Game: Wizard's Gambit

Thread: Re: Shill ratings: 9 ratings, 6 of them new users owning 1 game

swandive78 — 2008-08-27T03:56:11+00:00

Waylander1 wrote:
When will people understand that these kinds of statistics make me less likely to buy the game? I'd rather have a few real users rate the game a 6 or a 7 than have shills rate the game a 9.

For what its worth, there is another small company that has sent out a handful of games to regular users of this website in exchange for reviews of the games. For the most part, those reviews are thoughtful, complete, and honest. It has also created real feedback on the game.

Putting up what appear to be shill reviews just won't cut it.

Thanks to the Shill Police!

I'm afraid you seem to be wrong on this one.

Do you actually get to play games, or it more fun to point the finger?

Thread: Do You Gambit?

adreeve — 2008-08-25T07:43:27+00:00

Overview

You're a wizard struggling to show all of the other wizards that you're THE wizard.

Bits and Pieces

Lots of cards... spell cards, ingredient cards, gambit cards, and incantation cards.

How To Play

All of the spell cards form a spell deck in the middle of the table with the top four dealt out surrounding the spell deck as the available spells. Every Wizard gets a random gambit card (the random aspect used solely to determine turn order). The remaining cards (ingredients, incantations, and gambits) are shuffled and everyone is dealt five cards.

The player getting the highest number gambit card goes first and everyone takes a turn in clockwise order until a player has 10 points and thus wins the game. Points come from collecting spell cards. Each spell card has a spell on it, a point value from 1 to 5, and a formula comprised of ingredients.

On your turn you MUST play an ingredient that is a part of one of the four available spells' formulas. If you can't do that then you can show your hand (proving you can't play), draw two cards, and end your turn. You can also, optionally do an incantation actions which involves playing an incantation card or using a gambit card. The incantations are misc cards that do things like allowing you to draw extra cards, move ingredients, or otherwise manipulate the game. Gambits are special... they can be used to lock down one of the spells in play so that other wizard's can't add ingredients to it, to disable a wizard's spell book (so that the current spell no longer takes effect), or to destroy someone else's gambit that might be locking a spell card. Finally, you can dismiss your own gambit as your incantation action, but you can only play a single ingredient and a single incantation per turn (with the order they're done in being up to you). At the end of your turn you'll draw a card and if you have more than five cards you'll discard down to five.

Ingredients are of six different types and a 'wild' ingredient. When a wild ingredient is played it can take the place of any ingredient in the spell and it's color is NOT declared when it is played.

Once the final ingredient is played on a spell card the player playing the final ingredient claims that spell card, it goes into that player's spell book and it becomes the player's active spell. A new spell card is drawn and made available. Once again, the claimed spell also gives the player additional points and once they have ten points they win. In order to balance things out, the high point value spell cards tend to be bad spells (which is why you might want to play a gambit on your own spell book or not claim them early in the game) and the lowest numbered spells tend to be the best. As mentioned, each player MUST play an ingredient if they have one that fits any of the four spells in play so there's a goal of not setting the next player up to capture a spell that is present throughout the game.

The game is pretty simple to teach as you don't really need to go over all of the cards before hand although obviously it's beneficial to know what all of the different cards are capable of... especially the 'pass your hand of cards to the left' given that your well constructed hand might be a thing of the past if that incantation is played.

Fantasy Games

I love the fantasy genre so that's automatically going to give this game a boost for me. When I first played this at GenCon a little over a week ago I was mixed. I had read good things about it then read that it was kind of simplistic. Yes, the mechanics are simple which is a good thing, but the game itself has a lot of variety with all of the different incantations and spells being played. If you like fantasy games with lots of magic spells then this game is probably going to be right up your alley.

The game has a lot of chaos going on with players swapping cards around while trying to play cards that don't set the next player up to capture a spell. The gambit cards are probably what makes this game given that they effectively let you claim a spell. Then there's the aspect that it's possible to draw a gambit card, but you're also dealt one that isn't part of your hand. Do you play the dealt one (so you have one fewer card to work with, but the element of surprise) or do you play the blind one so all can still see you've got a gambit?

