Game: Queen's Necklace

Thread: Re: After 1st /2nd Merchant (sale), do we reshuffle the gems to change the fashion order, or leave as is?

Sagrilarus — 2008-05-31T20:18:04+00:00

Change nothing.

Sag.

Thread: Re: After 1st /2nd Merchant (sale), do we reshuffle the gems to change the fashion order, or leave as is?

nhojput — 2008-05-31T16:03:19+00:00

i think they are left as is. you can contact 'days of wonder' at their site and ask them although it took a week or 2 before i received the answer although by that time i had figured out the right answer by then. so i think they only change order is when that card is played. when i started playing the game i mistakenly reshuffled them each time after the merchant was played.

Thread: Re: After 1st /2nd Merchant (sale), do we reshuffle the gems to change the fashion order, or leave as is?

gamemark — 2008-05-31T15:55:56+00:00

We've always played "keep 'em as is"...

And I think that's the way it is on the DOW website.

Thread: After 1st /2nd Merchant (sale), do we reshuffle the gems to change the fashion order, or leave as is?

violin man — 2008-05-31T15:35:45+00:00

While rarity will, of course, change each time, and the fashion may be changed by cards played throughout the game, I'm not sure if one is supposed to reshuffle to create a new fashion order after the first two sales.

If not, I imagine it would add an extra agonizing factor to consider when selecting gems to sell--sell those diamonds now while they're high, or hold on for the next sale and hope no evil person changes the fashion order?

If we do shuffle it would make selling things more straightforward (or less of a gamble for the future), but it would then add additional randomness to the subsequent sales--suddenly the person who held on to the lowly amber cards would find them in the height of fashion next season 'for free' (i.e. without buying and using a card).

I guess I've talked myself into keeping them as is after a sale, but I'd like to know what Bruno intended.

Salutations,

Gary

Thread: Re: Age for Queen's Necklace?

FrankBradshaw — 2008-05-27T12:00:27+00:00

Just mho - we have three girls, 12, 9 and 5 and all three love the game - the 5 year old needs a little help from her mum as to which cards to put together and what cards to buy ie character cards, but she loves it as much as the rest of us.

Thread: Re: The Alchemist and the King

Sagrilarus — 2008-04-05T12:41:18+00:00

divinentd wrote:
I've got a somewhat related Alchemist question. Can you use the Alchemist to transmute a gem from one true gem to another of a type that you did not play? For example, say I play a bunch of Diamonds, but it turns out nobody (including myself) played any Emeralds; could I switch one of my Diamonds into an Emerald?

Legal, and often quite lucrative.

Sag.

Thread: Re: The Alchemist and the King

divinentd — 2008-04-05T07:03:49+00:00

I've got a somewhat related Alchemist question. Can you use the Alchemist to transmute a gem from one true gem to another of a type that you did not play? For example, say I play a bunch of Diamonds, but it turns out nobody (including myself) played any Emeralds; could I switch one of my Diamonds into an Emerald?

My personal take is that yes, you could. But the phrase in the rules that could be interpreted to disallow this move is, "...move a gem card displayed in one row to another row," the argument being is that if you didn't play any Emeralds, you don't have an Emeralds row to move that transmuted Diamond into. My counter argument is that if you look at the words preceeding that phrase, "and therefore" you can see that the phrase is just a clarification, and not the rule itself.

Thread: Re: Age for Queen's Necklace?

kq76 — 2008-03-23T09:36:00+00:00

I thought I'd just chime in and say I don't think an 8 year-old wouldn't at least enjoy it. Yeah, there's some things they'd have to keep in mind of when is the right time to play certain cards and the relative values of different choices, but when I played it I believe I paid very little attention to these things and I still enjoyed it.

My wife who is an elementary school teacher says that she'd put the minimum age at 10 and even then there would be some kids who would probably get it and some who might not at all. A great many of them play games like YuGiOh which apparently aren't all that less complicated. Yes, you'd expect an adult to crush a kid at this game, but pit two of them together and they'd probably at least be able to follow the rules once explained to them.

