Game: Kahuna

Image

tickwang — 2008-08-04T08:43:30+00:00

components

Image

Joseph Hill — 2008-07-22T23:13:40+00:00

Kahuna played at YourTurnMyTurn.com

Thread: Re: basic strategies/tactics

sbarrera — 2008-06-26T14:15:22+00:00

Yes, card count. That's why I'm so good at this game, because I have such an incredible memory.

Ay-yi-yi!

Thread: Re: Comeback from 3-0

bnordeng — 2008-06-03T21:27:50+00:00

Khabbi wrote:
We play with the rule variation that if you removed your opponent's bridge and it results in both of the two islands being unoccupied that you can place your own bridge. Maybe that rule variation is what seems to level the playing field. I also drew EXCEPTIONALLY poorly in the last round, nothing could help me and I was even drawing blind for the last half.

I really like this game, but the inability for anyone to catch up has always been a problem and I haven't really played the game in a year or so. I do plan to play again soon though so maybe we will use the variant of which you speak. How exactly does it work?

If I remove my opponent's bridge by playing two cards and both of the adjacent islands are unoccupied, then I put my own bridge in place of the one I removed? Is that right?

Thread: Comeback from 3-0

Khabbi — 2008-05-10T03:04:45+00:00

Well, last night my wife and I played the most interesting game of Kahuna we have ever played.

The game started off pretty standard, she was working the Aloha/Duda/Huna side of the board and I was working on Coco/Gola/Faa. I won the first round by using the last card I had left and placing a stone on Iffi.

The next round is where things got interesting. I wasn't every able to pull a Kahuna card and my wife got 2 of them. All of a sudden we weren't limited to our side of the board anymore... she snuck in behind me and secured Kahnua with 4 bridges, in the meantime laying waste to Coco and Gola. By the end of the round I was able to recapture those islands and held on for a slim 6-5 victory after the 2nd round. Great! I was up 3-0 going in to the last round.

This is where the wheels fell off... and the rest of the car rusted into nothingness. It was her turn to start and it would seem that every time I flipped a card it was one she needed to use against me. I couldn't mount any sort of coordination and she was taking my bridges down left, right and centre. She ended up controlling Elai and all the islands around it, most them I had once occupied. At the end of the roundshe was up 7 islands to 3 and won the game!

This isn't the first 3-0 comeback we've had, although many people claim that it very unlikely and list that as a downfall to this game. We play with the rule variation that if you removed your opponent's bridge and it results in both of the two islands being unoccupied that you can place your own bridge. Maybe that rule variation is what seems to level the playing field. I also drew EXCEPTIONALLY poorly in the last round, nothing could help me and I was even drawing blind for the last half.

The more we play this game, the more we both really enjoy it. We like the competetion of trying to one-up each other. The "should I play now or later" choices seem to really matter in the game too, which leads you to feel a great sense of accomplishment when a plan actually works as designed.

My wife certainly enjoyed coming back from 3-0 against me, against anyone else she would have felt guilty destroying them so bad, but she knew I would be proud of her. Hey, I'm not going to discourage the gamer in her!

Thread: Re: Revenge!

UnknownParkerBrother — 2008-04-12T19:36:20+00:00

jgrundy wrote:
(Have you noticed the names of the islands have unique initials from A to L? Makes game notes easier!)

Not only that, but they're in order.

My first couple of games, I'm struggling to find the islands even with the diagram, when dear wife casually points out how easy it is, because they're alphabetical, and in order.

Whoops. Didn't see it at all.

Thread: Revenge!

jgrundy — 2008-04-12T13:52:42+00:00

Ok so last session report my wife totally beat the cashflow out of me at Hansa. And before that in Zooloretto she was woman, hear her roar. But she is a complete and total sweetheart who loves me dearly (or would like me to think so anyway) so for tonight's game she chose Kahuna, even though I "usually win this one".

The Game

I went first. Games are three rounds, each continuing with the board and remaining cards in hand from the previous round.

Kahuna is all about the island network. (Er... plus hand management.) It may help if you open a separate picture of the board: ]]>

Round 1. Rivals across the water...

As usual (but not a universal) we both drafted to five cards before either of us made a play on the board. (As a general rule, if there's no obvious benefit I reckon you should probably delay your play and wait to see what coordinating cards you can get.) But my first play was unusual... since all my cards went reasonably well together I was able to play a brute force five-bridge play to occupy Aloa and Bari, and make a decent start on Faaa and Coco. Her opening move was also five bridges, claiming Lale and Kahu. Unusually, she followed this for several turns playing one more bridge each turn... generally not so good since you don't get to coordinate the cards into more efficient combinations.

At the instant you achieve a majority of bridges on an island you get to remove all your opponents bridges to that island, but after you have the majority they can reconnect to the island. Normally as my opponent claims islands I try hard to fill any vacant connections so as to give myself leverage to oust them later, but in this game we very much consolidated our own sides of the archipelago, all the while of course shaking fists and grimacing ineffectually across the waters at our respective nemeses.

End of round 1...
Me: Aloa, Bari, Coco, Duda, Faaa
She: Iffi, Jojo, Kahu, Lale
(Player with most islands scores 1 point... me.)

