Game: Richelieu

Image

schlawiner — 2008-08-02T13:36:16+00:00

Homemade Richelieu (printed in b/w and colored later) with storage can

Image

felo — 2008-07-27T11:17:28+00:00

Playing with Laura in the Alacant - Tarragona train.

Thread: Re: pronounced?

funpaul — 2008-05-22T18:33:11+00:00

Dictionaries? Sons of a silly person! The proper resource for settling such disputes is Monty Python.

The canonical pronunciation is first uttered at 5:08 of this clip:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NJegKFFDqww

Reesh-lew. With the R trilled if you like.

Image

Tony Kan — 2008-05-01T04:53:49+00:00

MY scoresheet image

Image

kidsplinter — 2008-03-17T19:57:50+00:00

Richelieu (PnP copy)

Thread: Re: pronounced?

isaacc — 2008-03-16T04:00:45+00:00

It's French, so the correct pronounciation would be the French one, which is:

reesh-el-yew

The yew has no sound I can think of in English. It is a French sound represented by

in French pronunciation symbols.

Thread: Re: pronounced?

abodi — 2008-03-16T03:05:45+00:00

Thanks everyone.

Thread: Re: pronounced?

tawny — 2008-03-14T02:21:45+00:00

sos1 wrote:
I'd say more like Ree-shell-you.
This is the closest correct pronounciation (I'm French )
The first 2 sounds are pretty accurate, simply the "you" would need a slight change, but I can't find a better example.

Thread: Re: pronounced?

Philster74 — 2008-03-14T02:21:04+00:00

Being a French Canadian, here's my attempt:

Ree shu lee-ew = Ri-che-li-eu

The last component "eu" is difficult to get. Similar to the sound one makes when disgusted

Thread: Re: pronounced?

pHr0sT — 2008-03-14T02:16:42+00:00

It's Ree-sha-lou

Thread: Re: pronounced?

sos1 — 2008-03-14T02:06:27+00:00

Also, bookmark http://www.howjsay.com - very nice pronouncing dictionary.

Thread: Re: pronounced?

astroglide — 2008-03-14T01:53:35+00:00

dictionary.com says rish-uh-loo. i didn't know that they do proper nouns!

Thread: Re: pronounced?

SiskNY — 2008-03-14T01:34:48+00:00

I'll toss my 2 cents worth in, based on years of French classes:

REE-shlee-yuh

The initial "R" should be throaty as all good french r's. The vowels at the end are pronounced the same as the end of "adieu". Don't be afraid to really overdo the accent, only then will you truly have it!

Thread: Re: pronounced?

rgmnetid — 2008-03-14T00:38:12+00:00

I say Rish-uh-lew

Thread: Re: pronounced?

Verkisto — 2008-03-14T00:30:57+00:00

Throat-wobbler mangrove.

Thread: Re: pronounced?

Eldard — 2008-03-14T00:23:25+00:00

I say REE-COH-LAH.

Thread: Re: pronounced?

sos1 — 2008-03-14T00:07:26+00:00

I'd say more like Ree-shell-you.

Thread: Re: pronounced?

TrojanDan — 2008-03-13T23:59:32+00:00

I concur with above, but I think it's more fun to botch names, and so I propose:

Ricky Lie Ooo.

Thread: Re: pronounced?

Verkisto — 2008-03-13T23:56:21+00:00

Rish-ee-loo.

At least, that's how my history teacher pronounced the name.

Thread: pronounced?

abodi — 2008-03-13T23:52:27+00:00

how do you pronounce the name of this game?

Image

SiskNY — 2008-03-02T19:32:17+00:00

DIY Version including homemade scoring track

Image

SiskNY — 2008-03-02T19:31:28+00:00

Homemade Box for DIY Richelieu

Image

SiskNY — 2008-02-29T19:58:04+00:00

DIY Scoring Track

Thread: TVB - 2P - Great at MaBi, Nicer in Person

RPardoe — 2007-12-08T01:09:47+00:00

Kardinal und Konig, the card game? Yes, and no. Area control (via cards and their icons) but without the geographic restrictions of the map. A tableau of 48 cards is played out in 4 rows of 12. Each card represents one 9 regions of France bearing that regions name and 1 or 2 shields. On a players turn, they may take 1 (or 2) cards from the open ends of the rows. (A second card may be taken only if it matches the first in colour and both cards bear a single shield.) So the game becomes one of trying to capture the majority of shields in the various regions as only the person with the majority will have those shields count towards the final score. Some of the cards also bear a symbol (cross, castle, sword) which can also bear points at the end game for the majority.

In the end, Rich had a few valuable majorities (3 regions for 19 points), while Dave had more majorities (6 regions) for net more points (28 points). In terms of the symbols, Rich had swords while Dave had castles yielding the final score of 35-25 in Dave's favour as both were tied in crosses.