At that age, I don't think them playing the game well should be your first concern anyway. Your first concern should probably be: do they enjoy it? My next concern would be: will they learn anything from it? I think a young girl, age 10, 20, 30, maybe even 6 would achieve both. On the other hand, while a grown man like myself might be able to, I doubt many young boys would enjoy it given peer pressure and all.

I'd say if she asks for it, strongly consider getting it. If she really likes even just the theme at first I imagine she'll push herself to really get it in time. Might there be better games? Maybe, I don't know, but my impression of the market of smart games for young girls is that it's pretty thin. That IMO, if true, increases the value of this game.

Image

chezzilla — 2008-02-10T03:42:15+00:00

Image

chezzilla — 2008-02-10T03:40:29+00:00

Thread: Re: Playing a gem type

Sagrilarus — 2008-01-13T04:00:13+00:00

    You are free to play whatever cards you like, or withhold any or all of them.

    This is particularly important for driving the rarity in the direction you want it to go, and in my opinion is a big part of the game -- this is not merely a blind bid, but one where there is a punishment for bidding too much, and a potential reward for bidding up even if you don't win the gem. That's a pretty interesting nuance to the game that becomes more important as you and your fellow players get better at the game.

             Sag.

Thread: Playing a gem type

piks — 2008-01-12T19:40:10+00:00

We have played a few hands of this but many questions come up. During a sale do you have to play all the cards of a particular gem type that are in your hand or can your hold a few for the next round. So for example, if you have five diamond cards in your hand, and you want to sell diamonds, do you have to sell all five or can you hold on to one?

Thanks

Thread: Re: Possible variant - No "blind bid" sale

zunyer — 2008-01-09T01:08:42+00:00

I probably haven't played enough for the game to be anything but a light card game. (Then again, I like that it's a light card game.) The problem, I feel, is that no matter how much I play with a group and how good we get at understanding and second-guessing each other, once I play with a different group, that feeling of being completely lost during the sale would be right there again.

I've played the variant, and there's a few things I like about it more than the rules as written. I like how the tension slowly builds during the sale, as opposed to one single tense moment - the reveal. I like how you can go in strong with one type of gem to discourage competition. I like how you can draw someone out before slapping a King down on them. I like how you never feel like you wasted your cards - even if you lose, you make the winner give up more of their cards.

At the end of the day, though, I realize that this game works perfectly well as written, and that few might be interested in a variant for it. Still, I like these changes, and suspect that anyone who finds the weak point in the game to be the blind bid will enjoy them as well!

Thread: Re: Hiding your cards before the sale

Sagrilarus — 2008-01-07T18:22:00+00:00

    This is a game that continues to get better as you play, and in my opinion is simply excellent with three players. With two you end up with a big handful of cards, but the rules don't break down at all. With four it gets stretched a bit.

    The theme does indeed tend to cater to the ladies, but if your son reads the Three Musketeers and Dumas' other books this will look much better to him.

               Sag.

Thread: Re: Hiding your cards before the sale

piks — 2008-01-07T17:36:26+00:00

Thanks Sag for your input, and I'll have to think about this a bit more. I think I'll work on a simple screen of some sort but on the chair between your legs would work fine as well.

I got this game for Christmas and I think its a great game. It really seems to be under rated, and I bet if it had a different theme it would be a better seller. When I asked my 10 year old boy to play, he said "play Queens Necklace?...too girly"...lol

My wife and I like this a lot.

Thread: Re: Hiding your cards before the sale

Sagrilarus — 2008-01-07T13:28:56+00:00

Under the table is an option as well. I place all my cards in a single, neat stack, placing rings between cards of the same gemstone so that there is no argument about where they belong. In the event I'm attaching a ring to a single-card suit I put it at the beginning or the end so that it only touches that one card. The King and Queen work this way as well.

Sag.

Thread: Re: Possible variant - No "blind bid" sale

Sagrilarus — 2008-01-07T03:24:22+00:00

    Three questions:

1. How many games have you played to date?
2. Have you played this variant?
3. If so, what were the results?

    I have found that blind bid to be a particular strength of the game, in that it can be very much worth your while not to play all of you gems in any particular group in an attempt to raise the rarity or bluff off the other players. Removing that would make for a vast change in the nature of Queen's Necklace. With repeated plays the merchant rounds become more and more nuanced, and likely pick the winner more than what quantity of gems were purchased.