Round 2. Soooo... we meet at last!

After a few more plays, at last She opened aggressions by destroying my bridge between Kahu and Coco and building her own. She did this more from card excess than board strategy, since we each owned all the other bridges to our respective islands. But this was not to be tolerated!

A few turns later I took my revenge! In a single turn I occupied Elai (the only six-bridge island, at the centre of the map) thus destroying the two links she had to that island, and filled those two links with my own bridges! Simultaneously, I took possession of Huna, throwing away two more of her bridges. (This is the way to do it... take one majority, and build a chain reaction off it. Playing card pairs to destroy bridges is only a last (or first) act of desparation!)

A few cards short of the end of round two, we at last fill all the bridges and islands on the board, thus:

Me: Aloa, Bari, Coco, Duda, Elai, Faaa, Huna
She: Iffi, Jojo, Kahu, Lale

At this stage I'm dominating, indeed there's not usually such a clear leader by this point in our games. This would be a totally grudge-satisfying situation if I was one to hold grudges. (But there really isn't any ill feeling in our games.) Of the links to my islands, she held only Huna/Lale, Faaa/Jojo, and Kahu/Coco. I still held all six Elai, which is a very powerful situation in this game. By contrast, her margins on her islands were slim.

I took a moment to enjoy basking in the clear favour of the gods.
(Insert angel chorus here.)

We drafted cards to the end of round two, the only play being when she hit five cards and took a half-hearted snipe to remove my Gola/Faaa bridge, but she had no third card to reoccupy the spot and it changed nothing.

End of round 2: Player with most islands scores 2 point... me.

Round 3. Revenge!

The very first card I drew was able to replace the bridge she clobbered at the end of round 2.
(Insert another angel chorus here.)

She started round 3 drawing all her cards from the face down deck, so I was blind to whatever possibilities she might be developing in her hand. Also, that forced me to keep drafting from the junky cards that were being offered face up. But I wasn't doing too badly.

She managed to convert one of my bridges on Elai at last. But this was not to be tolerated!

Again my revenge was out of all proportion to her transgression. In this case I converted her Jojo/Iffi bridge to mine, kicked her off Iffi along with all her bridges, and claimed the Iffi/Kahu link to strengthen my hold. ... But this was not to be tolerated!

Her long-delayed revenge at last rained down on my bridges. She claimed the Huna/Duda link, and Duda along with it, ousting my Aloa/Duda bridge. And she finished the turn by drafting an Aloa card... knowing I could do nothing about reclaiming that link before she did.

And... she could sit on that option smugly (preserving options and the card) for as long as I don't draft a card that might take that bridge myself. She chose not to let it stew, and just filled in the bridge on the next turn.

The Final Turns

In my final turn: I kicked her off Jojo and took over, adding the bridge to Gola to take over there as well, which blew away her Gola/Kahu bridge and took away her Kahu majority. But it leaves links vacant to Kahu, and if she can reclaim one it'd retake Kahu and kick me off Iffi. (Got that?)

Her final turn: She didn't have a card to retake Kahu. Instead, she took advantage of a weak link in my system... I held each of Coco and Gola only by the minimum bridges needed, so when she clobbered the Coco/Gola bridge I lost both those islands. She also bombed my Aloa/Bari bridge which removed my Aloa majority. Fortunately she didn't have the cards to claim any of these newly neutral islands.

Those final turns really cut a swathe through our holdings.

At the end of round three:
Me: Bari, Duda, Elai, Faaa, Iffi, Jojo
She: Huna, Lale
Neutral: Aloa, Coco, Gola, Kahu
(Player with the most islands scores the difference... 4 points to me.)

FINAL SCORE:
Me: 7
She: 0

After-thoughts

(Have you noticed the names of the islands have unique initials from A to L? Makes game notes easier!)

I think my wife was fairly distracted this evening. I do win this more often than not, but she let several things slip by... eg allowing me to draft face up Iffi cards two turns running to set me up for the big Iffi/Jojo/Kahu play, and not taking opportunities to seed bridges among the stength I was building in the early game. Anyway, now that she's graciously engineered a win for me to massage my frail male ego, she's off sleeping the sleep of the bless'd while I write this up.

Good night!

Image

Venga2 — 2008-04-02T13:52:32+00:00

Put your hands up for Kahuna

Thread: Re: basic strategies/tactics

nousername — 2008-03-26T13:35:09+00:00

^^^ yes, that is probably the first/main strategy.

but that was something i did by default. the 2 i mentioned i had to "figure out". although, i do *think* employing the 2 strats i mentioned does trim down how fiercely you need to keep track of cards.

Thread: Re: basic strategies/tactics

clearclaw — 2008-03-26T07:39:09+00:00

nousername wrote:
maybe these are quite obvious, but i didn't figure them out until after a couple plays. these tactics/strategies really seem to help the stability of the game:

Card count very aggressively. Keep track of what your opponent has in their hand and exactly what cards have been seen already and what that means for what cards are left in the round.

