Game: Lost Cities: The Board Game

Thread: Re: Artifact Variant?

keebie — 2008-12-02T19:23:15+00:00

Hmmm, i guess i misread the rules, when i played it we kept them face down. It added an unknown to the game then, since we had to decide if it was worth moving one space to land on one to flip over and hope it was an arrow tile.

Thread: Re: First night of Keltis, 6 games played

Hivemind — 2008-12-02T14:35:42+00:00

Another session but probably not worth creating another session report.

We played another 5 or 6 games of this. The anti from the first session was replaced by a new player. New player quite liked the game despite the fact that we forgot to clarify that you could play a card that was higher/lower or equal to the previous one.

Playing with the tiles revealed was much better. The wishing stones are very valuable and people considered it worth making sub-optimal card plays to snag stones before someone else did. The visibility of all the pieces meant that people could come up with a plan of attack earlier.

Once again we started with four and someone had to leave. The game is fine with four but it certainly feels better with three. This is just reinforcing my impression from the first session.

Thread: Re: Poll: Which Version?

lacxox — 2008-12-02T08:51:00+00:00

There could be answers like:

I know and like LC and I prefer LC:TBG
I know but don't like LC and I prefer LC:TBG
I don't know LC and I prefer LC:TBG
I know and like LC and I prefer Keltis
I know but don't like LC and I prefer Keltis
I don't know LC and I prefer Keltis

I guess many choose LC:TBG because it connects to LC, even if with an inferior graphic design (the graphic design for either LC or Keltis is significantly better than for LC:TBG). I also think the rules for Keltis work better.
But LC is a very popular game here at BGG so that makes LC:TBG more popular than Keltis.

Thread: Artifact Variant?

Grey Dragon — 2008-12-02T05:46:16+00:00

After playing LCTBG last night, I began thinking about the initial layout of the artifact. The rules state that you turn each artifact face down, mix them up, place them, then turn them over (reveal them.) Has anyone play with them face down, only revealing them when landing on them. Without playing this variant, I have to believe it would increase some of the tension.

Thanks

grey

Thread: Re: Help me understand where the strategy is?

booned — 2008-12-02T02:05:26+00:00

I've played Keltis once, so take what I say with a grain of salt, but it's enough for me to form a preliminary opinion.

What I feel about Keltis is similar to how I feel about Lost Cities: if you play just one game of it, luck has an very, very big role in the results. With Lost Cities you are instructed to play a best-of-three or best-of-five -- and this is easy to do, since the game feels so quick for two players -- and then the luck seems to even out and the better player may win.

With Keltis, you just play one game, and can generate a very strong 'meh' feeling among gamers when you feel you have so little control over the outcome (even more so with more than two players). Sometimes the cards just don't go your way in either game, but in Keltis there's no "coming back" from bad luck.

I wonder if the Lost Cities Board Game will be better this way, in that you are once again encouraged to play multiple rounds so that a player's luck can even out over the course of a game. I'm looking forward to trying it.

Thread: Re: Shouldn't Lost Cities The Boardgame Game have a separate entry

hrc333 — 2008-12-01T23:29:38+00:00

Ok...I am think that if they keep this as one game that need to keep the entry as Keltis and don't change the name like they seem to have. Keltis was the game that won the SdJ thus that should be the name. If you want an entry for Lost Cities: The Board Game then we should split the entries.

Thread: Re: Poll: Which Version?

Lacota — 2008-12-01T19:16:44+00:00

More lost cities? Really?

Thread: Re: Shouldn't Lost Cities The Boardgame Game have a separate entry

yubm — 2008-12-01T17:35:41+00:00

I could be wrong, but Lost Cities the Board Game also has a (for lack of a better term) campaign mode - where you play 3 rounds and cash the green idol chips in for brown one. This is NOT in Keltis, so I vote for these two to be separate entries.

Thread: Poll: Which Version?

wtrollkin2000 — 2008-12-01T16:39:59+00:00

[poll=17938]

Thread: Re: Shouldn't Lost Cities The Boardgame Game have a separate entry

fastfingers — 2008-12-01T03:12:32+00:00

timstellmach wrote:
fastfingers wrote:
The problem is that since only the entry for Keltis exists, someone who is looking through my BGG wish list for a gift suggestion, will wrongly conclude I want Keltis since that's the title that shows up.