    It's good to see this game continuing to get play. Vastly under-appreciated in my opinion.

             Sag.

Thread: Hiding your cards before the sale

piks — 2008-01-07T01:25:56+00:00

When the merchant card pops up, what is the best way to get your cards together prior to putting them down?

I was thinking that each user should have a box or something they can use for a screen in the staging area. This way the users cannot see which gems, or how many cards the other players are prepping . When every body is done sorting the cards they want for the sale, all players would then remove their screens and reveal what they intend to bring to market. I just think arranging your cards in your hand is a bit tedious.

Does anyody have any other thoughts on this?

Thread: Possible variant - No "blind bid" sale

zunyer — 2008-01-06T18:38:40+00:00

The only part of this game that doesn't quite do it for me is the sale round. I don't like the idea of losing out on a sale because I can't count cards. This is a possible variant that would reduce that element - and make for some nice hand management and bluffing, too.

Whenever a sale is triggered, the player who drew the merchant card will play one (1) card from his hand to the area in front of him on the table OR pass. The next player will then have the same options. If a player passes, they may not play any more cards this sale. The cards the players may play include gems and grey cards (ring, banker, etc.) After the second-to-last player has passed, the last player may play one (1) more card, and then MUST pass. Lastly, the rarity and actual sales are handled as in the regular rules.

The one thing I'm not thrilled about with this variant is that it does add some time to the game - that could be a deal breaker. Also of note, I removed the Queen's Necklace card from the deck as it didn't seem necessary with this variant. You may want to leave it in the deck, however.

Any thoughts or comments on all this are more than welcome, of course!

Thread: Re: Age for Queen's Necklace?

gheintze — 2007-09-11T14:54:03+00:00

Thanks for the input. These are some of the concerns that I had about the game for her so early -- although I'm surprised that the ages on the box are that incorrect.

I'll look for some other games.

Thanks again,

Geoff

Thread: Re: Age for Queen's Necklace?

Sagrilarus — 2007-09-11T12:37:39+00:00

gheintze wrote:
Hi,

My daughter is turning six soon and I was wondering if this game would be appropriate for someone that young? She really likes games -- we recently started playing Rat-a-Tat Cat and she loves it -- and she picks up on the rules quickly.

The suggested ages are 8 and up, but I find that we can often play games when they are younger than suggested. What do you think?

Geoff

    Geoff, the box is wrong. This is one great game (vastly underrated in my opinion), but it is subtle and complex. Both of those words are not appropriate for young kids.

    I play with my ten-year-old daughter (she always picks it because the artwork is oh so pretty . . . sigh), and I can pretty much crush her on a moment's notice. In fact it will likely be difficult to keep her in the game, and she will most assuredly be overwhelmed by the blind bidding and special cards. Fiddly bits in this critter can make the game complicated as well. In short -- you will work hard to control the flow of the game, and she will struggle. That's no fun.

    I often play with an open hand, and that's for my ten-year-old. In spite of this she still struggles, but apparently not enough to consider a different game.

    But! It is out of print so I would recommend nabbing a copy now for her 14th birthday. Quite inexpensive at several of the online stores, is a killer play especially with three, and chicks dig it. This is the game that females always pull down when they look at my collection (I've had age five through age seventy give the box a read).

    Alternatives might include Loot, aMAZEing Labyrinth, Hisss, and Sleeping Queens. A game like Ingenious could work as well, although I would recommend playing with pieces open on the table so that you can coach and discuss (and she can point out the great move that you overlook as well -- kids love that).

    My kids just recently picked up Pirate's Cove - Search for the treasure game which they seem to have enjoyed (my seven-year-old boy plays with the seven-year-old neighbor up the street), but I have not gotten the op to sit down with it yet.

             Sag.