Summary

I played this at GenCon on Saturday night and purchased it Sunday morning so you know I like it. It's a fun, light, quick card game. Unfortunately fun, light, quick card games are a crowded field so the purchase of this game is probably going to be heavily based on whether you like the theme.

Thread: Re: Unclear about the order of player actions.

Zadok13 — 2008-08-11T10:59:10+00:00

The rules looked clear to me as well, but when I was looking at the comments section one poster had this to say. "The turn order is very important, for you cannot play a gambit until AFTER you have played a component - thus, you can't destroy your opponent's gambit in play, and THEN take a spell - that isn't allowed." -Chrisnd

So I just wanted to make absolutely sure that I was playing the right way. Thanks for the input guys

Thread: Re: Unclear about the order of player actions.

sirpent0r — 2008-08-11T03:54:08+00:00

The rules seem pretty clear on the "in any order" phase of play.

Play Phase
The following two (2) actions may be played in any order:
1. Play a Magical Component next to one of the Spells in the Spell Pool.
2. Optionally perform an Incantation action:
• Play an Incantation card –or–
• Play or release a Gambit card

Thread: Re: Unclear about the order of player actions.

Zadok13 — 2008-08-10T11:52:38+00:00

sirpent0r wrote:
i beleive you can play in any order.

this gives you flexibility to gain the benefit of your incantation 1st, and then hopefully play your component claim your spell.

Thats how I read the rule myself. I just noticed on here a few people seem to disagree over that, so I just wanted to make sure we were playing it correctly.

Thread: Re: Unclear about the order of player actions.

sirpent0r — 2008-08-10T03:51:37+00:00

i beleive you can play in any order.

this gives you flexibility to gain the benefit of your incantation 1st, and then hopefully play your component claim your spell.

Thread: Re: Bookshelf Games Video Review

Zadok13 — 2008-08-10T03:29:04+00:00

Well I got the game in and had a chance to play two games. The first with 3 people while figuring the game out, and the second with 5. We all had a good time. I really enjoy "take that" style games and this is one of the better ones that I have played.

Thanks again for the wonderful recommendation. Its not a flawless game, and I am hung up on a rule or two, but we had a fun time and I am really glad I picked it up.

Thread: Unclear about the order of player actions.

Zadok13 — 2008-08-10T03:24:54+00:00

I am really unsure about what order I can do things on my turn. In the booklet on page 4 it states that I can do the following two actions in any order. 1. Play a magical component. 2. Optionally play a gambit or incantation card.

Now I read this as being able to either start with a component or start with a gambit card/incantation. However I have read on this site that you have to play a component first. I guess I am confused with how its written. Can someone please explain exactly in what order actions can be performed on your turn.

I get that I have to play a component during my turn and that if I can't my turn ends and I draw two cards, but can I reveal that I don't have a component after I have taken one of my other two actions?

Any help would be appreciated. Thanks in advance.

Thread: Re: Bookshelf Games Video Review

Zadok13 — 2008-08-01T00:44:46+00:00

Subhuman wrote:
Thanks, Let me know what you think of it when you get a chance to play.

Sure thing, I just need to wait till it actually arrives. I have no good game stores near me sadly so everything I "grab" is online. :P

Thread: Re: Bookshelf Games Video Review

Subhuman — 2008-08-01T00:24:36+00:00

Thanks, Let me know what you think of it when you get a chance to play.

Thread: Re: Bookshelf Games Video Review

Zadok13 — 2008-08-01T00:22:44+00:00

Great review. I was kinda on the fence about this game for awhile now, but after seeing your review I decided I had to grab it. Every game I have gotten because of your video reviews has been a big hit with my game group. Really looking forward to giving this one a play.

Thread: Bookshelf Games Video Review

Subhuman — 2008-07-29T15:20:26+00:00

Video Review for Wizard's Gambit.

This video cover the basic gameplay and is about 12 mins long.

Vimeo Video

http://www.archive.org/download/BookShelfGamesBSGEp33-Wizard...
(link opens straight to media or right click and hit Save Target as...to download.)