It might be helpful for you to know that there is such a thing as a Wish List Comment.

Well yes, and you will see I did that.

However, that's not good enough. If someone just gets the games list and doesn't read the comments there is a slight issue. An easy oversight if you just use the gallery options that don't include the comments.

But what about the external API? You might ask why I ask? The iPhone app, which is excellent by the way, only shows the list of games in the list not the comments.

By the way the real motivation for me is rather selfish. I know with the Holiday Season coming that my wish list will be grabbed by folks. So I'm sensitive to any possibility in a less desired outcome especially if someone goes to the trouble to look up my wish list for a gift.

LIke I said in the original post, getting a copy of Keltis would be just fine. My preference would be Lost Cities The Boardgame.

Thread: Re: Shouldn't Lost Cities The Boardgame Game have a separate entry

wmshub — 2008-12-01T00:27:26+00:00

If only the forums and ratings could be merged for the two games, I'd be in favor of splitting them.

But when somebody posts a review or asks a question, it'll really be applicable to both games. Look at "slide 5" vs. "6 nimmt." They are the same game, just a different name and different end game conditions, but they are split...which sucks, because somebody looking up "slide 5" will see hardly anything useful, since most of the info is under "6 nimmt."

Thread: Re: Shouldn't Lost Cities The Boardgame Game have a separate entry

lacxox — 2008-11-30T23:18:19+00:00

Blokus 3d vs Rumis: same game.

Schotten Totten vs. Battle Line: different games.

Mechanics of LC:BG and Keltis are the same. The ONLY difference in the mechanics is that in LC:BG placement in an ascending order is only possible as an optional rule. (Well, an optional rule that really should be used to make the game work.)

Thread: Re: Shouldn't Lost Cities The Boardgame Game have a separate entry

timstellmach — 2008-11-30T23:18:08+00:00

fastfingers wrote:
The problem is that since only the entry for Keltis exists, someone who is looking through my BGG wish list for a gift suggestion, will wrongly conclude I want Keltis since that's the title that shows up.

It might be helpful for you to know that there is such a thing as a Wish List Comment.

Thread: Re: Shouldn't Lost Cities The Boardgame Game have a separate entry

lacxox — 2008-11-30T23:16:26+00:00

Awards (SdJ) went to Keltis.

Thread: Re: Shouldn't Lost Cities The Boardgame Game have a separate entry

Milarky — 2008-11-30T23:06:45+00:00

the old ..Blokus 3d vs Rumis,,
Keep them the same but change the main entry to lost cites:BG rather Keltis..Keltis as a other known name for the same game.
Keltis did come 1st but mass marketing and awards went to the lost cities name of the game..
Keltis is all well and good but my bets on the lost cites name being more widly taken up by the world..

Thread: Re: Shouldn't Lost Cities The Boardgame Game have a separate entry

out4blood — 2008-11-30T22:40:06+00:00

It's a different title and theme with slightly different mechanics. Think: Battle Line vs. Schotten Totten. I would prefer separate entries.

Thread: Re: Shouldn't Lost Cities The Boardgame Game have a separate entry

cagriggs — 2008-11-30T22:25:23+00:00

lacxox wrote:
So Kamel Treiben/Worm up...? Auf Heller/Kingdoms etc.?

Well if I wanted to collect, for example, all the Knizia titles and I saw that he has a game called Keltis and a game called Lost Cities: The Boardgame (the same with Auf Heller... and Kingdoms) and I ordered both tiles I would definitely be really upset to find out the two games are just the same.
If I was trying to collect all of Knizia's games, I would want both of them. I also would know, as a collector, that they were very similar, even close to identical.

I agree that Lost Cities: the Boardgame should have it's own entry, to avoid confusion if nothing else. As for the Circus Flochati example, there is another version in the database - it's called Star War: Attack of the Clone Wars card game. It's identical except for theme and one rule change, the inclusion of mission tokens. The game can be played without the mission tokens, in which case it has exactly the same game play as Circus Flochati.

