious that the rules are speaking about roads/streams that dead end directly into the corner. A one-tile lone connector between two sides usually won't score points anyway. At least, I can't think of an instance where a player would rely on it for point-scoring!

For example, in the picture below, there is a large stream connecting the south and east side of the board, scoring points for connecting two sides, so the one-tile lone connector in the south-west corner won't score additional points, because it doesn't change the fact that the large stream connects only two sides and not three. The road in the north-east corner, however, theoretically could be used to connect either to the north or the east side, but not both (although in this instance there are roads connecting these two sides already anyway).
]]>

Thread: Re: Don't be fooled into thinking this is just a game for kids

EndersGame — 2007-07-11T13:02:49+00:00

wrkeech wrote:
Do not let the childish theme of Landlock lull you into thinking that this is just a children's game. While the rules are simple enough for an 8 year old to master, the strategy that comes into play will keep any adult on his or her toes. ... Kids will love it for the theme while adults will find its tactical aspects fulfilling.
The Legend of Landlock is great for young children, but to say its tactical aspects will be fulfilling for adults is an overstatement. For a differing viewpoint, see William Shubert's review here:
http://www.boardgamegeek.com/thread/163120
wmshub wrote:
With two players who understand the rules, I think that this game all comes down to drawing the right tiles at the right time. ... It has too little strategy, too much luck and chaos, to be entertaining for older kids or adults.

Thread: Don't be fooled into thinking this is just a game for kids

wrkeech — 2007-07-11T01:41:04+00:00

Do not let the childish theme of Landlock lull you into thinking that this is just a children's game. While the rules are simple enough for an 8 year old to master, the strategy that comes into play will keep any adult on his or her toes.

By placing one tile per turn you score various amounts of points by doing such things as, land locking or water locking your opponent, matching up gnomes, placing creatures and running a continuous path (either land or water) to each of the four sides. Sounds simple enough and it would be, if they hadn’t added a few bridges into the draw pile.

The game is made up of tiles that are placed during the course of a game to form a 6 by 6 grid. Every tile will have portions of two paths, a land path and a waterway. In addition to this, there may also be a happy little creature, a gnome or a bridge. The creatures will garner you a few extra points as soon as there placed, the gnomes as well (if they are facing each other) while the bridge will either play havoc with your strategy or give you a needed break.

Game play is fast, you can play an entire game in less than 15 minutes. The components are sturdy and colorful. The artwork is cute and vibrant.

As I said earlier, younger kids can master the rules pretty quickly. The strategy of playing the tiles will come a little bit slower. The tactical aspect of the game will really shine when bridges and gnomes start appearing. You see, bridges not only break up boundaries by replacing an already played tile, they also let you move the tile you just replaced. This opens up a whole new part of the game, where one shift on the board can send the most well placed strategy back to the drawing board. There is also the often overlooked ability to set the parameters of the end game scoring with a strategic placement of the 6th tile horizontally and vertically. This in and of itself can give a player a nice advantage if done early in the game. I won't go into too much detail here, but it's there, just look for it.

Overall, this is a good, light, 2 player game that can be picked up quite easily. Kids will love it for the theme while adults will find its tactical aspects fulfilling.

Thread: Re: Too much complexity, too much luck

NateStraight — 2007-04-25T18:01:37+00:00

wmshub wrote:
In any case, thanks for your comment. I know that a lot of people do have fun playing this game with their kids, so it's nice to see some of those views to balance my pretty negative review.

Forget kids, I enjoy playing the game with my fiancee.

Thread: Re: Too much complexity, too much luck

wmshub — 2007-04-25T17:25:05+00:00

PaleHorseRider wrote:
...I started out just getting the kids to lay the tiles into the 6x6 grid, no scoring. Then add the scoring, then add in the bridge rules...Both kids prefer Carcassonne (and so do I).You're probably right, I could probably teach my 4+1/2 year old to play by putting some effort into it. But why bother? A game that is easily picked up can be OK just to play once or twice for something different. But a game that takes effort to learn is only worthwhile if it's a pretty good game in the end. Carcassonne is both easier to teach and a better game once your kids have learned it.