Thread: Re: Shill ratings: 9 ratings, 6 of them new users owning 1 game

Castef — 2008-07-04T08:34:32+00:00

Frankly, the nature of the game is so versatile that I can imagine several ways to expand it. I guess that at least one expansion is on it's way.

Regarding the shill ratings... I too tend to avoid games with so many 9 and 10 votes given by newly registered users who rated just 1 game. I've been concerned by looking at the net 10 that appeared just after I rated the game 6.5, for instance. D'oh...

Apart from this, this time i disagree with Faidutti. The game is nice, absolutely nice. But if you add Wizard's Gambit in a website called "The IDEAL Game Library", then you are crushing the purpose of that site, according to me.

Thread: Re: "Broken" combo?

Castef — 2008-07-03T12:49:41+00:00

kounabi22 wrote:
i think that when you have no cards you must end your turn no matter what card you play including the take another turn.

Well, this seems to me an interpretation of the rules, and i don't agree with it. In games like this the rules on the cards ALWAYS override the rules on the booklet.

Thread: Re: Shill ratings: 9 ratings, 6 of them new users owning 1 game

RandallPeek — 2008-07-03T08:58:18+00:00

I think I've been around long enough to be considered a BGG vet. Heck, I'm even a past GotW and formerly the top reviewer at Funagain. I've got to say that this one really didn't set my Shillometer pinging like some others have. It does seem like a fairly honest reporting with maybe a little shilling. I'd immediately discount anything that came from a one-day member of the BGG community. Still, Bruno Faidutti felt pretty strongly about it, and I have a deep respect for his opinion. Now if Tom Vasel would just weigh in with his own review, I would be more than sold on getting this game.

Also, ninety cards seems like a good starting point, but with its Cosmic Encounter-like qualities, shouldn't there be expansions lurking on the horizon?

Thread: Re: "Broken" combo?

kounabi22 — 2008-07-02T04:51:07+00:00

i think that when you have no cards you must end your turn no matter what card you play including the take another turn.
i believe its a master rule that you cant ignore with incarnation cards.
This is how we play "no cards on your hand = end of your turn no matter what spell you play to avoid infinity combos"

Thread: Re: "Broken" combo?

sirpent0r — 2008-07-02T00:10:20+00:00

Castef wrote:
Sorry, but I can't consider it a "master combo", as players does not seek to create it. They simply DRAW the Extra Turn card.

I think that a fix for this could be remove from the game the Extra turn card when it is player (and eventually re-shuffle it with the discard pile when needed).

Whether you create the combo or draw it, it is still one of the more powerful and fun combo's you can have.

It's an interesting idea to discard it from play once used and re-shuffle it back with the rest of the discard pile. That would certainly deal with the "looping" effect.

Thread: Re: "Broken" combo?

Castef — 2008-07-01T22:03:33+00:00

kounabi22 wrote:
i think when you have no cards in your turn you must end your turn and take 5 cards no matter what.it says on the rules

Yep, in fact the turn ends. But you've just played an "have another turn" card.

Thread: Re: "Broken" combo?

kounabi22 — 2008-07-01T18:53:30+00:00

i think when you have no cards in your turn you must end your turn and take 5 cards no matter what.it says on the rules

Thread: Re: "Broken" combo?

Castef — 2008-07-01T18:48:19+00:00

Sorry, but I can't consider it a "master combo", as players does not seek to create it. They simply DRAW the Extra Turn card.

I think that a fix for this could be remove from the game the Extra turn card when it is player (and eventually re-shuffle it with the discard pile when needed).

Thread: Re: "Broken" combo?

sirpent0r — 2008-06-30T17:33:39+00:00

We have encountered this too in some of our games. We don't really view it as a broken combo, but refer to it as a master combo. It can give a nice boost to a player, but like mentioned it's only temporary until the next spell is claimed.

Thread: Victory points based on # of players

AMartin777 — 2008-06-30T14:52:00+00:00

Our group plays the following Victory Points levels for a win based on # of players:

2 players - 20 points
3 players - 15 points
4 players and up 10 points

Thread: "Broken" combo?