Thread: Re: Age for Queen's Necklace?

dr_canak — 2007-09-11T10:59:09+00:00

Well,

I would say your six year old would have to be pretty bright to have any chance with Queen's Necklace. I'm sure they could pick up on the mechanics. But there are a good number of different cards, with different effects. Knowing the cards and the liklihood of them coming up is important to the game. Then there is a question of relative value, as the cards are purchased and decline in value over time. Knowing how much you should pay for a particular card in a given situation is also important to doing well in the game. Finally, the points are scored based on a simultaneous blind offering, whereby you and other players offer up any number and type of gem cards to create the most desireable piece of jewelry of each gem type for that scoring round. This requires that you keep track of what gems other players are grabbing and making some sort of educated guess as to how many of each gem people will play when the scoring is triggered.

This is a very good game, and there is a lot more to it than the title and pretty pictures would suggest. Definitely worth having, but I'm just not sure a 6 year old would have any chance at all.

hth,
jeff

Thread: Age for Queen's Necklace?

gheintze — 2007-09-11T04:46:19+00:00

Hi,

My daughter is turning six soon and I was wondering if this game would be appropriate for someone that young? She really likes games -- we recently started playing Rat-a-Tat Cat and she loves it -- and she picks up on the rules quickly.

The suggested ages are 8 and up, but I find that we can often play games when they are younger than suggested. What do you think?

Geoff

Thread: Re: Two questions for Bruno

faidutti — 2007-08-23T14:56:47+00:00

As you wish. I've never bothered to count the cards precisely. I just put it somewhere with the last cards and shuffle them.

Thread: Re: Two questions for Bruno

Sagrilarus — 2007-08-22T15:21:03+00:00

    Thank you for the quick reply! My daughter will be excited to hear your response.

    Is the merchant mixed with the four last cards for a total of five, or is the merchant mixed with the last five cards for a total of six? A minor issue, but worth getting right. The English rules don't clearly specify one or the other.

    Still love this game by the way.

             Sag.

Thread: Re: Two questions for Bruno

faidutti — 2007-08-22T13:59:15+00:00

Sagrilarus wrote:
    Hey Bruno, I have a rules question -- when you mix the last merchant in with the last five cards in the deck, is the merchant the fifth card, or is he mixed in with the last five for a total of six? A minor issue, but I thought I'd ask.

It's mixed, so you don't know exactly when it will appear.

    Also, my ten-year-old daughter would like to ask you a question:

Dear Bruno,
The little fake gem pieces in the game queen's necklace, what are they for?

             Kaylin

The player who has the Necklace card is supposed to say it, so he can wear the necklace as a reminder. And they just look nice, and the publisher wanted them ;-)

Thread: Two questions for Bruno

Sagrilarus — 2007-08-22T00:28:21+00:00

    Hey Bruno, I have a rules question -- when you mix the last merchant in with the last five cards in the deck, is the merchant the fifth card, or is he mixed in with the last five for a total of six? A minor issue, but I thought I'd ask.

    Also, my ten-year-old daughter would like to ask you a question:

Dear Bruno,
The little fake gem pieces in the game queen's necklace, what are they for?

             Kaylin

Thread: Re: assigning rarity values

dcjackso — 2007-08-21T20:26:39+00:00

Thanks, all. Looking forward to playing more QN--3P is a blast.

Thread: Re: assigning rarity values

faidutti — 2007-08-16T19:14:32+00:00

Yes, O is the rarest.

Thread: Re: assigning rarity values

Sagrilarus — 2007-08-16T13:04:40+00:00

    I have always played that a zero-gem is the rarest, and takes the +30 tile. Had the online version not played that I'm sure I would have noticed by now.

    Bruno may chime in.

             Sag.

Thread: Re: assigning rarity values

dr_canak — 2007-08-16T12:03:19+00:00

Well,

Even though the rules don't explicity cover this scenario, we play it that the rarest gem gets the highest value, and all four rarity tiles are used. So, we play that a gem with "0" being sold would in fact become the rarest gem.

If no rings are presented, I suppose it doesn't really matter. I mean, if there are "0" of a gem presented, then no one gets any money anyway, and it's all proportional.