Thread: basic strategies/tactics

nousername — 2008-03-26T06:05:07+00:00

maybe these are quite obvious, but i didn't figure them out until after a couple plays. these tactics/strategies really seem to help the stability of the game:

1) Attempt to only place bridges on islands already controlled by you or your opponent

2) Attempt to always have the minimum bridges plus 1, on all of your controlled islands. in other words, you always want to have 1 more bridge above the minimum required for control.

the first one is more of a tactical and the second one is more strategic. if it's not obvious: the aim of #1 is to minimize the likelihood of bridges being bumped off (since you can't get bumped from a controlled island except with a dual-card play), and the aim of #2 is to ensure you maintain control of an island even when one bridge gets blown away.

i hadn't thought of these the first few plays, and everything seemed really chaotic: gaining control, losing control, just mad flux in general. but in every game since, when i've focused on these things, everything is much more stable.

anyone else employ these basic "rules"?

Image

Venga2 — 2008-03-14T15:32:15+00:00

The left hand holds the right(s)

Thread: Re: need rule clarification "instead of playing cards, a ...."

Sonja — 2008-03-05T20:10:14+00:00

I played the game today and was wondering the same thing too.

Thread: Re: Original Rules

chansen2794 — 2008-03-03T03:55:52+00:00

GaryP wrote:
With either ruleset, the Kahuna scoring is the better choice, as it seems to increase the probability of a comeback.
If I recall correctly, the original scoring rule for Arabana-Ikibiti is simply that the player who controls the most islands at the end of three times through the deck is the winner. I also prefer the scoring for Kahuna (taking points at the end of each time through the deck).

Thread: Re: 'Kahuna' Matada!

NJames — 2008-02-04T01:03:07+00:00

J Davison wrote:
I don't have the rules in front of me, but I'm pretty sure that the score for round 3 is the difference in the number of islands controlled at the end of the game.

That is correct.

Thread: Re: 'Kahuna' Matada!

J Davison — 2008-01-26T03:55:22+00:00

I don't have the rules in front of me, but I'm pretty sure that the score for round 3 is the difference in the number of islands controlled at the end of the game.

Thread: Re: 'Kahuna' Matada!

Skythian — 2008-01-25T23:30:24+00:00

You're going to make me go reread the rules again. Dammit!

Thread: Re: 'Kahuna' Matada!

Sphere — 2008-01-25T21:20:57+00:00

Skythian wrote:
Scoring is interesting, the winner of the first round getting 1 point, the second round winner getting 2 points and the 3rd round winner getting the difference of the first two score.

So a player wins if he takes rounds 1 and 2, or rounds 2 and 3, but ties if he takes rounds 1 and 3? Odd, but interesting.

Thread: Re: 'Kahuna' Matada!

Skythian — 2008-01-25T20:30:27+00:00

You have me beat as far as qualifications to announce the possibilities of ties! I think my wife an I have played 5 times total but there were 2 ties in those 5 plays, so I'm basing my claim on 'high chance of ties' on that.

As for the cards denoting the number of bridges I've no doubt you're correct (it's been awhile, this was an old review I'd written fro friends awhile ago) but I think I was more referring to a wish that that info would've been on the board as that's where I mostly look when planning.

Thread: Re: 'Kahuna' Matada!

l-hansen — 2008-01-25T07:47:18+00:00

Skythian wrote:
This has the tendency of making the second round the most important for the win and the likelihood of ties fairly high.

I have played close to 100 games of Kahuna, and have yet never had a tie, so I think your statement is wrong.

Skythian wrote:

At first, it seemed a little difficult to see the number of brides leading off each island for purposes of gaining and losing control, I had mused it would be better if they had some indication on each island as to its bridge total to help with this.

This is stated on the cards. Under the name of the island you have a number of white lines, which equals the number of bridges connecting to that island.

Lars

Thread: 'Kahuna' Matada!

Skythian — 2008-01-24T14:00:32+00:00

Kahuna is a 2 player boardgame offering a surprising number of strategy twists for so simple a concept.

The Polynesian-themed board contains 12 islands that are connected to each other by bridges (initially dotted lines where bridges can be placed). During a turn, a player plays cards from his hand that correspond to the islands allowing him to place a bridge off whatever island a played card shows. Once a player has control of more than half the bridges off an island, he gains control of that island, places a control marker on it and removes any of his opponents bridges connected to the island.

Sounds pretty straight-forward, right? Not so fast.

When a player places a control marker on an island and removes his opponent’s bridges from it, it may cause the required number of bridges the opponent needed to control a connecting island to drop below half and thus make them lose the island. Additionally, you can also destroy a bridge by playing 2 connecting island cards, which might also force your opponent to lose and island. Careful placement or destruction of bridges can wreck havoc, possibly taking out several islands at a time!

Arguably bridge placement tactics are equally matched by card strategy. At the start of the game each player gets 3 cards from a deck of 24 that contains 2 cards for each island in the game. 3 cards are then placed face up from the deck. During a turn a player can play up to 5 cards from his had in succession –but- he can only draw one (from the face up or face down cards). So playing out your whole hand, while powerful, forces you to rebuild from one card.

After the last card is picked up the round is scored. There are 3 rounds to the game, after each one the discarded cards are remade into a new draw deck (and face up cards) and play continues. Scoring is interesting, the winner of the first round getting 1 point, the second round winner getting 2 points and the 3rd round winner getting the difference of the first two score. This has the tendency of making the second round the most important for the win and the likelihood of ties fairly high.