Castef — 2008-06-27T23:46:37+00:00

We encountered this situation twice. There is a spell which allows the player to draw the last card from the discard pile. Then there is an enchantment which allows the user to play another turn. Using both powers together - I play a turn, play the enchantment, have another turn, grab the first card from the discard pile and so on - the player may get an important boost, expecially considering that he could remain with no cards and grab another 5 cards at once. Of course, when he gets another spell this loop is broken, but I've seen a player taking a huge advantage with this.

How exactly the "Have another turn" card works?

Thread: Re: Shill ratings: 9 ratings, 6 of them new users owning 1 game

Castef — 2008-06-25T10:02:54+00:00

Castef wrote:
mglandon wrote:
Jokes apart, following Faidutti's review i finally bought the game today.

Update: it is arrived!

Thread: Re: Shill ratings: 9 ratings, 6 of them new users owning 1 game

Castef — 2008-06-11T15:09:27+00:00
mglandon wrote:
Oh no! They've gotten to Faidutti! Must have brain washed him. http://www.faidutti.com/index.php?Module=ludotheque&id=564

Jokes apart, following Faidutti's review i finally bought the game today.

You know, for my gaming tastes, Bruno is a guarantee.

And I like he is so "transparent" in his reviews. For instance, he added in his Ideal Gaming Library titles such as Wyvern which are usually massacred by ratings. He likes a game, he adds to the library. Stop.

Thread: Re: Shill ratings: 9 ratings, 6 of them new users owning 1 game

mglandon — 2008-06-11T04:37:53+00:00
Oh no! They've gotten to Faidutti! Must have brain washed him. http://www.faidutti.com/index.php?Module=ludotheque&id=564

Thread: Re: Shill ratings: 9 ratings, 6 of them new users owning 1 game

Hastur666 — 2008-05-22T13:20:20+00:00
I thought the artwork had a real arcane, magical look to it. The game is fairly simple to play, though we had a few timing issues with what order you could do things on your turn. I only played it once, but I'd play it again if my friend brought it with him and wanted to play.

Thread: Re: Drawing Card Clarification

Devonelle — 2008-05-10T18:18:30+00:00
Eric - thank you very much for the clarification.

Kudos on a cool game - the production values that went into putting this together are VERY impressive!

I sleeved up all the cards to preserve the game, hopefully I will enjoy it for a very long time!

Thread: Re: Drawing Card Clarification

Donald — 2008-05-09T19:02:48+00:00
A FAQ that canbe found here:

http://www.gryphonforgegames.com/docs/WG%20FAQ.pdf

Donald
(ever so helpful)

Thread: Re: Drawing Card Clarification

Gryphon_Forge — 2008-05-09T06:26:47+00:00
Jason,

I am one of the designers of Wizard's Gambit.

In answer to your question, there is no time where a player would skip and or miss a turn due to having no cards in their hand.

If a player's hand is reduced to zero cards at any time, they must immediately replenish their hand with five cards. We openly admit that our rule on this is vague, which states, "If at any time a wizard has no cards in his hand, they must end their turn and draw five cards."

The portion of the rules that has thrown some players off is the statement, "they must end their turn." This was intended to limit the player who empties their hand on their own turn, thus preventing some potential run-away's.

We have updated rules on our web site and a FAQ page that addresses this issue. FYI, the rules update is in PDF format and is identical in layout to the rules that came with the game. Feel free to download the file and print out the updated rules or FAQ.

In the mean time... If it is your turn and your hand is reduced to zero cards, end your turn and draw five cards. If it is not your turn and your hand is reduced to zero cards, immediately draw five cards - when your turn comes you will be starting with a fresh hand.

I hope this helps. If you have any further questions, please don't hesitate to ask.

Here are the updated rules:

http://www.gryphonforgegames.com/docs/WG%20Rules%20Layout%20...

Eric Drever
Gryphon Forge Games

Thread: Drawing Card Clarification

Devonelle — 2008-05-09T04:41:14+00:00
I'm getting the hang of this game, and I like it quite a bit. There are definitely some nasty interactions between these cards. I played two games tonight, starting off each with a commanding 6-0 lead and STILL got bamboozled by my opponent TWICE! I can see how crazy this game would get with more than 2 players. Looking forward to adding more folks to the mix!

