Game: Quicksand

Thread: Re: Production Warning: Token Backs

jjacjackson — 2008-08-07T15:44:23+00:00

I just contacted FFG and received a reply stating that they'll send me 6 new character tokens with the same backing.

I used this link to contact them:
http://www.fantasyflightgames.com/contact.html

Good luck!

Note: I just received them in the mail - 6 new player tokens with orange backs!

Thread: Re: rules discrepency?

reapersaurus — 2008-07-01T23:24:58+00:00

avyssaleos wrote:
From what I understand you have to play at least one card each round. Otherwise when the players get close to the end they will just sit there (not playing a card) waiting to draw the right cards to move their own piece and win. Well, that's not the reason why they made that rule, since if they don;t play a card, they WON'T be drawing cards to get their own color.

IMO, it is to provide a mechanism to force the game forwards - there are occasional times when you are forced to use a wildcard to "jump" a piece over others to make a legal move, even though you may want to keep those wilds.

Thread: Re: rules discrepency?

GaryP — 2008-07-01T18:56:36+00:00

Yes, you MUST play at least ONE card, but you MAY play more than that. As the previous poster mentioned, the game would break if you were not forced to at least play *something*.

Thread: Re: rules discrepency?

avyssaleos — 2008-07-01T13:37:15+00:00

From what I understand you have to play at least one card each round. Otherwise when the players get close to the end they will just sit there (not playing a card) waiting to draw the right cards to move their own piece and win.

Thread: rules discrepency?

micks — 2008-07-01T13:16:47+00:00

The rules state that you "MUST take the following two actions"...yet in the play a card section it says "you MAY play any number of cards" we had some dispute about whether or not you had to play a card. Any opinions?

Thread: Re: White at a disadvantage?

reapersaurus — 2008-05-31T08:48:34+00:00

Just an update -
we've been playing with this variant (white's starting space is moved up one) and it works perfectly. It makes the game fair for any player of white. In fact it probably made the difference in one game, helping the white player to win fair and square, instead of being punished by starting one space behind everyone else.

IMO, it was an error in printing the board. White should have the same length of path as all the other colors.

Thread: Re: Production Warning: Token Backs

Morganza — 2008-05-22T00:32:25+00:00

I never heard back from the owner of the copy I played.

Image

dsmeyer — 2008-03-29T16:40:07+00:00

Tile Sheet Three Bottom of Board

Image

dsmeyer — 2008-03-29T16:39:39+00:00

Tile Sheet Four Top of Board

Image

dsmeyer — 2008-03-29T16:37:31+00:00

Back of tile Three

Image

dsmeyer — 2008-03-29T16:36:28+00:00

Back of Tile Four

Image

Festivus — 2008-02-18T01:30:38+00:00

Character Stickers (High Quality Scan)

Image

Festivus — 2008-02-18T01:30:01+00:00

Character Counters 2

Image

Festivus — 2008-02-18T01:28:59+00:00

Chracter Counters 1

Thread: Re: Production Warning: Token Backs

reapersaurus — 2008-02-06T06:35:59+00:00

bump -
anyone hear any word on this components problem?
Anyone else have this problem?

You can see it in this photo:

]]>

Thread: Re: Stuck in Quicksand

tada — 2008-01-23T23:47:08+00:00

The GG is for your son for such clever gameplay. If only I could accomplish similiar sneaky tactis to win a few games in such a memorable fashion. Good work, birthday boy!

Thread: Re: Stuck in Quicksand

reapersaurus — 2008-01-23T21:35:15+00:00

THAT is a ballsy, gutsy play, to discard your own explorer's cards.
It's sneaky enough for him to let green hang way in back, but to actually have you advance his character to victory.... he should really revel in that victory, since that's a gaming accomplishment to be proud of.

Thread: Stuck in Quicksand

Dave Davies — 2008-01-23T20:45:04+00:00

My first venture into the game Quicksand was both surprising and sticky. I picked up the game from the Christmas game sale to give to my son for his 11th birthday. It seemed like a no lose situation; family game, 5 bucks, good idea.

After opening his gifts we broke into the game with anticipation. All four in my family liked the idea of the secrecy in the game. The game has 6 explorers that advance their way to a hidden temple, and victory, by being promoted through the play of cards by the players. The catch is that you only know which explorer is your own. You have to advance one explorer every turn; often not your own. In a 4 person game, 2 explorers are independent. The game is won by the first player owned explorer that reaches the temple.

The excitement comes in not knowing who has which explorer. As the game draws to a close, it can be assumed that the explorers nearing the end are player owned explorers and the ones lagging way behind are independent. So in our first game there was a logjam of explorers nearing the Temple. Red, Black, White, and Blue were all packed in the front, each mired in quicksand. Far to the back lingered the Green explorer left for dead. As we each struggled to free our own explorer and creep to the finish line, we had to burn off cards to make room for more useful ones. Each of us had green cards to safely burn. My 11 year old asked to look in the rules to see what happens if an uncontrolled token arrived at the temple first. When we were sure that the game proceeded until a player owned explorer won he moved the green token to the space 2 from the end. My explorer was three away but I only had two of my cards at in my hand. I decided to move the green explorer off the board so that the other players could not burn their green cards. I played a green card and a mask wild card, picked up the green token and tossed it to the side. I drew another mask and a second blue card. My turn was over but I was ready to win next turn.