So, take the picture on page 7, and pretend the actual number of diamonds presented was "0" instead of "1."

Original pic:

D E A R
+30 +20 +10 +00
+30 +00 +20 +10
--- --- --- ---
60 20 30 10

With no diamonds presented, and using only three rarity tiles:

D E A R
+30 +20 +10 +00
X +10 +30 +20
--- --- --- ---
X 30 40 20

So the value of each stack is simply increased by the same amount (e.g. 10 pounds). In other words, per the pic:

Emeralds case 1 = 20 pounds
case 2 = 30 pounds

Amber case 1 = 30 pounds
case 2 = 40 pounds

Ruby case 1 = 10 pounds
case 2 = 20 pounds

But things could get wonky if rings are thrown into the mix to create a multiplier. So, I've always "assumed" that all rarity tiles get used, so you have to assign the highest rarity to something, which in this case would be the "0".

hth,
jeff

Thread: assigning rarity values

dcjackso — 2007-08-16T09:04:31+00:00

When assigning rarity values, are gems not represented in the current sale included? For instance if the gem totals across all players =
11 emerald, 6 amber, and 3 ruby, would rubies be the most rare? Or would rubies be second (since diamonds, being absent from the sale, are more rare)?

Thread: Re: User Review

Sagrilarus — 2007-08-10T19:14:49+00:00

    I agree.

    There. I had to do it -- this review has gone four years without a comment.

    This game is simply excellent with three players. Good with two or four, but excellent with three. It's a game that you can play 25 times and still learn something each time you play.

             Sag.

Image

ArtEmiSa64 — 2007-08-07T20:04:24+00:00

Side of box with artwork

Image

ArtEmiSa64 — 2007-08-07T20:03:59+00:00

Side of box with artwork

Image

ArtEmiSa64 — 2007-08-07T20:03:38+00:00

Side of box with artwork

Thread: Re: Be A Man [with 2-player opinion]

mgdpublic — 2007-05-16T15:28:26+00:00

I have to disagree with the OP that the rarity tiles are random. The rarity tiles are distributed according to the number of each gem played. Manipulating the rarity distribution is imo the most import strategic aspect of the game. I almost always prefer to go for rarity points over fashion points because most people won't look to king you will usually end up getting as many points though typically more than going after the most fashionable gem.

Thread: Re: Be A Man [with 2-player opinion]

Sagrilarus — 2007-04-25T14:26:58+00:00

cvlw wrote:
We've been playing this game consistently. Funny, we play it at a time when our collection is becoming loaded with top-tier games like Goa, La Citta, Power Grid, Keythedral, Mr. Jack and some others. Yet, we are very happy to spend 30 minutes on this game.

    I feel exactly the same way -- I'd very much like to get more of this game in, in spite of the heavy hitters that we have available to us. I can't seem to get my fellow players to step up on this one -- it's there in the stack but no one picks it out. Most of my play has been online because of that. The game gets better the more you play and I don't think my buds have stepped far enough over the line for this one to click. Instead Coloretto fills the niche, which in my opinion is a much softer game -- a good choice when you're tired and don't want too much burn.

    Instead of being heavy with rules and components, Queen's Necklace is varied in strategy and play, and you have to adapt to what's available. Since it's a card game each hand is unique. Since it's board-gamish in nature it's about manipulating the board and controlling the endgame. It's just a nice mix. Given it's 30 minute play time I should find a way to get it on the table more. In short, I think the game plays bigger than it appears.

             Sag.

    (The above quote is from personal mail sent between the author and myself, used with permission.)

Thread: Re: Be A Man [with 2-player opinion]

Sagrilarus — 2007-04-25T13:32:06+00:00

    FunAgain has used QN as a promotional tool -- it's included at a reduced price if you order another game. A quick check shows it's $10 now. This is a good thing in my opinion as the game is a steal at $10, but does skew their results a bit.

    Given how accessible this game is to new gamers, it's an excellent way to bulk up on gifts for friends and family. If you buy from FunAgain, definitely have them throw one in.

             Sag.