In any case, thanks for your comment. I know that a lot of people do have fun playing this game with their kids, so it's nice to see some of those views to balance my pretty negative review.

Thread: Re: Too much complexity, too much luck

PaleHorseRider — 2007-04-25T17:10:43+00:00

I have to agree on the luck part of the game, I tend to refer to this game as LandLuck. I also bought it for play with my younger kids but I would disagree that its too complicated. I started out just getting the kids to lay the tiles into the 6x6 grid, no scoring. Then add the scoring, then add in the bridge rules. I do agree that the game is more cute than substance but I think its a good gateway game for the youngest ones and not at all complicated. My oldest son was 5 when I got it and my youngest 3. It was probably a year or so before the youngest actually played a real game, the oldest picked it right up. Both kids prefer Carcassonne (and so do I).

I have this game on my Geeklist of games to play with kids.
http://www.boardgamegeek.com/geeklist/2202

Thread: Re: Too much complexity, too much luck

smattathias — 2007-04-25T04:45:05+00:00

I agree that randomness runs high in this game, but I actually think it's quite entertaining.

I feel like the Legend of Landlock has a push-your-luck type strategy to it. Since there are just a handful of different tiles, you can risk leaving one problem untended to create a problem in a different part of the board as a kind of gambit. The 6x6 restriction works in conjunction with the various little gambles a player can make. How many turns will the wrong tiles be showing for your opponent? What progress can you make?

It sounds like you like strategy, and you won't find much depth in this game. But if you had to take it out in the future, you might try stacking the tiles a bit like card solitaire (a stack of one, then two, then three, then four, etc.). Because stacks run out, there is a bit more strategy in the choosing of stacks.

Thread: Too much complexity, too much luck

wmshub — 2007-04-24T20:09:12+00:00

First a caveat: This review is based on plays with my 4+1/2 year old daughter. She is below the recommended ages for this game, so my negative bias in the review may be partially due to that, although I think I would dislike the game even if she were older (why will follow).

I picked up Landlock a year ago because it was cute, and for kids, so therefore it may be fun for my daughter (then 3+1/2). I played a test run with my wife when we first got it, and decided to wait. A few months ago, when my daughter was 4+1/2, I finally showed it to her. We have now played 3 or 4 games, and I dread the time she asks for it again. Luckily that might not happen - she doesn't like the game either.

Rules Quick Summary

Landlock is a tile laying game. One player is "land" the other "water." Each tile has land in two diagonally opposite corners, and water in the other two corners. The center may be water (connecting the appropriate corners), land (ditto), a bridge over water (which connects all four corners), or a tussock (grass which connects no corners). In addition some tiles have gnomes, either on land or water, in corners.

You draw a tile. You play it. At the end of the game, you score based on the confirugations of the land and water.

Complexity

Landlock has some tricky rules that make it unsuitable for younger kids:

* The board must always fit within a 6x6 square. It is easy when building to "accidentally" place a tile that makes the board 7 squares on a side. When my daughter does this, me telling her that it makes the square too long seems arbitrary and irritating to her (and to me too).

* When you draw a bridge, instead of playing it normally, you replace a tile on the board with the bridge, and hand the replaced tile to your opponent to place again. There are a bunch of rules about when you can't replace a tile; ie, if gnomes are on the tile that match up, or if the replaced tile is part of an island or pool (bits of land or water totally surrounded by the other), if the tile is on the edge of the board, whetever. Again, these rules feels abitrary and irritating in play.

* In scoring, you get points for how many sides your watercourses or land paths touch. This is easy for me to visualize, but hard for a 4 year old.

So, to sum it up, this is too complex for a 4 year old. In a few years will it be a good game then? I doubt it, and here's why:

Luck

With two players who understand the rules, I think that this game all comes down to drawing the right tiles at the right time. Essentially, for the "land" player, the water-to-water connection tiles are useless, for the "water" player, the land-to-land connection tiles are useless. When you draw a "useful" tile, you have three obvious things to do with it: form a pool/island, quash your opponent's attempt to do the same, or try to extend your paths/streams to connect more sides of the board. Which one helps you the most is usually obvious.