I have enjoyed playing this game online at MabiWeb, so when I got the chance to acquire the physical game, I jumped on it. The online version does a nice job of keeping a running score and automating the set-up, but it is not that hard to do all that with the physical game.

I do like the variety of choices presented each turn. Where to take cards while monitoring the opportunities it might yield for your opponent, but not so deep that players will spend a lengthy time considering their moves. Relatively quick set-up and play time also make this an overlooked gem in my opinion.

Image

Plush — 2007-11-03T12:41:04+00:00

Thread: Re: Official Variant for 3 or 4 Players

GaryP — 2007-10-15T19:22:28+00:00

Thanks for pointing the variant out. I saw it on the Timbuktu site earlier, but it's good to point it out.

Note that the +2 bonus for having at least one card in a region also applies the player(s) with the most shields for that region.

booned wrote:
- The +2 bonus above applies specifically to region scoring; there is no mention of a similar bonus or penalty for symbols. I am not sure if that means the +2 bonus does not apply to symbols -- it could just be an oversight in the rules. Since the published two-player game states that the -5 penalty does apply to symbols as well, I will assume the +2 bonus applies here as well unless I am shown otherwise.
Since the Symbols penalty was specifically removed from the new (2-4 Player) rules, I would expect that the bonus was also purposefully omitted. Still, I expect that it would play fine either way.

Has anyone played a few games with 3 or 4 players yet? It certainly looks a fair bit cleaner than its predecessor, Kardinal & König: Das Kartenspiel. I only just received the game last week, and quite enjoyed my first 2P game. I only bought it as a 2P game, but I'll be delighted if it scales well, since it's so very portable.

Thread: Power and Mitre

ccarlet1 — 2007-09-08T23:24:35+00:00

Richelieu is one of those simple but engaging two-player games that has grown on my wife and I considerably over the three months or so that we have owned it. It's also one of those games were you set everything up, and then dismantle it, and I like those kind of games. There's quite a bit to dimantling it better than your opponent, and that is where the fun comes in.

Bits:

Richelieu is a card game, although it also has a few counters as well. The 48 cards are pretty small, but the game doesn't involve a lot of shuffling so that is okay. The backs are a nice red, and the fronts depict different colours representing different regions in France.

Each region is represented not only by a colour, but also by a single or couble shield, and on some cards a shield with either a castle, cross, or sword symbol. There are 14 round counters that depict a shield of each region, each symbol, and a property marker back symbol. There are three property markers, which are square.

The components are of good quality and the cards are showing no wear and tear after 20 plays or so.

Set Up:

To set up the game you need to make four rows of twelve cards (so its never the same "board" twice), place two of the round counters on each row, and give each player their three property markers. Set up doesn't take too long though, so it's not a big deal.

Play/Rules:

The theme of the game is that the two players represent Cardinal Richelieu and Queen Maria of Medici trying to gain influence over various regions of France; hence the goal of the game is get a majority of the cards representing each of the nine regions.

You are only allowed to take cards from the ends of the rows. You can take one or two cards, but can only take two if they are of the same region (colour) and do not have more than two shields between them. The first player of the match may only take one card, regardless of shields.

After taking cards, you may place one of your property markers on any card in any row. If your opponent wants a card with your property marker on it, he has to give up one of his own and give yours back. To do this he may take one from his supply or move one from a card where he has already played it. As you only have three property markers, you have to choose wisely when you will give them up.

The round counters on the cards get picked up with the card, and whatever symbol is on them counts towards your total for that region or that symbol, but are not revealed until the end of the game. Two of them have plus signs on them, and those you can turn in to get one of your property markers back.

Play proceeds with each player taking cards and arranging them in regions. It is important to try and get at least one card for each region, and a majority of as many possible, including symbols.

Regions are not equally represented in the cards or in shields. For example, Bourgogne, the largest region, has seven cards depicting a total of 10 shields; whereas Auvergne, the smallest region, has only four cards depicting a total of five shields. Three regions have a total of eight shields, two with seven, and two with six.

If you have a majority of the shields for a region, inclucing those on the round counters, you score that number of points and your opponent gets nothing. If you are tied, you both receive nothing. The same rules apply to the symbols.

If you get all the shields for a region, you get that number of points and your opponent gets -5.

Whoever has the most points wins. In the case of tie, whoever has the fewest cards wins.

Strategy/Tactics:

While the game is simple, there are a lot of interesting choices to be made.

Being able to shut an opponent out of a region can be decisive, so it is worth shooting for, but on the other hand, you want to be sure to get at least on shield for each region to guard against being shut out.
We don't have shut outs happen too often, but the fact that it can adds a lot of tension to the game.