The problem is that there is no consistent policy regarding entries for similar games on BGG. If there is ever a chance of seperating these two, it should be done now before it gets more difficult to seperate them.

Thread: Re: Shouldn't Lost Cities The Boardgame Game have a separate entry

lacxox — 2008-11-30T22:11:08+00:00

So Kamel Treiben/Worm up...? Auf Heller/Kingdoms etc.?

Well if I wanted to collect, for example, all the Knizia titles and I saw that he has a game called Keltis and a game called Lost Cities: The Boardgame (the same with Auf Heller... and Kingdoms) and I ordered both tiles I would definitely be really upset to find out the two games are just the same.

Thread: Re: Shouldn't Lost Cities The Boardgame Game have a separate entry

fastfingers — 2008-11-30T21:08:46+00:00

If you can order this as a separate title, then it should be a separate entry.

For example, in my wish list I post that I want a copy of Lost Cities: The Board Game, and not Keltis, because I prefer the continuity of the theme with the card game. The problem is that since only the entry for Keltis exists, someone who is looking through my BGG wish list for a gift suggestion, will wrongly conclude I want Keltis since that's the title that shows up.

Obviously if someone gave us a game of Keltis I would still quite happily play it. However, I cannot make my intentions clear using the existing BGG data base unless this gets another entry.

Just a thought.

Thread: Re: Shouldn't Lost Cities The Boardgame Game have a separate entry

timstellmach — 2008-11-30T00:45:53+00:00

shawn_low wrote:
I think it should have a seperate entry to avoid confusion.
And I think it should have the same entry to avoid confusion.

Thread: Re: Shouldn't Lost Cities The Boardgame Game have a separate entry

timewellspent — 2008-11-29T21:21:06+00:00

I think, also, it should have it's own entry. But, at least there is a valid link under the title of the game which you can select for your purposes as to what "version" of the game you own in the collection section for the game.

Thread: Re: Shouldn't Lost Cities The Boardgame Game have a separate entry

lacxox — 2008-11-29T11:55:32+00:00

keebie wrote:
I tried submitting images of the game but got them denied and one the reasons listed was wrong game. The lost cities version needs its own page
That's a mistake by the admins and not the first one concerning this game; see here: http://www.boardgamegeek.com/article/2766136. By the way, there you can see some other examples of different/same games being mentioned.

Thread: Re: Shouldn't Lost Cities The Boardgame Game have a separate entry

wmshub — 2008-11-29T01:39:34+00:00

Many games look completely different from one printing to the next. Minor rules tweaks are common too - Circus Frohcati has bigger differences between printings that the rule changes from Keltis to Lost Cities.

They're the same game, they belong together here.

Thread: Re: Shouldn't Lost Cities The Boardgame Game have a separate entry

keebie — 2008-11-28T23:50:47+00:00

I tried submitting images of the game but got them denied and one the reasons listed was wrong game. The lost cities version needs its own page

Thread: Re: Shouldn't Lost Cities The Boardgame Game have a separate entry

lacxox — 2008-11-28T09:51:23+00:00

Check the Worm Up entry linked above. Different look does not make a different game.

Thread: Re: Shouldn't Lost Cities The Boardgame Game have a separate entry

shawn_low — 2008-11-28T09:21:36+00:00

I think it should have a seperate entry to avoid confusion. They both have different names and different-looking components.

Thread: Re: Shouldn't Lost Cities The Boardgame Game have a separate entry

lacxox — 2008-11-28T08:45:35+00:00

I can count 2 rule differences:
1. the points are multiplied by 5.
2. In the LCBG the "you may place your cards in an ascending order" is only a rule variant (a usable one as the game is really bad without that).
And that's it; even with different looking components, it's the same game. Just like Kamel Treiben and Worm Up! (completely different look, same game) and many others that also have only one entry in the database.

Thread: Re: Shouldn't Lost Cities The Boardgame Game have a separate entry

YeGor — 2008-11-28T08:32:53+00:00

I support the separate entry for LCtBG. I'm here for Keltis not another game, however close it might be. I get notification for new images on Keltis and then see another LC image. Make a separate entry!