Since most of the tiles are used in a game, if you draw "useless" tiles your opponent will probably draw about the same number, but often it is about timing - if I draw a land tile just when I'm trying to finish a pool, poof! 4 points! But if my opponent draws a water tile first and destroys the pool, my land tile can only try to start another pool.

Furthermore, the "special tiles" of bridges and tussocks (and to a degree gnomes) are very powerful. There are only a few of each, so often one player will draw more than the other, giving them a strong advantage.

Summary

The game is too complex for younger children to play. It has too little strategy, too much luck and chaos, to be entertaining for older kids or adults. Overall I'd compare it to Carcassone, another light tile-laying game. Carcassonne is actually easier to play (especially if you leave out farmers), but yet has more strategic possibilities (even with the farmers missing). So where does that leave Landlock? If you just want cute, buy it. But if you want a good game, look elsewhere.

Image

dsmeyer — 2007-03-10T22:04:21+00:00

Losts of space without insert

Image

dsmeyer — 2007-03-10T22:03:54+00:00

Interior contents

Thread: Snow Bound? Play Landlock.

dsmeyer — 2007-03-03T08:41:14+00:00

Well, we have our second snow storm in a week and this one closes the town down for two days. What can we do? Play games.

Landlock is a game I haven't played in a while, mostly because the girls call it a two player game and I am not one of the two. Today we played it with two teams of two. Parents against the girls. The girls both like the river, so being on a team works out great for them.

Game one:
Start pulling pieces and Olivia grabs a Tussock early to get the first bonus point. Shan and I line up a couple of gnomes for some points of our won, but Madeline Followed by Olivia each pull a getting more bonus poitns for them. Shan and I line up some more gnomes, but so do the girls. I make a move, thinking that I have perhaps cut them off from one edge; however, Madelein pulls a bridge and finds a way throguh. Both temas gets to all the edges, but the girls win with bonus points.

Game two:
The rents get a bit more agressive and Olvia is not as lucky pullign out the Tussocks, Shan gets one, but Madeline gets two. Neither team is able to line up the gnomes this time, so no bonus points there. Shan and I are able to expand one direction with our road and cut the girls off leaving them touching only three sides. The islands lake count falls our way too and the are able to win.

Final score: Parents 1, kids 1. Fun for all.
Dsmeyer

Image

lastalchemist — 2007-01-20T01:29:46+00:00

Back cover

Thread: The Legend of Landlock - A Light Review

Neil Thomson — 2007-01-03T07:39:23+00:00

All of my reviews aim to offer a brief overview that allows people to get a good feel for what the game may offer them. I feel that other reviews can be sought if detailed game mechanics is what you are after.

As this is a game based on educational principles I am also able to draw on my experience as a primary school teacher (Australia) when reviewing them. I hope you find this insight useful.

If you are reading this review then there is every chance that Landlock was one of the first games that caught your eye on the store shelf. Like most Gamewright titles, Landlock is a colourful and vibrant game that sets a tone and grabs the imagination, taking children to a faraway place as they get immersed in the action.

Two players or teams are set the task of creating the land of Landlock by placing tiles (there are 40 in all) that connect to one another. One player or side takes the role of water within Landlock and the other the role of land. With each tile that is laid, the players are not only creating the land of Landlock, they must also try to make a continuous stretch of road (or river) that connects as many of the 4 sides of the game board as possible.

The varying levels of success earn players points at games end (5, 7 or 10), which comes about when the players have completed a square of tiles 6 x 6. Each tile that is drawn from the facedown piles will have some amount of water and land on it, and most tiles are usually dominant in one or the other. So it is possible for a player to draw a tile that is either advantageous to them or their opponent. In the case of the later they must then decide where to place the tile so it does as little damage to their cause as possible.