Just a quick clarification that came up while playing a two-player game tonight:

Let's say player 1 has the spell in play that states "you may pass one card to an opponent and take 2 random cards from that player's hand." Player 2 only has one card left in his hand.

I figure it would work like this?

Player 1 trades a card to player 2.[Let's say it's put aside for now]
Player 1 takes Player 2's sole remaining card.
Player 2 refreshes his hand back to five cards. [As he has 0 cards]
Player 1 takes a second random card from player 2. [From the 5 he drew]
Player 2 *then* puts the traded card [that was put aside] into his hand.

Basically Player 1 will never receive back the card she traded if player 2 only has one card in hand, right?

Is there a scenario when a player *would* have to skip a turn due to having no cards? It seems like most of the time forced discarding is done during your opponent's turns, no?

Thank you in advance for your time,
Dev

Thread: Re: Shill ratings: 9 ratings, 6 of them new users owning 1 game

Zadok13 — 2008-05-02T10:03:57+00:00
Game looks pretty sweet to me, maybe its a real winner.

Thread: Re: Shill ratings: 9 ratings, 6 of them new users owning 1 game

docreason — 2008-04-24T04:29:17+00:00
JonnyG wrote:
I wanted to throw out another possibility.

The developer has obviously playtested the game as it's coming out. As part of that he might be asking the people to go rate the game if they liked it. In which case we would probably get good ratings from people in the area where he lives, in this case Washington state. The people that didn't like it would be less inclined to log in and rate the game.

Just food for thought. Doesn't mean it isn't shilling, but if that was the case it's more understandable. At least it's not 8 ratings of 10.

Hey, I think this is what we call, "Shill Force". Seller of the game and his minions flock BGG to pump up the ratings, pump it up, pump it up!

Thread: Re: Shill ratings: 9 ratings, 6 of them new users owning 1 game

chrisnd — 2008-04-24T04:06:59+00:00
Gryphon_Forge wrote:
To clarify for everyone - I am one of the founders of Gryphon Forge Games.

I can assure you that there is no attempt to provide beefed-up ratings. "Nobeerblues" and "JonnyG" have actually mentioned our scenario - We attended Gen Con last year and play-tested Wizard's Gambit there. We have since published the game and asked people to give their honest feedback for us by going up to BGG and providing a rating - most of which are gamers in the local retailer stores which is the primary source for obtaining our game right now while we work on the marketing of the game, hence the Washington State postings.

We understand that having only a few posts that are highly rated looks fishy, however, we believe that once the game hits wider distribution the game's rating will have true representation beyond the Washington posts, which we already have a few.

As far as new users to BGG, we have been familiar with BGG for a long time, just not as members, since we are only recently in the publsihing arena. So, when everyone - professionally - tells you that you need to get on BGG, well… you post on BGG.

We hope that we have addressed your concerns, and our apologies if we have offended anyone's sense of protocol, but there is no intent to cheat the system. We ask that you be patient with our ratings, waiting until we get more postings so that the ratings will be truly representative.

Thank you.

Eric Drever - Gryphon Forge Games

I met Eric Drever and Matthew Stipes today at the GAMA Trade Show in Vegas earlier today. I am going to have to agree with those people who rated this game a 9 - it really is a good game. I am from Ohio. I have no connection with Gryphon Forge Games or Eric or Matthew. I have rated over 100 games. I enjoy this game, and I am not a shill. Please, give these guys a break - they have self published this game, and since it was just released this year, the distribution is still relatively limited.

Here's hoping that Eric and Matthew can find a strong distributor for the game (say ACD or Alliance or PHD) and can get it into markets that reach outside of the Washington area. I can guarantee that if this game gets widely distributed outside of Washington, it will receive a multitude of ratings that will be worth the 8's and 9's that it will most likely get.

By the way - I gave this game an 8.5. Well done, guys!