After a handful of plays over several sessions, I would have to say this game gets better as you play it. At first, it seemed a little difficult to see the number of brides leading off each island for purposes of gaining and losing control, I had mused it would be better if they had some indication on each island as to its bridge total to help with this. However, in the second session this difficulty didn’t occur at all so I’m apt to attribute it to unfamiliarity with the feel of the game in the first few plays.

It goes rather quick even with 3 rounds so is nice if you want to think a bit but want a faster game. There’s a bit of luck as where you can place bridges is primarily card-based, but the variety of possible card play strategies more than made up for that. This one’s definitely a keeper and makes the 4-player version look pretty tempting.

Thread: Re: need rule clarification "instead of playing cards, a ...."

ahchong — 2008-01-23T11:33:51+00:00

Thank you for the clarification.

Thread: Re: need rule clarification "instead of playing cards, a ...

Guenter.Cornett — 2008-01-16T03:16:29+00:00

Thank's that's right.

BTW: it doesn't make any sense to drop a card, if you don't need the place for another card.

Best, Guenter

Thread: Re: need rule clarification "instead of playing cards, a ...

Grudunza — 2008-01-15T04:12:03+00:00

First option... if you don't play any cards, then you can opt to discard some (and must if you have five).

Thread: need rule clarification "instead of playing cards, a ...."

ahchong — 2008-01-15T03:46:26+00:00

The phrase"• Instead of playing card(s), a player may discard one or more cards secretly under the discard pile."

It means if i choose not to play any cards this round, i can discard one or more cards.

Or

I can play and discards one or more cards in the same round?

Thread: Kahuna Soccer Match

Grudunza — 2007-12-26T18:48:31+00:00

I'd played Kahuna a number of times online and really enjoyed its simple but interesting gameplay, and realizing how small the box was, I thought it would be a great one to buy for my wife and I when we travel in our RV for several months of the year.

Last night, we played our first game together. I spent about five minutes explaining to my wife how to play, though there were a couple of little things I kept forgetting about, so it was going like this, "Okay, let's play now... wait, I forgot something... okay, now we can start... wait, there's one more thing..."

Early in the first round, there were a couple of moves she made that I had to point out and give her a "do over" for... for example, she had played Lale and Iffi cards to remove my bridge (and Iffi island control), not realizing that by using her Lale card to get the second side of Lale, she would gain control of Lale and thereby remove my Iffi/Lale bridge without having to use the Iffi card. But after two course corrections like that, I interrupted no further and we continued on.

She had a 2 island lead just before the end of the first round, and I made a mistake by playing bridges to Elai to capture that in my final first round turn, even knowing I would still lose the round. With 6 bridges connected to several smaller islands, Elai is very hard to keep, and I essentially wasted the cards I used to capture it at the end of that round because she easily removed my hold on Elai in round two.

In round two, she developed a significant lead at one point, I believe as high as 6 islands to 1. But I was able to come back and actually had a one island lead just before the end of the round when she was able to tie me. So the score remained 1-0 after two rounds.

The third round didn't have as much back and forth, which is usually the case with Kahuna games I've played, but it did swing back and forth a couple of times by one island either way. She pulled ahead just before the end, though I was able to even things out with my final move. However, she won the game 1-0.

She said she really liked the game and that it reminded her of Othello (which I hadn't thought of before, but would agree with). But she also added that with a 1-0 score it almost seemed like a soccer game, where there's a lot of running around and kicking but often only a 1-0 score at the end. I told her that of the several games I've played online, I think only one of them ever ended with that same score. Personally, I thought it was a great push and pull kind of game, and very demonstrative of the cool game that Kahuna is.

Image

Toynan — 2007-12-12T18:02:30+00:00

Promo card from french publisher of Kahuna

Image

ZiggyZambo — 2007-12-05T00:24:35+00:00

Image

hmocc — 2007-11-29T23:07:46+00:00

Kahuna (almost an utter defeat. Almost...): End of a 2-player game (picture created by user carlosboard and me)

Thread: Re: Playing with open cards makes a good game more AWESOME.

Verkisto — 2007-10-29T00:17:03+00:00

I'm currently having my ass handed back to me in a game of Kahuna on Yucata.de. Those face-up cards aren't helping me in the least.

UPDATE: I lost, 16-0.

Thread: Playing with open cards makes a good game more AWESOME.

Drew1365 — 2007-10-28T22:36:24+00:00

I've played Kahuna a few times on Yucata, and the one thing that intially surprised me about the online implementation there is that if you draw a face-down card, you can keep it hidden in your hand, but if you draw a face-up card, that card remains face up in your play area.

This is not in the rulebook (well, not my rulebook), but I think it has a big effect, adding an additional layer of thinking to an already enjoyable game.

You can take a face-up card, but it will remain exposed, and therefore your opponent knows what sort of potential your hand has. Similarly, by looking at your opponent's exposed cards, you can make a good guess about where his power lies. And maybe you'll just take face-down cards all the time so your opponent gets no information about what you can do.