While you are busy keeping track of who has what regions, you can't neglect trying to get the majority of each symbol. The cards with two shields on them are good, but often it is better to take a single card with a single shield and symbol. We score the regions first and then the symbols, and our games often boil down to who did a better job acquiring them--and our games are always close, which is another great feature of this game. The round markers can also tip the balance in your favour, and are worth laying your property marker on.

Obviously, you will want to lay your property marker on cards you want, but there are other interesting ways to use them.

Keeping in mind that you can only draw from the end of a row, you can drop your marker onto the end of the row just so your opponent won't go digging into that row without paying a price. You can also lay your marker on a card your opponent needs more than you for the same reason.

Being able to draw two cards, each with a single shield and symbol, is the best draw of all, so tagging one of the two with your marker can prevent your opponent from getting that draw. Looking ahead at what is coming close to the end of the row, and laying your marker there can also secure you such a pair of cards.

Putting your property marker in the interior of a row can also backfire if your opponent decides to put his on the end of the row and leave it there for a while. If that's the case, you definitely want to move it to where the action is.

There's not much point to having your property markers left at the end of the game, so you just have to decide where and when you want to give them up to take a card your opponent has put his marker on. Getting a pair is usually worth it because it helps you to gain a majority in at least two areas: a region and one or two of the symbols.

Shutting your opponent out of a region is definitely worth giving up a property marker for, and you can sometimes catch your opponent napping by stealing the last card for a region.

Conclusion:

There's a fair amount to keep track of in this game, and you have to be able to think offensively and defensively. It is not an overly confrontational game, but you do get to mess with your opponent a bit while you pursue your own ends.

If you like fairly simple games that give you lots to think about, you will like this game a lot. It is definitely a good couples game. I give it an 8.

Thread: Division of State, With a Sword

ccarlet1 — 2007-07-14T20:14:49+00:00

My wife and I recently purchased Richelieu, and enjoy playing it. It's a card game in which you don't have to hold cards in your hand. You lay out all 48 of the cards, which have depicitions of 9 different provinces of France: some have a shield, some have two shields, some have a shield and either a castle, cross, or sword. The goal is to get the majority of shields for each province, and the majority of each symbols, by drawing them from the four rows of twelve.

After a few plays, we found that if you couldn't shut your opponent out of a province--highly desired--then the score usually came down who had the majority of the symbols. In fact, my wife beat me soundly the first few plays because I wasn't paying enough attention to the symbols. So now I treat them game as collecting majorities for twelve provinces; not nine.

I could see that my wife was going for two Languedoc cards, side by side, when she put her property marker on one of them. I put mine in behind her, to discourage her. Sometimes that can tie up a marker for a long time.

I got any early lead in Bretagne, and whenever possible was grabbing cards that had one shield and one symbol, rather than the tempting two shields. I did take the double shields for provinces in which I had a good lead.

Penny was doing better than I at getting cards in all the provinces, and stayed two ahead of me, and had all nine provinces while I only had seven. By the time I had cards from all nine provinces, I only had a convincing lead in two of them, but was doing well in the symbols, and was picking up more tokens than her. I tried to get ahead in more provinces and do damage control in the ones I could not get ahead in. It wasn't a very quick, intense match, as this game always is, and so it was time to tally up the score:

Bourgogne: 7(p)
Normandie: 5(c)
Bretagne: 5(c)
Champagne: 6(p)
Languedoc: 5(p)
Provence: 6(c)
Anjou: 5(c)
Bourbon: 4(p)
Auvergne: 4(p)
Castles: 6(c)
Crosses: 6(p)
Swords: 6(c)

Final Score:

Chris: 33
Penny: 32

Getting two of the three symbols decided it. Of course, it only seems that way because they are counted last, but paying attention to collecting the symbols is pretty important.

This is a very fun game, and because it is so compact, we will be bringing it with us on our backpacking trip.

Image

-mIDE- — 2007-07-09T15:31:20+00:00

My Homemade Edition

Thread: Re: Available for PnP Download

checkmate123 — 2007-05-09T17:11:47+00:00

I was about to do a post on this. My question is how do I do this "nice"? In other words, I can print it out on card stock paper with my desktop printer, but I'd like something a little bit better than that. I've tried to "make" games before out of cardboard or paper, but they are just not nice enough to play. Any suggestions?

Thread: Official Variant for 3 or 4 Players

booned — 2007-05-07T01:07:41+00:00

This is the official 3- and 4-player variant for Richelieu as provided by the designer, Michael Schacht, originally posted here:
http://www.spiele-aus-timbuktu.de/richdown.html

You will need an additional three property markers each for the third and fourth players.

- If four players are playing, each player can have at most two property markers in play at a time. The third can still be used as payment when taking a card that has another player's marker on it.

- If at the end of the game two or more players tie for the most points, the winner is the player with the fewest cards.

- If two or more players tie for the most symbols, or tie for the most shields in a region, they all score points. (Points are not shared, rather each player gets the full number of points as if each had been the sole winner.)