Image

Gryphon_Forge — 2008-04-01T09:38:40+00:00
WG Component Back

Image

Gryphon_Forge — 2008-04-01T09:34:57+00:00
Sundered Agate Component

Image

Gryphon_Forge — 2008-04-01T09:34:07+00:00
Siren's Tears Component

Image

Gryphon_Forge — 2008-04-01T09:33:28+00:00
Prismatic Shard Component

Image

Gryphon_Forge — 2008-04-01T09:32:42+00:00
Gryphon Feather Component

Image

Gryphon_Forge — 2008-04-01T09:31:58+00:00
Dragon's Tooth Component

Image

Gryphon_Forge — 2008-04-01T09:31:14+00:00
Ash of the Phoenix Component

Image

Gryphon_Forge — 2008-04-01T09:30:25+00:00
Angel's Breath Component

Image

Gryphon_Forge — 2008-04-01T09:18:01+00:00
Spell - Sleight

Image

Gryphon_Forge — 2008-04-01T09:16:57+00:00
Incantation - Surazal's Switch

Thread: Re: Shill ratings: 9 ratings, 6 of them new users owning 1 game

kounabi22 — 2008-03-27T13:02:45+00:00
well hello everyone i am from greece and i own the game.
the reason that i buy it was the first comments in the boardgamegeek.
i have play it 3 times and each time was better and believe me if the game weren't great i will rate below 5.
I understand and it is logical that the fist players of this game who write the comments will be in Washington state because the game was born there.

Give Gryphon Forge a break,wizard gambit is a great card game.

Thread: Re: From Gryphon Forge - Response to Shrill Concern

Gryphon_Forge — 2008-03-26T02:00:03+00:00
The new thread was obviously a mistake. Thank you for bringing it to our attention. The correct reply is posted on the original thread.

Thread: Re: From Gryphon Forge - Response to Shrill Concern

BFoy — 2008-03-25T14:41:01+00:00
Why do you need to post a new thread? Anyone who cares has seen your comment in the original thread. Let me give you some friendly advice. Delete this thread now.

Thread: Re: Shill ratings: 9 ratings, 6 of them new users owning 1 game

BFoy — 2008-03-25T14:38:06+00:00
That actually made sense. Since they asked all the users to log in and rate the game, you got a bunch of new users who logged in only to rate the game, lol...

Thread: Re: Shill ratings: 9 ratings, 6 of them new users owning 1 game

Gryphon_Forge — 2008-03-25T14:21:22+00:00
To clarify for everyone - I am one of the founders of Gryphon Forge Games.

I can assure you that there is no attempt to provide beefed-up ratings. "Nobeerblues" and "JonnyG" have actually mentioned our scenario - We attended Gen Con last year and play-tested Wizard's Gambit there. We have since published the game and asked people to give their honest feedback for us by going up to BGG and providing a rating - most of which are gamers in the local retailer stores which is the primary source for obtaining our game right now while we work on the marketing of the game, hence the Washington State postings.

We understand that having only a few posts that are highly rated looks fishy, however, we believe that once the game hits wider distribution the game's rating will have true representation beyond the Washington posts, which we already have a few.

As far as new users to BGG, we have been familiar with BGG for a long time, just not as members, since we are only recently in the publsihing arena. So, when everyone - professionally - tells you that you need to get on BGG, well… you post on BGG.

We hope that we have addressed your concerns, and our apologies if we have offended anyone's sense of protocol, but there is no intent to cheat the system. We ask that you be patient with our ratings, waiting until we get more postings so that the ratings will be truly representative.

Thank you.

Eric Drever - Gryphon Forge Games

Thread: Re: Shill ratings: 9 ratings, 6 of them new users owning 1 game

nobeerblues — 2008-03-20T15:01:19+00:00
What really surprises me more than anything, is that there are small game companies out there that have absolutely no relatioinship, or familiarity with BGG and it's community...?!?.. But suddenly, when about to release a game, they sometimes make a late and lame attempt to generate buzz. That causes the members here to be suspicious, not just of that game company, of every high, early rating on any new game they come across on here.

Thread: Re: Shill ratings: 9 ratings, 6 of them new users owning 1 game

EvanMinn — 2008-03-20T14:42:40+00:00
JonnyG wrote:
...

The developer has obviously playtested the game as it's coming out. As part of that he might be asking the people to go rate the game if they liked it. In which case we would probably get good ratings from people in the area where he lives, in this case Washington state.
...