Both times I've played like this has had me really evaluating what my opponent may be capable of, and how it would affect my own plays, and going into a round end or game end, it made all the difference. (Certainly if you have a photographic memory about the face-up cards taken this change is no big deal to you.)

Kahuna is a good game as published, but this one little change turns it into a VERY good game.

Image

spearjr — 2007-10-11T16:48:12+00:00

Online Interface at Yucata.de

Image

J Davison — 2007-09-08T21:25:58+00:00

A tense game of Kahuna.

Thread: Re: I’ve fallen behind- and I can’t catch up!

the_kid — 2007-08-05T06:42:27+00:00

I completely disagree, and I don't play with any variant. I play on Yucata.de where my record is 81-13. There have been plenty of comebacks in those games on both sides, some after losing both round one and round 2.

I just finished a game #91108 if you want to look at it there, where I won the first round, then got crushed in round 2, I was down 8 islands to 3. But all you need to do is win that last round by 1 and you win the game, and thats what happened 5 to 4 me, so I win the game 2-2. You have to plan in advance, how to come back. Also a player can use all of their cards to win round 2 but leave themselves very exposed where they get picked apart. You just need to learn to play better.

It's a great 2 player game and you can also play the game creator at yucata so that's always cool.

Thread: Re: I’ve fallen behind- and I can’t catch up!

GaryP — 2007-07-30T13:56:04+00:00

EvanMinn wrote:
mi_de wrote:
... It is so expensive (2 cards) to remove an opponent’s bridge, especially when they need play but 1 card to replace it, that coming from behind has never been a part of our games. ...
I have always played with the optional rule from the rulebook about the 2 card play not just removing the bridge but replacing it with one of your own.
I've only played two proper games: the first without the variant, the second with. I'll never play without it again. (Mind you, I even won the first game and lost the second.) I also did some solo experiments, and I agree that without the variant there is almost no chance for a comeback due to the great expense of removing and replacing an opponent's bridge.

Note, though, that when playing two cards to remove a bridge in the variant rules, you may only replace it with one of your own if your opponent now controls neither of the two islands. (The other variant rule being that you may never place a bridge that connects to an island that your opponent controls.)

I certainly lack the experience to say that the variant will completely fix the problem. In our recent game, I was well behind at the start of round 3 (6 islands to 3; 2 points to 0). There ended up being a crucial link that would have given me a chance to infiltrate and retake two islands. I already had two pairs to remove and, in one case, replace my opponent's bridges. Unfortunately, my opponent drew the needed linchpin and locked out my chance to steal a majority. It still would have been tough to get enough islands to take the win, but there appeared to be a chance. Again, I lack empirical proof that a comeback can happen, but it sure seems possible.

Thread: Re: I’ve fallen behind- and I can’t catch up!

EvanMinn — 2007-07-29T19:58:33+00:00

mi_de wrote:
... It is so expensive (2 cards) to remove an opponent’s bridge, especially when they need play but 1 card to replace it, that coming from behind has never been a part of our games. ...

I have always played with the optional rule from the rulebook about the 2 card play not just removing the bridge but replacing it with one of your own.

I've pretty much always played this way precisely to make it easier to come from behind. However, it also makes the whole game a bit more volatile and whether that is a good thing or a bad thing is a matter of opinion.

Thread: Re: I’ve fallen behind- and I can’t catch up!

Ed_the_Red — 2007-07-28T23:27:17+00:00

Maybe one simple option would be only to play two rounds? Whoever wins the second, wins the game. If you otherwise enjoy it this would remove the problem.

I like this game, but if someone gets well ahead, it is very difficult to turn things round. On the other hand, if it is pretty even at the end of round 2 it can provide a tense and exciting finish.

Thread: Re: I’ve fallen behind- and I can’t catch up!

bnordeng — 2007-07-28T21:44:25+00:00

Good review. I also really liked this game when I first played it. The mechanics are very neat and the board is a pleasure to look at. However, the fall behind and you are dead problem is a significant one. We've found that he/she who wins round 2 always wins the game.

Too bad, because otherwise this is a very cool game. You are right that there are other, better 2 player games. We still play it once in a while, but it isn't common over here.

Thread: I’ve fallen behind- and I can’t catch up!

mi_de — 2007-07-28T18:11:28+00:00

Kahuna by Gunter Cornett and published by Kosmos and Rio Grande was produced in 1998, and is playable by 2 players in about a half hour.

What You Get

In the standard Kosmos 2-player line game box with a rather obscure cover illustration of a group of islands shaped as a human hand you get a foldout game board depicting 12 islands interconnected by dotted lines, 50 wooden ‘magic bridges’ in white and black, 20 “Kahuna stones’ in white and black, and 24 game cards depicting pictures of the islands. The board, tokens and bridges are quite attractive. The cardstock on the cards, however, is very thin, and the edges of the cards damage easily, and any damage shows up quite obviously against the dark blue background. These cards cry out for card protectors, I’m afraid.

What You Do

The object of the game is to control the most islands, and control of an island is indicated by the placement of a Kahuna stone on the island, which is achieved by controlling the majority of connections to that island. The game is played in a series of 3 rounds: the winner of the first scores 1 point, the second 2 points, and the winner of the third round scores a number of points equal to the difference in number of controlled islands.