- There is no -5 point penalty for having no cards of a region. Instead, players that have at least one card of that region gain a +2 bonus.

- The +2 bonus above applies specifically to region scoring; there is no mention of a similar bonus or penalty for symbols. I am not sure if that means the +2 bonus does not apply to symbols -- it could just be an oversight in the rules. Since the published two-player game states that the -5 penalty does apply to symbols as well, I will assume the +2 bonus applies here as well unless I am shown otherwise.

Thread: Re: Available for PnP Download

Duglis — 2007-05-04T20:17:21+00:00

English rules are available now.

Thread: Re: Available for PnP Download

kentreuber — 2007-05-01T14:47:50+00:00

According to Michael, the English rules will be available later this week.

Thread: Available for PnP Download

Arcubalista — 2007-05-01T11:41:03+00:00

Michael Schacht, author of Richelieu, has posted all the stuff needed for printing your own Richelieu on his website. He also added rules for playing with 2-4 players. The files can be found at http://www.spiele-aus-timbuktu.de/richdown.html

Thread: Cardinal and Queen

booned — 2007-04-12T05:40:21+00:00

As I understand it, Richelieu started life as the freely-available card-game version of Kardinal und König. The original was for 3 to 5 players, while this is a streamlined version of the game for 2 players only. The theme is the struggle for influence between Cardinal Richelieu and Mary of Medici... so while the original could be translated as Cardinal and King, this could well be called Cardinal and Queen (or, Kardinal und Königin).

The game consists of 48 tiles, 6 blocker chips (3 for each player) and 14 bonus chips. The tiles are layed out in a 4 x 12 pattern, with a random 8 of the bonus chips distributed on some of them -- the other 6 are discarded sight-unseen. On a player's turn, she will be claiming one or two of these tiles from the ends of the four rows and placing them face-up in front of her. Optionally, she may also place a blocker chip on a tile, or move one to a new location. This reserves a tile for later -- her opponent must discard a blocker of his own to claim that tile. The game is over when all tiles have been claimed.

Each tile has a colour, a shield or two, and possibly one of three different symbols. By the end of the game, you will score points for a colour if you have more shields of that colour than your opponent. This also goes for the three symbols that are present on some of the cards -- the one with the most of a symbol will score points for it. A player will lose points if she did not claim any of a symbol or any shields of a colour. Bonus tiles, if claimed, can give extra shields or symbols, or allow a player to reclaim a spent blocker.

The game is abstract and, since the only thing hidden is what bonus tiles are out and where, almost perfect information. You could spend time over-analysing your move, but in practice I find this does not happen. The game moves along at a good clip and is usually over in a half an hour or even less.

The presentation is interesting. I have not personally seen as much hot pink in a game as in this one -- on the box cover, tile backs, and both bonus and blocker chips. Tiles are a curious choice of component over cards, especially since the number is ideal to be represented by a single deck of custom cards. (It is likely to justify the price point of the game.) Unfortunately, though the insert is functional, to make room for the many sheets of tiles it is very low compared to the box top, meaning the game will easily get jumbled around if stored any way but horizontally.

Response to the game from non-gamers I know is mixed. My wife really enjoys it because it is quick and easy to play, with very few rules. Her father finds the many tile colours and symbols to be information overload and does not wish to play again. Perhaps this is because it is a subtractive game: the playfield starts out full of information and you are removing from it, as opposed to other games in which you slowly add to an empty playfield and new information creeps in at a pace easy to follow. Someone looking at the playfield for Richelieu without understanding the rules may dismiss it as appearing too complicated, but it certainly is not.

Like some other Michael Schacht games, and I am thinking of China and Hansa here, it is a game in which the fun is in planning your best moves for the short-term without needing to worry too much about the long-term. It is more tactical than strategic, making for an easier game to play well at and enjoy.

The game doesn't have much room for clever plays, those "Aha!" moments that can turn the game and make it dramatic. It is a game of slow progression, of choosing between a couple of good choices and keeping other good choices from your opponent. It's a gamer kind of fun, for lack of a better term. Players won't be hooting and hollering, or enthusiastically declaring it is the best game ever, but it is a quiet, thoughtful game that is not too taxing on the brain and leaves one feeling satisfied at the end.

I really enjoy such tactical games, and it is the hot 2-player game in my home at the moment, however I wouldn't be surprised if others I introduce it to find the game dry and boring. It is fun that perhaps a gamer can appreciate, not because it is complicated, but because the enjoyment comes from the tactics themselves, not the sudden dramatic shifts of some other games.

On this site's rating scale I would personally rate this game an 8/10, as this game fits me and my family very well. Objectively, I must admit I do not think everyone will enjoy it. It is a pleasant and easy game to play, but there is little that I can say will amaze or dazzle you. But if you like this type of game and the designer's other works, as I do, it is a nice, quick game and one you will likely not regret picking up.