Thread: Re: Be A Man [with 2-player opinion]

themore5@earthlink — 2007-04-25T13:19:36+00:00

Another review singing the praises of this game and yet it remains far more obscure and under-appreciated than many of its peers.

While very few players are logging plays here at the geek, apparently a lot of people are buying it. I've noticed this game has consistently been in the top 10 best sellers on funagain's website for months.

I think it plays really well with three.

Thread: Re: Be A Man [with 2-player opinion]

Sagrilarus — 2007-04-25T12:21:07+00:00

    Another review singing the praises of this game and yet it remains far more obscure and under-appreciated than many of its peers.

    To some extent I think it suffers from a "neither fish nor fowl" syndrome in that it is very much a card game that functions as a board game. That may be why I enjoy Queen's Necklace so much, as I was a die-hard card player in my youth.

    In my opinion Queen's Necklace is an excellent gateway game, although I may be the only human on Earth saying that. If you know a girl that's about to turn sixteen, this would be the perfe . . . ok, a new Camry would be the perfect gift. But if you can't afford a Camry, this would be an excellent second choice.

             Sag.

    P.S. Thank you for the pointer to the two-player variant, as I had missed it both here and at DoW. This is an excellent recommendation for me as I often play two-player with my daughter.

Thread: Be A Man [with 2-player opinion]

cvlw — 2007-04-25T02:10:40+00:00

From the folks who brought you Citadels – a game set in a fantastical kingdom where persons of extraordinary powers are able to sabotage your designs (sometimes violently) – and Shadows Over Camelot – a medieval mystery game utilizing the Knights of the Roundtable theme (those manly men of yore) comes a game about…collecting jewels to make the queen an exquisite necklace. Right. Some may shun this game’s “lady-like” theme, and, moreover, balk at the necklace that comes packaged with instructions to don said necklace when holding the appropriate card. But, I am here to tell you that real men play Queen’s Necklace.

Queen’s necklace is a card game that relies on set management. The player with the most amount of points at the end of the game, surprisingly, wins. However, it is not as simple as all that – along the way the market for certain jewels will fluctuate given the shifting, random rarity values each scoring round. Additionally, there’s a little Guillotine (one of our favorite card games) thrown in in the form of influence cards (various kinds of characters) that are able to shift the demand for certain jewels, steal cards from your stash, and even, through the propitious use of alchemy, turn some stones into others at the last moment. In all, players will find playing Queen’s Necklace quick and fun enough to get on the table before the “heavy stuff” comes out, but strategic enough to pay it attention as your turn approaches.

The mechanics for Queen’s Necklace are simple enough: on each turn, players may play an influence card and then spend up to ten ducats to purchase cards on the table. This may not sound like much until some of the design enters the picture. Though players are initially dealt four cards, the goal is to amass enough jewels of a type, and hopefully across more than one type to have a shot at scoring well. Here’s how the game works.

There are four jewels: diamonds, rubies, emeralds, and amber. There are four fashion values – these are the values indicating which jewels are most sought after. The values are laid out sequentially. However, the four jewel tiles are shuffled and laid out randomly. This bit of randomness introduces a nice element of strategy as you will want to have your eye out for the most desired jewel of the season. But, two factors may throw a wrench into your plans. First, influence cards such as Favorite players to move their preferred jewel to the front, in effect increasing its market desirability. Second, there’s the effect of random rarity values. Three merchants are placed in the deck, separated by a third of the cards. When each of these merchants is drawn, players must commit to sell one, some, or no jewels. However, it is not until after your have revealed your stash that the rarity values are assigned. Admittedly, this may not please everyone as a well played strategy might be undermined. However, if one plays this game in the spirit of accepting luck into a game, then this ought pose no problem. Another way to view it is that the mechanic captures the fickleness of high society and its spurious covetousness.