Strategic complexity is then added to the game through the use of other scoring means. If a player can completely surround their opponent’s terrain with their own (create a small island by surrounding land with water, or create a small pond by surrounding it with land) then they earn four points. Some tiles also include land or water gnomes. If players can place these in such a way that two or more gnomes are adjacent to each other, then further points are scored.

Finally the game also has three bridge tiles that when drawn can replace any other tile on the board which is then removed from the game. This can aid a player in linking their streams or roads to other board edges, remove a player’s gnome or even break-up their well-connected stream or road system.

Landlock plays very much like a junior version of Carcassonne (see the review) and would be a great way to develop children’s thinking and strategic comprehension with a view to moving them onto games like Carcassonne at a later date.

The Final Word

Landlock is a great little game that can be played on a number of levels. Younger children just love the thrill of turning over tiles to discover the gnomes and other creatures and they enjoy creating the land. Older children get fully involved in the scoring aspect of the game and can begin to grasp some of the strategies that the game fosters.

From an educational viewpoint it is a valuable resource in the promotion of visualspatial recognition and strategic thinking. Simple rotations of a given tile can bring about major changes to the board and make players re-think their strategic direction. But the final word comes down to a three letter word – Fun. Landlock offers it in spades and for this reason you should be warned that your children will nag you to death to play with them!

Image

beezwax — 2006-11-20T05:46:43+00:00

Image

beezwax — 2006-11-20T05:43:52+00:00

Thread: Re: Bridges can't replace tiles on the edge?

zx80 — 2006-09-23T14:03:57+00:00

I would agree that it must always replace a tile.
As for the "Edges", we've always played that anything that is at the limit of a particular direction (NSEW) would be the edge *unless* it's obvious (from a completed different row, say) where the limits are.

Thread: Landlock: A Good, Quick 2 Player Game

jollypirate — 2006-09-23T13:52:24+00:00

Though this game is perhaps a little cuter than some of the more "manly" gamers can stand, it's a nice game that plays well with only a few little problems in the rules and the scoring.

CONTENTS
This is a pretty lil' game with sturdy cardboard pieces that are slighty bigger than Carcassone tiles. The pieces (with a few exceptions) are either roads or streams, and they match up well on the table and theres not any problem with them shifting out of place.

GAMEPLAY
One player plays water, the other plays land. The object is to get the most points by creating streams/roads that link the sides of the "board" (the tiles can only expand into a 6X6 grid) or by creating island or ponds (surrounding the opposing players element). Some incidental points can be gained by matching up gnomes or drawing Tussock pieces.

Players take turns placing tiles until the the board is a 6X6 grid, at which time points are tallied.

The game is easy to learn, but provides a lot of opportunity for strategy; though since the game is rather luck of the draw driven, one needs to keep revamping their strategy throughout the game. The frustration at not drawing the right tile has usually been balanced for each player when I've played this game, and adds to the fun rather than detracts.

A few cards cards increase the randomness of the game a bit. The bridge cards for example let you play on another tile and thereby free any island or pond that might have been "captured" by the other player. The other player then has to play the removed tile. Drawing the bridge isn't always a boon to the drawer though. Late in the game, depending on the layout, it can force you to connect someone's previously blocked road or stream.

The Tussocks give the drawing player an automatic point, and cannot be moved by bridges. Because they are essentially blocker pieces, they are good for helping to create the profitable islands.

The gnomes appear randomly on a few road and stream pieces and add a nice bit of dilema, should one go for a couple certain points by matching up gnomes, or use the piece for a more strategic (and lucrative) link of a road/stream.

The game usually plays in about a 1/2 hour time.

RULES PROBLEMS
Though the game is quite simple, there are a couple issues that could have been cleared up by better wording or more comprehensive examples. For instance, a bridge cannot be played on an edge, but it doesn't specify whether it means the final edge (once the board has gone 6 tiles either horizontal or vertical) or a working edge (one that might not be a final edge). I would tend to say that even a working edge would be forbidden, but then a bridge drawn early in the game couldn't be played, an instance for which the rules make no provision.