Edit: Oops, I accidentally gave it a rating different from what I intended. Tweaked star rating.

Thread: Re: Playing KuK:Kartenspiel with Richelieu?

booned — 2007-04-08T04:50:58+00:00

Hi Jonathan,

It isn't possible to exactly play K&K:K with Richelieu components as the region make-ups (of shield/circles and symbols) are different, as you may know. It wouldn't be exactly the same, but that alone isn't a big deal, it'd just be a little different.

Ignoring that, there is one scoring method in K&K:K that would be missing if you use Richelieu pieces: each region's circles (shields in Richelieu) can have up to 4 distinct patterns, and the player who has the most of one pattern will score for it (this is in addition to the card scoring). All of a Richelieu's region's shields are the same, but if you were willing to mark your cards so that shields within a region can have different patterns, you can re-add this scoring method. If not, you could probably still play, but it wouldn't be K&K:K, it would be multiplayer Richelieu.

There are other differences, but your question was about playing K&K:K with Richelieu. Other rules differences can be implented within Richelieu -- again, wouldn't be exactly the same (three symbols instead of two, for instance, and different bonus tiles) but they can be worked around so you can get an approxmation of K&K:K.

Image

Silke_und_Andre — 2007-03-20T13:55:29+00:00

Thread: Re: Microbadges Now Available

Armadi — 2007-03-08T20:33:33+00:00

Those look great. Thanks.

Thread: Microbadges Now Available

spearjr — 2007-02-20T14:03:33+00:00

I created two microbadges for Richelieu. Show your love for Richelieu with pride.
[INLINEIMG]http://files.boardgamegeek.com/images/microbadges/richelieu-...[/INLINEIMG] [INLINEIMG]http://files.boardgamegeek.com/images/microbadges/richelieu-...[/INLINEIMG] http://www.boardgamegeek.com/browse/microbadge/2380

Thread: Re: Review: Richelieu

crazyyog — 2007-01-18T07:34:04+00:00

terp8in wrote:
I looked for Richelieu at one time a year or so ago, but couldn't find it at any of the usual online suspects, or at several of my FLGSs. Any ideas?

Is it available here in the US?

It is not in the U.S., but you can get it at http://www.levalet.com/. It's is Canada, but the shipping to the U.S. is pretty cheap.

Gary

Thread: Re: Review: Richelieu

terp8in — 2007-01-18T07:23:08+00:00

I looked for Richelieu at one time a year or so ago, but couldn't find it at any of the usual online suspects, or at several of my FLGSs. Any ideas?

Is it available here in the US?

Thread: Review: Richelieu

bwridge — 2007-01-18T00:07:42+00:00

Review: Richelieu

I’m a bit more selective about what two-player games I keep around. While I’ll play just about any game with the right group of people, playing a two-player game requires that I like both the person I’m playing with and the game itself. Oftentimes, I’ll buy a two-player game, play it for a bit, then unload it on someone else. Michael Schact’s Richelieu is a two-player game that I decided to keep. It’s a fun one.

The two players are vying for control over 17th century France. The game comes with 48 playing cards, all done with thicker than average card stock, that represent different regions of France. Each card has either one or two shields on it, and some cards with one shield have an icon indicating special influence in the military (sword), church (cross), or politics (tower). Each card also has a large number on it that represents the total number of shields there are for that region.

Players also begin the game with 3 Property Markers. These markers can be placed on the cards on the board to indicate a special entitlement to that tile.

The final game element is a set of 14 round markers that are used to add an element of randomness to the game. These markers show a regional shield, a sword, a cross, or a tower. In addition, two of them are specially marked and can be used to reacquire spent Property Markers.

The 48 cards are placed between the players in four rows of 12, face-up. Then 8 of the 14 round markers are chosen randomly and placed face down on 8 of the cards (the rulebook describes a certain pattern but I won’t go into that).

Once the cards are laid out and the other markers placed and distributed, the game can begin. The players take turns taking cards from the table for scoring at the end of the game, following these rules:

• A player may only take a card or cards from the outside ends of the 4 rows.
• A player may take two cards but they must be of the same color and can contain no more than 2 shields between them.
• If a player takes a tile with a special marker, he receives the marker and saves it for scoring later
• If a player wishes to take a card with his opponent’s Property Marker on it, he can, but he must sacrifice a Property Marker of his own.

Following these rules, the cards are removed from the middle one by one until all are gone and each player has his or her own set to score. Scoring is done as follows:

• For the 9 regions, each player counts the number of shields he or she has for each region. The player who has more shields receives that number of points towards his final score. Remember, the round markers can also count towards the shield total. In case of a tie, no points are scored. And if a player has no shields in a region he is penalized by 5 points.
• The Swords, Crosses, and Towers are scored as well, in a manner similar to the regional scoring as described above.