Except that many of them mention 'just picking up the game'.

I.e., they are specifically saying they were not playtesters but people who just happened to pick up the game.

And of the 8 people who've rated it 8 or higher as of this writing:

6 are from Washington state
[c] [/c](of the others, 1 is UK, 1 has no location)
8 created their BGG account in 2008
6 have only rated that game and no other
[c] [/c](of the others, 1 has rated 5 games, 1 has rated 400+)
3 have not logged in since the day they created the account

Sure, there may be some innocent explanation, but it does at least look fishy.

Thread: Re: Shill ratings: 9 ratings, 6 of them new users owning 1 game

Tanakor — 2008-03-20T14:38:15+00:00
All of them registering right now? Even the comments are far too elaborate for one-time users who just want to do a favor. I would expect some "Good game"-one liners.
I especially love "I am going to have to buy some more copies and send then as gifts for birthdays and holidays."

Of course, you might be right. But it´s still fishy - not that I care that much but I find it kind of funny to which length some people go.

Thread: Re: Shill ratings: 9 ratings, 6 of them new users owning 1 game

nobeerblues — 2008-03-20T14:17:47+00:00
Last year at Gencon a friend of mine brought a game he was working on and asked a dozen or so of us to play test it with him and give feedback. He was in the process of putting the finishing touches on the game and was getting ready for release so it really was more like a preview than a playtest. Most of us loved the game and when we got back from Gencon it wasn't long before the game appeared on BGG. Our friend asked that we be honest in posting our opinions of the game, and we were. Just so happens, most of us gave the game a high rating. Fortunately, we are a varied group of players, some of whom are BGG veterans. But, I'm sure somebody thought it was shilling. The game I'm speaking of is Politico. Anyway, my point is that even though it looks fishy, it's probably just as was described above... just a group of testers who happen to like the game and feel involved in its success.

Thread: Re: Shill ratings: 9 ratings, 6 of them new users owning 1 game

JonnyG — 2008-03-20T13:31:02+00:00
I wanted to throw out another possibility.

The developer has obviously playtested the game as it's coming out. As part of that he might be asking the people to go rate the game if they liked it. In which case we would probably get good ratings from people in the area where he lives, in this case Washington state. The people that didn't like it would be less inclined to log in and rate the game.

Just food for thought. Doesn't mean it isn't shilling, but if that was the case it's more understandable. At least it's not 8 ratings of 10.

Thread: Re: Shill ratings: 9 ratings, 6 of them new users owning 1 game

EvanMinn — 2008-03-20T13:10:07+00:00
And most of them just happen to be in the state of Washington which just happens to be where the publisher is located but I am sure it is all just a crazy coincidence.

Thread: Shill ratings: 9 ratings, 6 of them new users owning 1 game

Waylander1 — 2008-03-20T07:35:12+00:00
When will people understand that these kinds of statistics make me less likely to buy the game? I'd rather have a few real users rate the game a 6 or a 7 than have shills rate the game a 9.

For what its worth, there is another small company that has sent out a handful of games to regular users of this website in exchange for reviews of the games. For the most part, those reviews are thoughtful, complete, and honest. It has also created real feedback on the game.

Putting up what appear to be shill reviews just won't cut it.

Thread: Re: Discard Pile

Wray — 2008-03-06T15:55:44+00:00
Wray wrote:
A few of the cards reference the discard pile, but I could not find mention of a discard pile in the rules. I presume that all components for a claimed spell are discarded? When the component deck run out do you reshuffle the discard pile to create a new component deck?

I got an answer from the designers and it is posted below:

You are exactly right on both counts – yes you do discard the components on any claimed Spell, and you also reshuffle the discard pile when the Component deck runs out of cards, with play continuing on. We’ll add this update to the rules that we post for download on our website, which we intend to post in the next few days.

Thread: Discard Pile

Wray — 2008-03-04T04:23:38+00:00
A few of the cards reference the discard pile, but I could not find mention of a discard pile in the rules. I presume that all components for a claimed spell are discarded? When the component deck run out do you reshuffle the discard pile to create a new component deck?