Also the rules state "Paths and streams that end diagonally in one of the four corner tiles may only be used to count towards one side." But since ALL roads and streams run diagonally on the tiles, we've wondered if it just meas a R/S that dead ends directly in the corner (so just one end of the R/S touches two sides because of its width) or also if it runs diagonally in the other direction, essentially making a one-tile lone connector between two sides (because of the shifting gameboard edge, it is hard to get those corners definatively, so it isn't as cut and dried a call as it at first may seem).

Aside from that though, things run smooth.

SCORING
The scoring is the biggest weakness of the game. First, I don't like the automatic point that comes with the Tussock. They are generally helpful to draw anyway, so I don't see the need. But more unbalancing is the points awarded for completed roads/streams. A R/S that connect two sides of the board gets 5 points, while a R/S that connects 3 sides only gets 7 points. A R/S connecting all 4 sides hypothetically gets 10 points, but I've never seen it come close to happening.

It is MUCH harder to connect 3 sides than two, so it should be worth at least double (10 points) what a 2 sider is worth (5 points), and a 4 sider should be worth double (20 points) a 3 sider.

The 1 point for each matched up gnome seems fair, as does the 4 points for each island/pond.

OVERALL
This is a great game to pick up once in awhile, and is particularly good for kids, gals, and other non-gamers who would like the high quality art and pieces coupled with easy rules and a bit of thought required. I actually like it better than Carcassone.

Thread: Re: Bridges can't replace tiles on the edge?

jollypirate — 2006-09-23T12:58:51+00:00

We play that you can't take an edge piece even on an "incomplete" map, because a large part of the fun, I believe, in this game derives from the fact that the edge is continually shifting.

The rules certainly aren't clear which route to take (although there are times early in the game where you would HAVE to take an edge piece), so try it both ways and see which one is more fun.

Image

BigWoo — 2006-08-15T17:16:14+00:00

Wege (box cover) - selfpublished 2nd edition, 1993

Thread: Cute enough to make one regurgitate?

jollypirate — 2006-06-19T02:41:37+00:00

(continued from Modern Art)

I picked this lil’ game up for $1.50 at the Salvation Army, just short one tile.
As I’ve mentioned before, my buddy Marty loves his tile games and was just sort of recovering from about a four day spat with mystery vertigo.

Fortunately, producing a square land didn’t aggravate his condition, as perhaps a spinning globe might.

Whew.

The game played quickly and though there is quite a dollop of luck in the whole procedure (mostly the cutesy elements of gnomes and grassy knoll creatures (of the non-assassining type)) it required enough brain power to make it fun, for two loosely defined “adults.”

Marty thoroughly whipped me in this one, having drawn all the grassy creatures and land gnomes than I. In fact, I may have to investigate whether the game is innately slanted—or rather due to its incompleteness, artificially slanted—to favor the land character, and see if it can be rectified with the removal of yet another tile.

Or perhaps I will just demand that I’m allowed to play land next time. It is my game after all.

I left Marty fully intact and feeling well, which is more than I can say for how I found him, or how I usually leave him after a night of poker.

Thread: Fun, quick but not easy

custom golf clubs — 2006-04-20T02:39:03+00:00

This is a fun quick game that is easy to learn but not easy to win. In our first game there were a total of 1 island and 1 pond created. In the second the ponds guy ( me was unable to complete one pond and the island that was created was removed on the second to last turn by a lucky draw of a bridge by myself.

Thread: A Race Variant for the little ones

Jatoha — 2006-01-30T18:11:49+00:00

My youngest daughter likes to play this. I recognize that it is completely pointless, but she enjoys it:

Two gnomes are having a race. Try to guess which gnome will win.

Place one tile with a gnome on a path and one tile with a gnome on the water beside each other. One at a time, draw a tile, if you draw water, place it on the water gnome's row, if you draw land place it on the land gnome's row. If you draw a bridge, you may decide whose path to add to, if you draw a tussock, then you lose a turn.