Once scoring is done, the player with the most points wins.

Richelieu is a tricky game in that it requires the players to keep track of lots of different elements. It’s easy to fall into a trap of fixating on the cards that you need while ignoring the fact that you’re opening up cards for your opponent to draw (which, I think, is the mistake I usually make). A prudent player won’t draw a needed tile if it will allow his opponent to make an even better draw for himself.

Richelieu is a good game for any two gamers, but it also does well as a couple game. Playing against women, I’ve found that I usually lose, offering further proof to my hypothesis that women do better at multi-tasking in games (see Lost Cities for another example).

I recommend Richelieu highly to any gamers looking for a fun, simple, quick two-player game.

Thread: Re: Playing KuK:Kartenspiel with Richelieu

fellonmyhead — 2006-12-14T21:19:40+00:00

I never even realised the games were so similar!

From looking at a few pics, you could probably get away with just printing out the Law Cards.

Thread: Playing KuK:Kartenspiel with Richelieu?

grandslam — 2006-12-14T21:03:48+00:00

Is it possible to play KuK the card game with a Richelieu set by adding tiles/pieces/etc? Or does one really have to print and cut a whole new set? Thanks.

Thread: A tactical two-player game

Musti — 2006-12-01T12:41:01+00:00

What’s it about?
In 'Richelieu', 2 players try to get the majority in the different French regions and in three different levels by getting cards from the playing field. The player who gets the most victory points based on these majorities, is the winner.
]]>

How does it work?
The cards are placed on the table, face up in four rows. Additional chips are placed face down on some of these cards. Each card depicts a region, the influence in this region (i.e. amount of shields) and sometimes a sword, tower or cross (i.e. three other things where a majority is needed). The number on the card says how many shields of this region are in the game on the cards. Every player also receives three 'blocking' chips.
]]>

During his/ her turn, a player can take one or two cards at the end of any row. If he/ she takes two cards, they have to be of the same region and can not contain more than two shields together. Any chips on the cards are taken as well. After this, the player can now block cards by placing 'blocking' chips on the remaining cards. If the opponent wants to take one of these 'blocked' cards, he/ she needs to discard one of his/ her blocking chips.

After all cards have been taken (variant: 'only one row remains'), points are counted. For each region majorities are defined. The player who has the majority receives as many VP's as he/ she has shields in that region. After all the regions have been counted, the majority is also defined for the swords, crosses and towers and points are awarded in the same way.

Winner is he/ she who has the most points.
]]> ]]>
Meeple included as size reference

Where is the fun?
'Richelieu' might seem like any other 'area control' game but since almost all the info is clearly available for all players at the start, it has quite some depth and possibility for tactical play. Taking cards from a row, makes other cards available for the other player. This makes the 'blocking' chips interesting but with only three of them, you need to spend them well.
Since all cards are open on the playing field or with the players, it is possible to calculate the whole game without any card counting. This can lead to analysis paralysis but the calculation goes pretty fast so I do not consider it as a problem.

Why should I like this?
- Very small luck factor
- Considerable tactical choices

Why shouldn’t I like this?
- Too much calculating
- Too abstract

Final verdict
'Richelieu' is a fast, tactical two player game. Despite its fast play, it has a lot of depth and a lot of choices. It's 'abstractness' and the calculating and recalculating might put some players off but if you look for a solid 2-player game, I can highly recommend this.

Note that this is a review and thus therefore not cover all the rules of the game.

Thread: Re: Rule Question regarding taking tiles

wizardless — 2006-07-09T20:16:31+00:00

Thanks everyone for your help!

wiz

Thread: Re: Rule Question regarding taking tiles

jearles — 2006-07-09T11:07:54+00:00

Yes, it is legal... and if anyone questions you - show them page 25 (page 6 of the English section) of the rules.

Thread: Re: Rule Question regarding taking tiles

Zambogirl — 2006-07-09T10:32:20+00:00

Yes, that is a legal play.

Thread: Rule Question regarding taking tiles

wizardless — 2006-07-09T09:31:03+00:00

If I take a card with a single shield (A) and directly after that card on the same row is another card (same colour, single shield also, see below), is it legal for me to take this card also as part of my turn?

Example

one row contains:

DFBCAA

I assumed that you could, as once you take the first card, the next card is then directly available.

I was questioned recently while teaching the game, so would like to set the rule straight.

Thanks
Wiz

Thread: Re: Variant Question

TrimChris — 2006-04-07T19:03:38+00:00

After you've played this a few times, I think you have to move to the variant.

If the last row is of significant length, this can sometimes spell disaster for one player. Player A might get their markers at two ends of the row. Now player B can only claim a few cards before having to spend all their markers to get past those of Player A.

Avoiding row lock becomes another game mechanic that may force suboptimal choices in the competition for normal scoring opportunities.