Thread: Re: Concerns and a question aimed at players who have tried both versions......

scotto — 2008-11-28T07:42:49+00:00

Just picked up LCTBG, and I have to admit that this is the first time I have been really disappointed with Rio Grande components.

First off, the art work doesn't match the original Lost Cities art at all. To make it worse, the changes are not for the better. It has the feel of a cheep knock off of the original IP.

Next the card stock used for the cards is quite thin and flimsy, no where near the quality of the original card game stock. The artwork on the cards is also a disappointment, once again not carrying through the original theme.

I guess that being said and done, it's functional, Just not as special as I've come to expect, and at the AU$80.00 price point, I don't think I got my money's worth.

Thread: Re: Shouldn't Lost Cities The Boardgame Game have a separate entry

wmshub — 2008-11-28T05:52:40+00:00

Please don't split these. Then we'll have two sets of forums. The rules are so close, they are just two variants of the same game.

Thread: Re: Shouldn't Lost Cities The Boardgame Game have a separate entry

scotto — 2008-11-28T03:37:38+00:00

I just picked this up as well, and to prove your point, the Lost Cities box doesn't have the SDJ winner logo on the box. Must be a separate game...

Thread: Shouldn't Lost Cities The Boardgame Game have a separate entry

coxy_fc — 2008-11-27T22:51:11+00:00

I've just got the LC boardgame but it seems a bit pointless making an entry for it here. LCtBG looks completely different, has a different box, board, cards, etc, etc, to Keltis. Maybe they play the same the but then, so do most euros!

Thread: Re: Did anyone get a look @ the RioGrande version in Essen?

coxy_fc — 2008-11-27T21:56:15+00:00

I got my copy of the board game yesterday. It's an immediate contender for the most oversized box of the year trophy. The box is huge, contains a thin flimsy board, about 90% air, and has one pack of cards and a few bits

Thread: Re: First night of Keltis, 6 games played

Hivemind — 2008-11-26T17:40:55+00:00

Expert gamers that we are we met the challenge of the easy to understand rules and managed to make a mistake anyway. Go us!

We didn't turn over the tiles until someone actually reached them. An image of the game in play caused me to re-read the rules in relation to this and I realise the tiles are placed randomly and then revealed.

Playing with the tiles hidden until reached was interesting but I suspect it will be better with them revealed.

The effect of hidden tiles was that people would often make sub-optimal plays just so they could be first to reach a tile in case it was a wishing stone (which it usually wasn't).

I think playing with revealed tiles will take complaints like "my paths had no good tiles in them, that's why I lost" from the end of the game and move them to the start as "I can't win, the paths I have cards for all have bad tiles".

Image

fehrmeister — 2008-11-25T16:38:00+00:00

Lost Cities: The Board Game in Play at BGG.CON

Thread: First night of Keltis, 6 games played

Hivemind — 2008-11-25T16:07:13+00:00

Having the SdJ badge on your game certainly helps to sell it. One of the regular players in my group saw this when he was in Germany recently and brought it back. It's been sitting around for a couple of weeks now and last night was it's turn to be taken out.

There were four of us initially. The rules were very easy to understand and explain which was nice. Since we were all sitting in Ireland the rule to determine who goes first was tricky. We thought about deciding this based on who had done the most twee tourist attractions like kissing the Blarney Stone but in the end decided to make the oldest person go first.

Unlike some games it was pretty easy to make a play without really knowing what we were doing so we went quite fast. After a few plays we realised we were making a mistake in removing the clover (aka 'jump') and score tiles when we hit them but were able to replace them since we'd only removed a couple. The person who advanced two pieces to the end won handily over those who had tried to advance along more paths. Probably this was due to lucky card draws.

Having sorted out the problem with removing the tiles we decided that being first up a path meant you had the chance to get wishing stones but waiting to see what tiles were revealed meant you got the chance to choose a more optimal route.