At the beginning of the game each player is dealt 3 cards, and 3 placed face up next to the draw pile. On one’s turn, one can either a) play a card and place a bridge on an empty connector that touches the island on the card, b) play a pair of cards to remove a bridge of your opponent connecting two islands, the cards depicting either or both the islands being bridges, or c) refrain from card play. A player can repeat card play as much as they wish until they decide to halt. Then, the player can opt to draw one card, either one of the three face up, or the top card of the face down draw pile. Hand size is 5 maximum, extras must be discarded. If a player opts not to take a card on his turn, his opponent is obligated to take a card on their turn.

When the last card is taken from the draw area, the round ends and scoring takes place, as described earlier. After three rounds, the game ends. Naturally, high score wins.

What I Think

Initially, I really liked Kahuna, and it was a staple in our household. However, it soon became apparent that, at least when we played, there was a glaring fault. Whomever won round 2 always won round three. We have never (in over twenty games) had someone reverse fortune and pull out a win after trailing at the end of round two. It is so expensive (2 cards) to remove an opponent’s bridge, especially when they need play but 1 card to replace it, that coming from behind has never been a part of our games. This is a pity, but it has relegated the game to the ‘gathering dust’ pile. I am sure there will be a horde of comments following this that claim the opposite, and will tell me we are playing with poor strategy or suggest we are playing incorrectly. Perhaps our strategy is indeed poor (although we’ve tried several approaches) but we have not got the rules wrong. In any case, this has soured the game for me. We have used the variant suggested in the rulebook, and this helped a bit, but not enough for us to pull this out any more. A pity, of course, to see an old friend age disgracefully but for Kahuna I cannot give a recommendation as there are many better 2-player cardgames available.

Thread: Re: Original Rules

GaryP — 2007-07-10T15:58:00+00:00

In the Kahuna rulebook (at least the RGG version), these rules are given as a variant.

In the basic Kahuna ruleset: you may always place a bridge, even if your opponent controls one or both of the connected islands; and when you play two cards to remove a bridge, you do not get to automatically replace it with one of your own. (You need a third card for that.)

With either ruleset, the Kahuna scoring is the better choice, as it seems to increase the probability of a comeback.

Thread: Re: Original Rules

zzini — 2007-07-10T15:53:38+00:00

if i remember right, one of the rule sets let you build a bridge onto any island regardless of who controlled it. so even if an opponent removed your bridges from an island you could start rebuilding those bridges the very next turn even while your opponent has control.

Thread: Re: Original Rules

quartex — 2007-07-10T15:45:55+00:00

How is that different than Kahuna's rules?

Thread: Original Rules

chansen2794 — 2007-07-10T15:05:42+00:00

It is easy to play this game with the original rules for Arabana-Ikibiti.

1) You may only build to an island if your opponent does not control
it.

2) If you play two cards to remove an opponent's bridge, you may
immediately replace that bridge with your own, provided your
opponent no longer controls either island after the removal of the
bridge.

These rules make the game a little harder and require greater strategy.

Thread: Two games, one result

MerricB — 2007-07-10T02:29:52+00:00

Our last two games of the evening were both Kahuna. This is another of Randy's two-player collection, and one I wasn't familiar with. Thus, two predictable results: Randy won both games.

In the first game, I really had no idea what I was doing. Sure, I'd read the rules, and they looked simple enough, but there's a chasm of difference between how the rules look and how they played. Kahuna reminds me a lot of Othello - a simple move can have wide ranging consequences, causing the ownership of several islands to change all at once.

Laying bridges to islands by playing a card that belongs to one of the islands - check. Gaining control of the island when you control a majority of the bridges - check. The opponent's bridges burning when you control an island - check. This causing a chain reaction that made it much easier for Randy to take most of my islands? Uh oh!

The first game saw Randy hold the majority of islands after round 1, round 2, and, not surprisingly, round 3: a 6-4 majority, so a 5-0 scoreline.

I did slightly better in the second game, winning the first round. I was learning how to play this game! The second round was not good, however, as Randy took back several islands and began to freeze me out. I did manage to eliminate two of Randy's island control as the third round ended, but not enough to take the victory; he held a 5-3 majority in islands, so the score was 4-1. Well, at least it was closer!

Kahuna is a surprisingly complex game for such a simple box. It may be that repeated plays will finally lift the mystery of the game, but for now, I have to rely on Randy's admission that he really didn't have much idea of what he was doing either to hope that I can turn the tide for the next time we play!

Image

KSensei — 2007-06-21T16:31:45+00:00

The battle for Jojo shall be decided on Faaa.

Thread: Re: Two out of three: End game.

hokietiki — 2007-05-26T14:38:30+00:00

I guess I needed to stress the times when the cards are really against you and your master plan would work if you could play two cards to remove a bridge, but you are missing the third card to play a bridge. Alas, this was the situation I found myself in yesterday (several times). In the meantime, my opponent completed all the bridges to that island and I essentially had two useless cards in my hand. Here is the hard choice: what do you do with those cards? (Example: I had two IFFI cards and he had completed ALL bridges to IFFI. I had JOJO (3:1)and KAHU. I had a hand of five cards with no other play. Instead of discarding and picking up one new card, I played both to make room in my hand (I was hoping for the nonexistant wild card). Still a fun game though, and it is fun to see the cascade of events when islands change hands.