Thread: Re: Mini Review: Feels like Alhambra

chaosbreaker — 2005-12-06T19:05:26+00:00

After more plays. I consider one of the best 2 player games. Especially good because of the quick setup.

I give it an 8.

Thread: Re: Variant Question

Glamorous Mucus — 2005-05-29T12:58:58+00:00

Better late than never:

Yes, I believe that is what is intended. I do think the uncertainty and tactics that this creates surrounding the endgame timing makes for a better game.

Thread: Re:English Rules

joelee — 2005-01-04T14:11:04+00:00

AmazingIntern (#74487),

The links were broken while the new server was set up. The link is working now. I had the same problem with the rules to Die Macher.

Joe

Thread: English Rules

AmazingIntern — 2005-01-03T14:02:46+00:00

The link to the English Rules here on the 'Geek takes me to a blank .doc file. Is there another way I can find the translation? (The author's website sends me back to BGG)

Thread: Mini Review: Feels like Alhambra

chaosbreaker — 2004-12-27T20:19:06+00:00

The goal is to increase the sphere of influence by gaining majority in 12 different categories. Majority in a category points awards points at end of game. Player that has more points wins.

Theme: Players take the roles of either head of state or church and compete for favor and control of different groups.

I did not feel like I was part of an epic struggle for control France between the church and state. It feels more like collecting sets color tiles.

Game play:

The 12 categories break down to 9 colors that represent 9 different regions of France, and 3 symbols that represent the church, military, and the government. Players attempt to gain majority by collecting one or two tiles per turn and score when all tiles are gone. There is also a mechanism for players to hinder the opponent from collecting certain tiles.

A fun game that looks simple yet deep. Every move you make can be potentially open paths that can help your opponent. Thus you must choose a move that benefits you more than your opponent. A feat easily said than done.

Similarities with other games:

This game plays like a more strategic version of Alhambra that has easy setup and cleanup. I consider it as good as Battle Line for a quick 2 player game.

I give it 7 out 10!

Thread: Session Report

EYE of NiGHT — 2003-12-14T23:26:42+00:00

Moving on, I cracked open Richelieu, the re-issue by Ravensburger of Michael Schacht's Kardinal & Konig Kartenspiel. This is marked on the box as Fun for 2, but I don't think Ravensburger has actually released any more in this line, so apparently Kosmos has cornered the market.

The cards are actually thickish tiles in 9 colours (regions), laid out in 4 lines of 12. There are small bonus tokens which go on some of the cards, quite small not to hid the card symbols, and each player also has 3 markers to make cards more expensive to take. On your turn, you take 1 or 2 cards of the same colour, showing no more than 2 shields, but you can only take from the row ends. At the game end, the majority holder for each colour scores their majority, and there are extra points for additional symbols. Failing to get a card in a colour loses you 5 points too.

Reading the rules, it seemed a little complicated, but Richelieu is a pretty simple game and seasoned gamers will romp through it. It reminded me a lot of Combit, in that taking one card offers an opportunity for the other player. But the choices are very simple and the player's tokens are not much of a delay. I won against Ian, and I'll play this game again, but I'm not too impressed. There seem to be a lot of colours for one game, so it may be too random, too variant. Nice, but not great.

Thread: Variant Question

shippert — 2003-11-07T14:29:08+00:00

The variant listed in the rules is a little unclear; I think it means you play until three of the four rows (rather than all 48 cards) are gone. Is that correct?

Thread: Property markers

bother — 2003-10-22T22:47:35+00:00

In contrast to the other comments that I have read about this game, I quite enjoy the property markers aspect. In fact, I would go so far as to call it my favourite feature.
One of the most important functions of the marker is to even out the first turn advantage. In the game, being able to pick up 2 cards at once is significantly more valuable than picking up a single card with 2 shields on it. Since there is inveriably at least one exposed pair at the beginning of the game, the first person to play is prevented from picking up a pair to reduce his advantage. The fact that he is then able to "mark" one of the cards in the pair if he wants prevents the 2nd player from inheritting the advantage.
By inducing your opponent to use up his markers before the end of the game you can block an entire row allowing for a great come from behind scenario. This makes the "+" tokens vitally important.
Property markers also add to the interaction between players. It keeps things from being a straight ahead application of game theory, allowing you to play psychologically with your opponent.
Finally, I think that it fits thematically. This game is meant to be about political intrigue and I consider the property markers to serve as "political capital". We often hear about politicians using up this capital (calling in favours, appealing to the electorate to take something on faith) to override the objections of their opponents.
I agree that the markers slow the game down, but that's because of the psychological aspect I mentioned earlier so I think it is worth it.
In conclusion I think that property markers are integral to the game.