We had a second game and it went very similarly to the first. It seemed difficult to advance your pieces enough before the game ended. If every player got one piece in to the end zone then only one more person could get in there. Having more than three paths active seemed to be crazy because of this but the cards often forced you to start additional paths.

One of the players declared the game utterly random at this point. The rest of us defended it based on the premise that while there was a lot of randomness the trick was to adapt as best you could and limit the effect of bad luck while maximising the effect of good luck (like a lot of games).

The Keltis-hater had to leave at this point but the remaining three of us played four more games. The three player game felt very different to me. Each player had more plays on average in each game meaning it was safer to start more paths. This also meant people were forced to discard more meaning it was far more important to watch what everyone else was doing. At one point the player to my left went through a series of turns by discarding cards that were perfect for the player on their left. Annoyingly for me both the giver and the receiver of these free gifts did very well and I finished last by a large margin.

Getting so many games in one evening was nice. I think three of us would consider it a fun, quick game that we would be happy to play every once in a while. One player will probably not want to play it ever again.

Thread: Re: Declare ascending/descending after an initial double?

lacxox — 2008-11-25T14:06:38+00:00

You are right, you have to declare the order after playing a card that made it explicit if you want to place your cards in an ascending or descending order.

Thread: Declare ascending/descending after an initial double?

Hivemind — 2008-11-25T12:22:25+00:00

I play a 5 for my first green and then another 5 for my second. The English translation seems to indicate that I must now pick and declare whether I am ascending or descending at this point.

I would prefer if you were only locked in to ascending or descending after playing a card that made it explicit. This means that the players can tell the state of play by just looking at the cards. No requirement to remember what someone said.

Is this more clearly stated in the official rules (as opposed to the English translation I got from BGG).

Thread: Re: Did anyone get a look @ the RioGrande version in Essen?

wtrollkin2000 — 2008-11-24T22:01:47+00:00

I have a copy of the RGG version already. In addition to running the RGG demo area, they were selling them at ChiTag show in Chicago yesterday and Saturday (Master demonstrator Todd Jensen drove down some copies from the Wisconsin warehouse)

I really like the bright colors and art better than Keltis.

Thread: Re: Did anyone get a look @ the RioGrande version in Essen?

Sanders — 2008-11-24T15:18:23+00:00

Looks like Lost Cities the Board Game should be out in stores this week.

Image

bartlevy — 2008-11-23T20:30:49+00:00

Keltis in Zuntzu

Thread: Re: Help me understand where the strategy is?

asfhgwt — 2008-11-22T15:34:02+00:00

Finally played a game of this (3-player), and I have to admit that Seth is right.

There just isn't much to this game: play the cards you can and hope you get other useful cards down the road. It's as light as a piece of lint.

In my game, two players started all five paths and one player started four; it seemed to make no sense to do otherwise. Toward the end, two of us had nothing but worthless cards in hand. All we could do was discard and hope.

Knizia is just going through the motions these days. Making this the Game of the Year is insane.

Image

henk.rolleman — 2008-11-20T13:59:13+00:00

Just Started Keltis @ Spellenspektakel 2008 Zwolle - The Netherlands

Image

henk.rolleman — 2008-11-18T20:09:02+00:00

Close up from Game Play on Spellenspektakel Zwolle 2008 - The Netherlands

Image

henk.rolleman — 2008-11-18T19:51:47+00:00

Game Play - Spellenspektakel Zwolle 2008 - The Netherlands

Thread: Re: More than 1 figure in a row?

smiler63 — 2008-11-18T14:48:17+00:00

I have edited Keltis for Kosmos.
You can have only one token in one row.
By using the clover leaf you can advance any token even if it is still on the starting stone. But since you can never have more than one token in a row you can move it only in a row where you are not already.

Thread: Re: Concerns and a question aimed at players who have tried both versions......

sedjtroll — 2008-11-18T05:42:55+00:00

chaddyboy_2000 wrote:
wmshub wrote:
Then, after RGG had started on this, Keltis won SDJ. Oops.

Yup, I'm not sure what the SDJ jury was thinking. Big oops!
Big oops indeed.