Another aspect of the design that we appreciate is the fact that cards in the market change in value from turn to turn. There are five card always on display; along the upper right edge of the cards are five values, varying depending on the card. All cards begin at their highest value indicated by a small ring meant to highlight which value the card has that turn. For example, a single amber might have the values 6-4-2-1-0. If you buy this amber card on the first turn, you will “pay” six of your ducats. Let’s say this is the end of your turn, what happens is that the price rings, let’s call them, are all lowered by one and the new replacement card is brought in at its highest value. In effect, your purchase cheapens the remaining wares for the next player. Hence, part of your strategy will be to constantly balance getting that banker card at full price (which allows you to add a value of ten ducats to every jewel sold – not bad) while possibly allowing your opponent to get two or even three cards for a very cheap price.

The scoring in Queen’s Necklace is a sensible affair. At its most basic level, players reveal what hands they intend to put up for sale. The person with the most of a jewel (let’s say 12 diamonds to 2) is said to sell one of that jewel. That jewel’s value is determined, as noted above, by how in demand it is in addition to what rarity value it is assigned. But there are ways to augment these values. If you play a ring card with a jewel you have the majority of, you will be considered to have sold two of that jewel kind. If you play the banker, each sale is increased by a value of ten. Let’s say you are badly beaten in rubies but are only short one diamond to at least tie the leader, the Alchemist card allows you to “transform” your ruby into a diamond. It might even put you over if you transform a card depicting multiples of that jewel (cards come in various denominations). The only restriction is that amber may not be transformed into any other jewel and no other jewel may be transformed into amber. Last, there’s the title card of the game. Hell hath no wrath like that of a queen – you may play a king card which effectively negates the sale of any jewel of your choice. If your Queen’s Necklace card is attached to the jewel that is being blocked, not only can you still sell it, but now the kind loses 50 points, and you gain fifty.

We play Queen’s Necklace as a 2-player affair with the following variant: http://www.boardgamegeek.com/thread/62436. It works very well. Unlike some of our other 2-player favorites, like Ra, Queen’s Necklace rarely ends close, but there are startling come backs when certain card combinations are played. In the end, this is a fun, light-hearted game that deserves your attention. It won’t replace Goa at the top of your list but it, uhm, shines in its own way.

-c-

Thread: Re: The Alchemist - what is immediately?

Great Dane — 2007-04-16T09:33:50+00:00

The Alchemist must be played during a sale, immediately after the cards displayed by all the players have been revealed.

In other words, after all cards have been revealed, but before anyone is actually cashing in their jewels, the player holding the Alchemist may interrupt the game and ask for time out while he speculates on how best to use his power.

Thread: The Alchemist - what is immediately?

koby_shachar — 2007-04-16T07:38:31+00:00

How much time do you allow the player holding the Alchemist to
evaluate the situation and decide either to play it or not?

Image

samoan_jo — 2007-03-23T20:35:01+00:00

blue cards of the German edition

Image

samoan_jo — 2007-03-23T20:05:03+00:00

'Das Halsband der Königin' - Days of Wonder - German box back

Thread: Re: someone must hate this game

benwang — 2007-03-07T08:01:07+00:00

Play this game only with 3 players.

Thread: Re: The Alchemist and the King

benwang — 2007-03-07T07:58:19+00:00

The king must be played on a Gem.

Thread: Scoring Track

YellowLab — 2007-02-01T16:45:42+00:00

I have recently made a quick four player scoring track for Queen's Necklace that can be downloaded here:
http://www.boardgamegeek.com/fileinfo.php?fileid=21973

Print out full size on 8 1/2" by 11" cardstock. Cut around the dotted lines and either fold or cut in half (along the short direction). The piece(s) will fit inside the box. Use some spare bits to mark and track players' scores.

If there are questions or improvements to be made, let me know!

Bob

Thread: Re: The Alchemist and the King

vernicus — 2007-01-17T20:41:46+00:00

What about the reverse situation: can you play a King for a particular gem type that you don't have and then use the Alchemist to transmute something else to that type?

For example, in a game with my wife last night, I had emeralds and she had none, but she had a King and an Alchemist. Could she play the King alone and transmute a diamond into an emerald to "power" the King?

We decided no, but I'm curious if there's an official answer.