Thread: User Review

mmolus — 2003-09-17T13:36:44+00:00

I'm always on the lookout for a good two player game. You see, I can almost always talk my wife into a game, but the kids are real "hit or miss". My wife and I have played and enjoyed two-player Puerto Rico and Starship Catan, but I vastly prefer four player PR and want to avoid burnout playing it two-player as often as my wife would like. Starship Catan is a game that my wife enjoys, but I feel is too much investment of time for too little payoff in enjoyment. I think the best two-player game we have frequently played is Schotten Totten. I believe that the addition of Richelieu to our collection makes this category (two-player games) a two horse race for now.

What do I look for in a two player game?

Well, a GOOD game for ANY number of players has to be perceived by each player in a particular match as FUN (a subjective concept if ever there was one). That's a no-brainer. How much less enjoyable is a game where one player is NOT having fun (and shares that fact, usually repeatedly, with the other players)?

A two-player game should be quick (or play quickly, with minimal downtime). This allows multiple plays (of perhaps multiple titles - variety is good), and also allows you to quickly finish and get into a larger game if more players become available.

A two-player game should be compact. If I want to get in multiple plays of multiple titles, I need to have room for them. We are weekend campers, and so appreciate games which pack a big punch into a little space.

Lastly, there has to be an intangible "draw". This can be esthetic (the appeal of the "bits", thematic, or whatever other feature that an individual might find attractive. An example: I have a preference for games which allow conversation. This is one of the things I can put my finger on that I really hate about Through the Desert: the silence that descends on the area around the board whenever I've played. It seems to run counter to the social aspect of gaming.

So how does Richelieu stack up? Very well, I think.

If you don't already know, Richelieu is a two-player remake of the Kardinal and Konig cardgame. I should also state that I've never played that game, nor have a ever played Web of Power.

Forty-eight tiles in nine different colors with one or two different symbols: shields, swords, castles, and crosses. These tiles are shuffled and laid face up in four rows between the players. Fourteen small chits are randomized, and eight are placed face down in a defined pattern on top of some of the tiles. These chits include ones representing a shield of each color, a sword, a castle and a cross. Two plus symbols are also present. These are used with the property markers, which will be described in more detail later.

The players alternate selecting either one or two tiles of matching colors, with no more than two shield symbols total, from either end of any of the four rows. When a tile with a chit is drawn, ownership of the chit goes to that player. When all tiles have been drawn, scoring commences.

If a player holds a majority of shields in a given color, they add that number of shields to their score (adding bonus shields on from owned small chits). A minority or tie in a given color scores nothing. If a player failed to draw a single tile of a given color, they deduct 5 points from their total score. After calculating scores for each of the nine colors, majorities for total swords, castles, and crosses are calculated, again adjusted by owned bonus chits, as applicable). Sum of the scores for colors and symbols results in total score. Ties in total score are won by the player with the lower number of tiles drawn.

One aspect of the game which feels "tacked on" is the property markers. Each player receives three property marker chits; one per turn can optionally be placed on a tile. Placement of a property marker is analogous to stating that you don't wish your opponent to select that tile (in effect saying "this one's mine!". However, your opponent MAY select the tile on their turn anyway, but must remove one of THEIR property markers from play. In theory, this may allow one of the players to totally prevent their opponent from selecting a particular tile, but only after said opponent has no more markers. I don't think this adds anything to the game at all, and play exclusively without this feature. The bonus is that two of the fourteen small chits previously mentioned (the plus symbols) are ways to reacquire property markers previously removed from play. As these chits serve no function without the markers, they act as "dummies" in the chit mix, and I think this is a good thing (there's no guarantee that you'll get a bonus for taking a tile with a chit). I'd be happy to hear what other players think of the property markers.

That's the game in a nutshell. It plays quick, is easy to teach, and it usually generates a request for a repeat play. It offers a nice number of tough decisions, but doesn't have so much going on that you can't carry on a friendly conversation. A single misplay doesn't take you out of contention. The game offers the chance to play both offense and defense, and my experience is that defense is the more important of the two. Though it takes some table space to play, it packs relatively small and light. Don't buy it for theme, because it's irrelevant, but the game is fun without it.

What would I change? I don't know why Ravensburger felt it necessary to use tiles instead of cards. Regular high quality playing cards (like Schotten Totten, for example) would have been easier to shuffle and more compact. The chits could also have been cards, and the whole works could have been stored in a box smaller than Knights. And the price point could have been substantially reduced.

Schotten Totten requires more thought and generates more turn angst than Richelieu, but seems less friendly and more difficult than Richelieu because of it. In my opinion, this is an excellent pair of games: each is a refreshing change from the other, and I will happily play either (and both) against all challengers.

My rating: 7.25

Thread: Re:Rule Question

cherksken — 2003-09-11T07:58:00+00:00

kittyangel (#19240),

the other discs don't have a real function in the game.
It's only needed so you don't know which discs are on the playing cards and which aren't.
It spices the game up a little.