The first gnome to get ten tiles wins!

Thread: Re: Bridges can't replace tiles on the edge?

Jatoha — 2006-01-30T17:58:49+00:00

Sounds reasonable to me.

Image

EndersGame — 2006-01-13T09:20:41+00:00

The score-pad and pencil that come with the Landlock game

Image

EndersGame — 2006-01-13T07:50:18+00:00

The three Tussock tiles

Image

EndersGame — 2006-01-13T07:36:47+00:00

Tiles with Roaming Gnomes

Thread: Re: Island and pond question

EndersGame — 2006-01-06T04:04:20+00:00

Thanks for the reply. I checked over the rules one more time, and I've concluded that you are correct and I am wrong! The rules even state this about Tussocks:
Use them to help build islands or ponds.

So even if an island doesn't technically have water all the way around it, if it is a self-contained unit with a Tussock on one side, as is the case in the first picture above, it still counts as an island.

In other words: if it looks like a small round island (like in the picture), then it is an island (even if there's not water all the way around)! Simple!

Thread: Re: Island and pond question

relic10 — 2006-01-06T03:35:37+00:00

Ender,

I don't think you are interpreting Gamewright's response correctly. Unfortunately you can't see the original photos I uploaded for this question; my hard drive died and there went the photos. But my original question centered around what constitutes a pond and an island. Consider the first photo that you posted. The use of the tussock seems to not form an island because it extends the land mass beyond the small circle of land that could've been achieved by placing a fourth tile with only a little corner of land showing. Whereas, considering your second photo, the tussock helps form a simple pond because it does not extend the mass of water, but closes it off. So my question was, in order to be an island, does it have to be a "technical" island, i.e. a land mass surrounded by water. Gamewright's response was no, it does not have to be the technical definition of an island. In other words, the little brown circle in your first photo that is formed in part by the tussock IS an island as far as the game is concerned. When they say "green land doesn't count", they mean the island is formed by the four tiles forming the brown circle. And in your second photo, two similar tiles added to the left that form a circle of water is a pond. The idea is that a tussock can be used to help both the water player or the land player equally. So as long as you have an enclosure of water, it's a pond. As long as you have an enclosure of BROWN land, it's an island. I hope this helps.

Thread: Re: Island and pond question

EndersGame — 2006-01-06T00:54:48+00:00

relic10 wrote:
Green land does not count. A tussock equally benefits the land and strean players. An island is an enclosure of brown land. A stream is an enclose of water.
I couldn't see the images either, but I suspect that I had a similar question. Let me give two examples:

1. Consider the board in this picture:
]]>
In the bottom of the picture, in the center, there is a small round piece of pathway. According to the answer from Gamewright, this does NOT classify as an island, because it is not entirely surrounded by water - on one side there is a Tussock instead of water.

2. Consider the board in this picture:
]]>
Imagine that two more pathways are placed on the left of these tiles, turning the water on the left of the board into a pond shape. According to the answer from Gamewright, this does NOT classify as a pond, because even though it is a self-contained unit of water and is surrounded by greenery, it is is not entirely surrounded by pathways - on one side there is a Tussock instead of a pathway.

Am I understanding the answer from Gamewright correctly?

My initial reaction was that the Gamewright answer wasn't logical. This is what I first thought: It would seem to me that in the second example, it looks like a pond, it acts like a pond, and so we should call it a pond - even though it has a Tussock on one side! Same with the first example - I'd be inclined to call that an island as well, because it looks like an island.

But after thinking about it some more, this would defeat the purpose of ponds and islands: according to Gamewright, the point of ponds/islands is that they are totally surrounded by pathways/water. And hence, in the examples above, having a Tussock on one side prevents them from being ponds/islands. This does make it a little more difficult to create ponds and islands, and Tussocks can help save you having your opponent create a pond/island. If Tussocks could be used to create ponds/islands, it would make them too powerful (especially considering that they can't be replaced with a bridge). They already are worth one point, and if they potentially they could create a pond/island worth 4 points, it would make Tussocks more powerful than what they already are, and so make the game too dependent on luck-of-the-draw (ie, who gets the Tussocks). So after reflection, the Gamewright interpretation seems to make good sense.