Thread: Re: Two out of three: End game.

bashir — 2007-05-26T13:26:39+00:00

After reading your comments I'm not going to use the automatic loss after the second lost round. I will use the voluntary forfeit rule by the loosing player of the first two rounds if that player sees no possibility of comming back for a win.
I'm far from being an expert kahuna player and therfore I think that where some of you veterans see strategies for winning the third round , I can't. A third round come back is, juging from your replies, possible most of the time but the loosing player must have an idea of how to do it, if he doesn't he can either try and learn from his third lost round or conceed the victory and try a new game.
Personnaly, for my next couple of games, if I'm losing you've convinced me to try the desperate comebacks and see what happens.

Thread: Re: Two out of three: End game.

BigWoo — 2007-05-26T03:15:26+00:00

It does depend on the board situation and probably what cards you managed to take into the 3rd round for your master-plan, but I agree with Jim (ekted) that it certainly isn't over in all situations if you lost the first two rounds. Heck, the most glorious wins are losing round one and two and then snatching it in the last by an impressive ripple.

"Hopeless" situations after round 2 are only hopeless if the trailing player thinks it is a lost cause, and we have packed up many a game in which the writing was firmly on the wall. But a skilful player can make sure that even large majorities can come seriously unstuck by a well hoarded hand, removing a single bridge in the Achilles heel, and putting an own bridge in instead, triggering wave after wave of majority loss and opponent bridge removal.

That won't happen by accident, but to automatically deny it when an opponent gets round 1+2, not only deprives the game of the tallest-tale victories, but also changes the dynamics of the first 2 rounds, as the player who wins the first round can concentrate on securing enough to win round 2 without having to consider a ripple threat in the last round. And that is so much easier!

EDIT: Jim and I are both suggesting that the key is to remove a bridge AND put in one of your own. If your plan doesn't stop there, all the better. There are tons of ways to make sure that someone's lead and majorities aren't set in stone, and keeping key cards for round 3 can be stronger than playing them in round two, even if that means giving your opponent a marginal win in round 1+2. There really is more depth to this game than you appear to have established, and if you hit that layer, this game gets only better!

Thread: Re: Two out of three: End game.

ekted — 2007-05-26T03:12:35+00:00

Playing ONLY 2 cards to remove a bridge is poor play, for exactly the reason you describe. In Kahuna, the tactical goal is to place stones, thus removing the opponents bridges in the process...and potentially a stone or 2 in the chain reaction.

Thread: Re: Two out of three: End game.

hokietiki — 2007-05-26T02:29:42+00:00

I think you are absolutely right. I played today and lost the first round by one stone, the second round by two stones and then got creamed in the third round. I did not get the cards to break my way in the third round. Even then, if I had the cards, I was so far behind that I had to play two cards to remove a bridge and my opponet had the cards to replace and keep what he had. I spent several turns spending two cards to remove and he spent one to replace. I couldn't make up for it! My feeling was that going into the third round, I could make it up, but after several plays, I knew I was done for. So perhaps a mecry/slaughter house rule is a good idea for Kahuna. Beg for mercy and play again!

Thread: Re: Two out of three: End game.

ekted — 2007-05-26T02:11:44+00:00

All 3 rounds are exactly the same: play until the deck runs out. The default scoring system is brilliant. You can easily get 3 or more points in the final round.

Thread: Re: Two out of three: End game.

Rulemonger — 2007-05-26T01:28:42+00:00

I don't find the third round to be any longer than the other two, and the scoring system seems to adequately allow a 3rd round comeback in our games.

We play with the optional rules, FWIW.

Thread: Two out of three: End game.

bashir — 2007-05-26T00:52:04+00:00

One thing I see many complain about is how hard it is for the losing player to come back in the game, especialy in the third round if he lost the 2nd and 1st.
I think I'll put in a house rule to remedy the long third round with it's almost inevitable outcome. Either the game ends automatically at the 2nd round if the same player won the first two or maybe instead of automaticaly ending the game it would be the losing player's decision after losing the first two round, to give his oponent the victory.

What are your thoughts?

Thread: Re: "The Difference in Points"

breity — 2007-05-13T06:35:17+00:00

Thanks everyone for clearing this up! I had this exact same question myself after reading the rules.

Thread: We meet again.

KSensei — 2007-04-09T17:04:31+00:00

It has been a while since the island magic had been slung around our living room, but last night my fiancee, Ayumi, and I met on this mystical archipelago again.

In our last duel, the third round would tie us in score, but Ayumi would win on the tie breaker rules. I would be looking for revenge.

This game started out similar to our last. She would grab control of Aloa while my stronghold of magic would begin at the opposite side on Kahu. We fired our tendrils of power, tying islands together, building up our domains. An acrid smell filled the room.

We exhausted all our spells for the first round. Coco, Faaa, Gola, Jojo, and Kahu pulsed with my dark magic. Aloa, Bari, Duda, and Huna glowed white under her control. I would take the first round.