Image

henk.rolleman — 2008-11-17T21:42:20+00:00

A Celt with Keltis on Spellenspektakel in Zwolle 2008 - The Netherlands

Image

henk.rolleman — 2008-11-17T21:03:59+00:00

Joy in Game Play - Spellenspektakel Zwolle 2008 - The Netherlands

Image

jsper — 2008-11-14T02:00:14+00:00

Keltis, spanish edition by Devir

Image

TVis — 2008-11-09T18:00:46+00:00

Brief encounter between competing formats.

Thread: Re: Concerns and a question aimed at players who have tried both versions......

chaddyboy_2000 — 2008-11-08T21:48:34+00:00

wmshub wrote:
Then, after RGG had started on this, Keltis won SDJ. Oops.

Yup, I'm not sure what the SDJ jury was thinking. Big oops!

Thread: Re: Concerns and a question aimed at players who have tried both versions......

wmshub — 2008-11-08T21:41:40+00:00

Thanks for the clarification, Jay. I didn't know that Kosmos was doing LCBG, I thought it was all yours!

I'm still on the fence on which to get, I'll wait until LCBG is widely available then decide which version. In the US of course LCBG will be a lot less expensive, so I'll probably end up getting it anyway...but green is my favorite color, and Keltis has a beautiful board, so it makes the decision hard.

Thread: Re: Concerns and a question aimed at players who have tried both versions......

riogames — 2008-11-08T20:55:06+00:00

As suggested, Reiner's original design is what you see as the Lost Cities Board Game. Kosmos wanted an abstract and renamed it and made some changes. All their other partners, including RGG wanted the LCBG instead of Keltis. Initially, it was discussed that the international partners would band together to manage the LCBG project. Kosmos, however, wanted to retain control and offered to make the LCBG for all their international partners and began the project. Midway through the LCBG project, Keltis won the SdJ. As I had committed to the LCBG project, I felt it would be unethical to change and also prefer the LCBG to the abstract Keltis. From what I understand, the other partners have chosen to abandon LCBG in favor of Keltis.

Jay
RGG

Thread: Re: Going first advantage

IrStar — 2008-11-08T09:54:15+00:00

I think so, but the English rule says no. Could anyone make it clear please?

Thread: Re: More than 1 figure in a row?

Ciaci — 2008-11-07T13:40:33+00:00

garea37 wrote:
With a Clover Leaf you can only move a figure that is already in one of the stone paths. You can't put a new figure in the board with a Clover Leaf.

fellonmyhead wrote:

No, one figure per column and no more. Even though this is not explicit in the translation, the translation does state that you add a stone to a column when you play the first card for that column. There is no mention of this elsewhere so this can be the only way in which stones are added to columns.

Are you sure?

Clover Leaf rule says: You advance any one of your figures by one stone.
The figures aren't out of the board but on the first great stone, so I think it's possible to start a new path with a Clover Leaf and also to move in occupied rows.

Maybe a bug in the rules?

I would like to know what the German rules say.

Thread: Re: More than 1 figure in a row?

fellonmyhead — 2008-11-06T14:45:49+00:00

Ciaci wrote:
garea37 wrote:

You can only put a figure in a row when you play the first card of this colour. Any following cards of that colour will make the figure go up.

Ok, I agree ... but ... through the effect of a Clover Leaf?

No, one figure per column and no more. Even though this is not explicit in the translation, the translation does state that you add a stone to a column when you play the first card for that column. There is no mention of this elsewhere so this can be the only way in which stones are added to columns.

Thread: Re: More than 1 figure in a row?

garea37 — 2008-11-06T14:35:22+00:00

With a Clover Leaf you can only move a figure that is already in one of the stone paths. You can't put a new figure in the board with a Clover Leaf.

Thread: Re: More than 1 figure in a row?

Ciaci — 2008-11-06T14:30:21+00:00

garea37 wrote:

You can only put a figure in a row when you play the first card of this colour. Any following cards of that colour will make the figure go up.

Ok, I agree ... but ... through the effect of a Clover Leaf?

Image

olavf — 2008-11-03T18:18:15+00:00

Lost Cities - the boardgame in play -Essen 2008