I'd like to hear from others how you would play the above two examples, and whether my interpretation of the quote from Gamewright is correct. If so, is this the best way to play, with the rule that if four tiles include a Tussock, then it doesn't count as a pond/island?

Thread: Bridges can't replace tiles on the edge?

EndersGame — 2006-01-06T00:45:37+00:00

I have two questions about using the Bridge tile correctly.

1. The rules state:
"The player who draws the Bridge tile gets to remove one tile from the game board and place the bridge where the tile used to be."

Question: Must a bridge always replace an existing tile? Or can it just be placed on the board without removing another tile?
My guess: it must replace an existing tile.

2. The rules state:
"Players can't remove Tussocks, separate facing Roaming Gnomes, or take a tile from the edge of the game board."

Question: What is meant by the "edge of the game board"? Does this only apply if the map is already 6 tiles wide or 6 tiles high? If the map is only 5x5, may you take a tile from the edge of the existing map?
My guess: Yes, if the board is not yet 6x6, the edges of the board have not yet been defined, and you may take an edge piece.
Example: The top right tile in this picture is technically an edge piece, but because the map is not yet 6 wide or high, it can be replaced with a bridge tile.
]]>

Thread: Re: Island and pond question

relic10 — 2005-06-22T14:33:12+00:00

To answer my own question:

I emailed Gamewright, the company that makes the game, and this is the response I got:

I was not able to view the pictures the link you sent. Green land does not count. A tussock equally benefits the land and strean players. An island is an enclosure of brown land. A stream is an enclose of water.

Hope this helps.
Thank you for playing with Gamewright!
Regards,
Julie

jester@gamewright.com

Thread: Island and pond question

relic10 — 2005-06-18T18:32:05+00:00

I have a question as to what constitutes an island or a pond in this game. The rules never say, but provide a picture of each, with the photo showing a pond surrounded by paths and an island surrounded by streams. If we go with the real-life definition of each the land player would have a definite advantage, as it would be much easier to make a pond than an island. For example, in the photo below, is this one island or two?

And then is this considered one pond or two?:

Technically, we have one island and two ponds, but that can't be the case in this game without things being unfair.

It's such a simple little game but that one question keeps nagging me.

Thread: Session Report

scriptorum — 2005-03-22T16:27:55+00:00

Arthur is roped into gaming now, Ticket to Ride having done its trick. However, I began to think maybe I still need to do some more work on him when he brought over Landlock as an appetizer...

Game 1
In this first game we were feeling out the rules and strategy. I chose water. Gnomes in inner tubes are my friends. I get a tussock, he gets a tussock. He breaks up my ponds, I break up his islands. I somehow manage to turn my 3-side waterway into a 4-sider using a bridge. We kept screwing over each other any time we tried to place gnomes, so the game was low-scoring. I win 12-11.

Game 2
I think I'm getting the hang of this. I picked land. I immediately went for a diagonal path, and "forced the grid" to make sure he couldn't go around me. Forcing the grid is an important strategy, as it prevents any plays that would cause the game to be wider or taller than 6 by 6. Then I blocked off his waterways trying to cross my thoroughfare. I managed to do so without creating any ponds for him. I connected the four sides for the 10 point bonus. Arthur had two waterways that connected each to two sides -- only worth 5 points. He plucked a bridge near the end, and would have loved to connect the two waterways together (and improve his waterway bonus from 5 to 10 points) but I had placed three gnomes in the center area, the only place where the bridge could help him. Since replacing gnomes with a bridge is a no no, he connected to a third side and secured the 7-point bonus. I won 18-14.

Game 3
I was land this time. Arthur killed two of my islands by bridging them, nice job. My diagonal path strategy from the second game is working well again, but I'm only able to limit him to three sides. He also manages to get several ponds and gnome combos. I played a bridge to a corner just to waste it, then afterwards we discovered a) it was against the rules, and b) I screwed myself over four points by placing it there. Ah well. It cost me the game, which was high scoring: Arthur won 22-21.