The score: 1-0 Me

The second round found Ayumi and I cautiously spreading out while trying to secure the islands we already control. Storm coulds spiraled over the center two islands; Iffi and Elai. It was obvious that a battle would soon ensue for their control. Ayumi sprang for them first, lauching magic at them from her side of the board. I attempted to counter, but she easily repulsed my wizadry.

The second round ended with her in control of Aloa, Bari, Duda, Huna, Elai, and Iffi. I would add Lale to my domain. Six islands a piece.

Still: 1-0 Me

We summoned every last bit of mystical energy we could and began the third round. We poked at each others webs of power, trying to find weak spots. Every bridge knocked out by one sorcerer would be quickly repaired by the other. Every attack to weaken the one's hold of an island was quickly subverted.

Ayumi glanced over at the last 3 bits of magic that would be available for this duel. She looked at the 2 spells she held in her hand. She cast them aside and turned her gaze upon me. "I can not win," she relented.

My victory in the first round would hold! Tonight I was king of the islands....

Thread: Re: "The Difference in Points"

Guenter.Cornett — 2007-03-13T10:47:23+00:00

Thanks, Evan, your posting made it clear. I never would read the rule as Dave did. Because of what you explained and moreover because there is no reference to the first two scorings in the same paragraph. The scoring of the first two rounds is described a column before and below another headline. Why should it refer to it?

If you read the text like a lawyer, I'd prefer two other misinterpretations (please don't take this serious!):

"... each player takes one additional turn. After those two turns, the islands are scored for the third and final time. This time... the difference in points."
Of course it refers either to the difference between the last two turns or between the third and the final round (four scorings?). ;-)

But besides this, it's right: Adding 'in the number of islands' behind difference would be more clearly. You would understand what is meant without thinking about.

Thanks, Guenter

BTW: There is no Bible-Code inside the rules. Did you find it?

Thread: Re: "The Difference in Points"

EvanMinn — 2007-03-13T03:54:12+00:00

I can see from the wording why you might think it refers to the difference in points from the first two rounds but it has always seemed to make more sense to me that they are saying is:

The player with the most islands is awarded the difference [in the number of islands] in points.

And not:

The player with the most islands is awarded the difference in points [scored in the first two rounds].

For one thing, if you award the difference in points between the first two rounds instead, the person behind in points is ALWAYS playing for a tie and can't win outright. The most points they could win in the 3rd round would always be exactly what they are behind by. It just seems more fun to at least give the person behind a chance to win outright rather than rely on tie-breakers

But the bigger reason is that, because the first tie-breaker is who won the 3rd round, you might as well just say:

The winner of the third round wins.

What happened in the first two rounds would be completely irrelevant. You would only need to know what happened in the first two rounds as a tie breaker if the 3rd round was tied.

1st tie-breaker: winner of 2nd round
2nd tie-breaker: winner of 1st round
3rd tie-breaker: most bridges

You could do away with the points entirely because it wouldn't matter how many points were awarded. You could award 1 pt for the first round and 1,000,000 for the 2nd round and it would all work out the same.

But if you award the difference in the number of islands as points to the winner of the 3rd round, then the winner of the 3rd round doesn't always win and the points scored in the first two rounds matter.

And I feel it amplifies the tension by making the person who is behind outscore the leader by 1, 2 or 3 islands depending on what happened in the first two rounds.

One caveat: we have always played with the variant rule that playing two cards doesn't just remove the bridge but replaces it. This makes it a bit easier to get combos that swing majorities (only takes 2 cards instead of three to replace a bridge) so it is not unreasonably difficult for the person behind to outscore the leader by enough in the final round.

Thread: Re: "The Difference in Points"

Guenter.Cornett — 2007-03-12T23:08:08+00:00

Maybe I don't understand right. The rules say:
First round: 1 point
Second round: 2 points
Third round: The player with the most islands is awarded the difference in points.

And:
If there is a tie, the player who scored most in the third round is the winner. If there is still a tie, the player with the most bridges at the end is the winner.

The reason: It shall be possible to come back in the last round but it should not be too easy. If a player scored in the second round he often has a better position because of more islands at the beginning of the third round. But sometimes he can only score for the price of instabil position. In any case it's hard to come back if you have less islands but need 3 islands more. Therefor it's a very good work to reach 3 island points, four is nearly impossible.

That's my opinion about difficulty of getting islands. I guess it's well balanced, but if players don't agree they may feel free to change the scoring. The rules shall serve the players not reverse. ;-)

Thread: Re: "The Difference in Points"

GSReis — 2007-03-10T17:21:26+00:00

What Jim said. And there is no reason to be the other way. It would simply not make sense, leading to a lot of ties. If one player won the first two rounds, and the other won the third, it would inevitably be a tie (3-3). If one player won the first and the third, it would also be a tie (2-2). The game could only have a winner either if a player won all three rounds or the last two. I do agree, though, that the rule could have been better phrased.

Thread: Re: "The Difference in Points"

ekted — 2007-03-10T14:39:26+00:00

Our final rounds are always close. But even if one player wins the first 2 rounds (3 points), you can still pull off a win with a difference of 3 at the end.