Image

samoan_jo — 2007-01-17T17:11:53+00:00

full frame shot of the German edition (DaysOfWonder, 2003)

Thread: Queen's Necklace - A Light Review

Neil Thomson — 2007-01-02T02:43:12+00:00

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

In Queen's Necklace (QN), players take on the role of a jeweller eager to become the number one Jeweller in the Royal Court. Many of the cards depict rubies, diamonds, emeralds and amber (not truly a gem as the game points out) and each of the cards may display 1, 2 or 3 of these. The deck also contains numerous character cards that have a special ability to affect the play.

The game begins by each player taking 4 cards into their hand and 5 cards are then turned face up on the table ready to purchase. Each card has a set of numbers down one side and when a card is first turned face up it has a little gold ring placed on the highest of these numbers. This sets the cost of each card for the next active player. On a player’s turn they can spend up to 10 Ducats to buy cards, which are added to their hand. Depending on the values present a player may acquire 1 or multiple cards on their turn. Any left over Ducats cannot be kept. The player ends their turn by replacing any purchased cards with new ones from the deck and placing the gold ring on the top most number. Any cards that started the turn on the table and were not purchased will have their rings moved 1 number down therefore making it cheaper for the next player.

This lends the game much of its strategy, as players must not only consider what they can take but what they will leave behind. Character cards can be played before buying or during the buying phase, activating its effect. One such character is the thief, which allows the player to steal a card from another player. The Courtier allows the player to spend 13 Ducats on their turn instead of the usual 10.

Play continues in this fashion until a Merchant card is revealed. This signals a jewel sale and it is now that the players must impress the Queen and earn points. Secretly each player decides which gems they will sell and how many. Once all players have decided they reveal the cards simultaneously. Before the game began 4 gem tiles are placed to one side and randomly 4 value tiles are selected and placed beside each of the gems (the value represents the fashion of the gems). The player who sells the most gems of each type will earn the corresponding points with the other players getting nothing for gems of that type.

There is a second scoring condition based on rarity. All gems of each type sold by each player are added together to determine which gems had the fewest sold. The player who sold the most of this type will earn the maximum rarity points. Three of the 4 gem types will earn points in this way. This is a clever mechanic as players are torn between playing gems to capture the fashion value, which could jeopardise their chances of earning rarity points. All sold cards are removed from the game and the game concludes with the arrival of the 3rd sale where the highest points will determine the winner.

The Final Word

Queen’s Necklace is another quality card game from DoW that can lure in the traditional card player and the more strategy minded. The use of a fixed and variable scoring system is also clever and keeps the players guessing. There are many characters that alter the game but I'll let you discover them for yourself.

Thread: Re: Scoring contradiction?

davidgpeterson — 2006-12-29T21:18:11+00:00

Totally agree that the rules aren't clear on this. We did the same thing the first time we played!

Image

sajimenez — 2006-12-28T12:13:56+00:00

Thread: Re: Scoring contradiction?

Sagrilarus — 2006-12-27T23:06:40+00:00

Maybe not 490, but I've seen 390 online!

Sag.

Thread: Re: Scoring contradiction?

Stonewall — 2006-12-18T20:39:54+00:00

Ok, so I probably won't get 490 points and still lose anymore

Thread: Re: Scoring contradiction?

Sagrilarus — 2006-12-18T20:19:38+00:00

Absolutely everyone makes this mistake when they first play. The example is correct and much clearer -- use it as your guide.

Sag.

Thread: Re: Scoring contradiction?

generalpf — 2006-12-18T19:35:11+00:00

There's a big difference between a jewel and a gem, which the rules don't clarify. Whoever has the most gems makes a jewel out of it and sells it. Each Ring card allows that player to sell an additional jewel. The fashion and rarity change the price of the jewel, not the gem.

Thread: Re: Scoring contradiction?

jglasson — 2006-12-18T17:40:04+00:00

Only the person who has the most of the gem type gets the value of the gem. The number of gems you have doesn't matter. The only thing that would increase the payout would be it you had the Banker or Rings. You in your example, you would get 20 points and everyone else would get 0.

We made the same mistake the first time we played. It's a much better game with the proper scoring rules.

Jeff

Image

nrihtar2 — 2006-10-01T12:19:06+00:00

box art