Summary
I actually enjoyed the game. It's pretty simple, and there's luck involved in the drawing of the tiles. But there are some definite strategic choices you can make to affect the outcome. It's fast, and a good warm-up game if you have non-gamers in the mix. I'd be willing to play again. I can recommend this game for kids or as a very quick and light filler game.

Some notes on Tussocks
Tussocks are arbitray 1 point bonuses to anyone who plays them. Plus they're very useful tiles for blocking an opponent, regardless of their gnome-type (water/land). I don't really like arbitrary "hey I drew a tile I get a point without thinkin" kind of rules, but there are only three of them in the game. Plus you don't lay out all the tiles, so it's possible for one to go unplayed throughout the game. Tussocks interrupt both water AND land paths, which took me a while to wrap my head around. It's obviously a land tile, but it can't be used for connecting a roadway. In any case, Tussocks look like pets who want their bellies rubbed, so I can't get too mad at them.

Thread: Question :: What about combining two games and having 8x8 grid

longshots — 2005-02-21T22:17:52+00:00

I have played Landlock twice. I bought a couple copies cheap, and I am considering combining two copies to make a bigger game. I figure with a 8x8 game, we should start out with a total of 70 tiles. So which ten tiles would you eliminate? I figure I would ditch one or two of the bridges since too many of them would make connecting all the sides too easy. I was also thinking of removing equal numbers of diagonal paths and streams. Wondering if I should remove a couple of the tussocks? Any suggestions would be appreciated. Thanks.

Thread: Re:User Review

lkleinow — 2004-01-10T18:12:38+00:00

From Gamewright:
In scoring at the end of the game, if I have two separate paths/streams that don't connect but each connect two sides of the board, can I score twice?
No. Since the object of the game is to connect all four sides of the board with a path or stream, you may only choose one of the paths/streams and score for it. (In that case you would score 5 points for connecting two sides).

Thread: User Review

bengkohn — 2002-08-30T14:07:58+00:00

Try this game with your friend who doesn’t like games much, and you may well have a hit on your hand. In my case that is my wife, but she immediately liked The Legend of Landlock.

The premise is simple – each of two players (or two teams) takes either land or water, and then attempts to create the best network of either paths or streams while at the same time hindering the other player from doing the same with their element. Best is pretty simply defined: The more sides of the 6 tile x 6 tile playing area (formed at the end of the game) that the path/stream touches, the better.

Some tiles have gnomes on the corner. Each player gets points if they can arrange it so that 2 or more of these gnomes come together where the four tiles meet. Of course the land gets points for those on a path, and the water player gets points for the tubin’ gnomes.

Big points can be won by forming a cut-off portion of the other players elements, i.e. islands or ponds. Luckily there are 3 tiles in the mix which help deter this sort of thing by allowing tiles to be moved.

Lastly, placing a Tussock earns you a point. These tiles show neither a path nor stream, so aid in blocking.

Pretty simple, but the games go fast and are a good deal of fun. While the age requirements on the box state 8 and up, I could see someone younger having fun with this, although perhaps not getting up to strategic speed to challenge a serious Carcassone gamer.

The one downside is that the rules are unclear (to my thinking) in two areas. I am not sure what happens if I form multiple, non-connecting paths or streams. Do I score for each one? Do I score for the sides they touch as if they were one?
The other question is about the tile that can replace another – the bridge. I can’t figure out if it can replace a tile that is not surrounded on all sides, or what to do if there is no legal placement for it.

But we just took a stab at the correct rules, and it would have been enjoyable in any case, so it isn’t a big downside. Hopefully the producer will clarify these issues.

If you are looking for a deep strategic game, pass this one by. If you don’t mind the dose of luck from drawing one tile then playing it, this is a good choice. I imagine that there could be variants similar to those in Carcassone where you can hold a hand of tiles, and maybe that would reduce some of the luck.