As my wife started to play, the 11 year old birthday boy grinned as he turned over his green ID counter. He won the game having sandbagged the whole time. He explained that he had discarded most of his green cards and tried to get people to believe that he was the red explorer. I was the red explorer. He was so conniving that he even had me consult the rules to cover his trail. He decided that Quicksand is now his favorite game and wants to play it all the time. Not a bad birthday memory for $5.

Image

TimothyP — 2008-01-22T04:26:14+00:00

How the game looks while being played.

Image

rvinyard — 2008-01-20T05:56:13+00:00

Quicksand Card Back

Thread: Re: Why is this game only listed as 2-5 players?

GSReis — 2008-01-14T14:02:43+00:00

Is there some obvious or subtle game-breaking reason why Quicksand isn't officially playable with 6 players?
The former. If you are always helping some opponent by playing cards not of your own character, there is no point in trying to hide who you are or to guess who the others are. You would just play cards of the characters that are behind. In the end, all would come down to luck of the draw and kingmaking.

Thread: Re: Why is this game only listed as 2-5 players?

johnweldy — 2008-01-14T12:21:14+00:00

Probably so there's always at least one non-player character that you can move without fear (or at least you think you can). With 6, you're always helping someone else.

If it works fine for you though, go with it.

Thread: Why is this game only listed as 2-5 players?

reapersaurus — 2008-01-14T07:45:43+00:00

Maybe we are doing something wrong, but in my experience the game plays fine with 6 players.
There ARE 6 characters to play, obviously.

Is there some obvious or subtle game-breaking reason why Quicksand isn't officially playable with 6 players?

Thread: Re: Production Warning: Token Backs

reapersaurus — 2008-01-14T07:39:58+00:00

Same here - any update on this component problem?

Thread: Re: White at a disadvantage?

reapersaurus — 2008-01-14T07:38:14+00:00

Green has an advantage, though - their last color space is the farthest along the track, closest to the finish line.

And blue's 1st color space is actually one FURTHER than green's.....

Thread: Re: Gantrell's Regimentd Review

ronster0 — 2008-01-14T07:07:44+00:00

I would echo your sentiments about toping off with about two games max.

Although the game is not any kind of brain burner, the ability to play with people 5 and up makes this a great family game that we can take out and play before bed or on a Friday night. For that I give a great thumbs up.

Thread: Gantrell's Regimentd Review

gantrell — 2008-01-14T01:10:10+00:00

Title – Quicksand
Age Range – 8 and up
Players – 2 to 5
Maker/Publisher – Fantasy Flight
Designer – Stefano Cavane

The Components:
A nice 2 piece colorful gameboard
83 standard quality game cards
6 round wooden markers
6 cardboard character chits
1 sticker sheet
Instructions (in 4 languages)

The Concept:
You are an “adventurer” either an: archeologist, botanist, hunter, etc. You and your companions are all racing (for some reason) down a one-way path to be the first into the local foreboding-looking skull ruin. The path consists of beige neutral tiles and colored tiles of each character. The movement mechanics are pretty basic; players are dealt a hand of cards that are colored to correspond to each of the adventurers. Here is the game’s twist, as other than your own character, you don’t know which adventurer goes to which player. In addition to that, in fewer than 5 player games, all adventurer tokens are still used, therefore there are several dummy players. On a player’s turn you choose which adventurer to move forward based on which cards you currently have in your hand. One blue card will advance the blue adventurer one space, 2 cards 2 spaces, etc. However, the reason that you wouldn’t want to announce which adventurer you are is because of the quicksand cards. A quicksand card causes an adventurer’s token to be flipped over, signifying that he is trapped and cannot move until he plays a movement card of the appropriate color to free himself from the quicksand. If everyone knows which adventurer you are, you can bet that they will “quicksand” you every chance they get, slowing you down considerably. Therefore it becomes a game of misdirection and slyly advancing. There are also mechanics for card discarding and a “wild” movement card too, but those just spice up the game and don’t really warrant full explanation. The first adventurer to the temple is the winner!

The Good:
The misdirection aspect is fun, worrying about if you are moving your adventurer too much provides a nice level of tension, and of course “quicksanding” an opponent is an immediate 3rd grade level giggly-amusement. This game is a nice filler type game and works great with kids who are just on the cusp of figuring out that there are multiple levels of strategy in most games. Even if they aren’t at that level yet, they will have fun moving around and sinking people just for the fun of it.

The Nitpicky:
Overall the theme is a tad odd. Why are we all running to the same place? Why is the path one way? On top of that, the theme is feels a little thin and has all the earmarks of being pasted-on. Do all of these things bring the game down? No. the game is what is supposed to be, a light filler game that kids and adults can enjoy. I don’t think you would ever find an entirely adult group playing this, unless alcohol was involved. But again, it is good at filling the niche it aims for.

Overall:
This game is fun to play as a family game; the minimal violence will make it a hit in almost every home. The interaction between all of the characters make it an immersive experience and the “hidden character” twist throws a neat level of fun into an otherwise straight race game. I have fun with this, but top out at probably two games a night before we move on.

The Score Per The BGG Scale:
1 – Defies description of a game, clearly broken
2 – Extremely annoying game, won’t play this ever again
3 – Bad, likely won’t play this again but could be convinced
4 – Not so good, it doesn’t get me but could be talked into it on occasion
5 – Average game, slightly boring, take it or leave it
6 – Okay game, some fun or challenge at least, will play sporadically if in the right mood
7 – Good game. Usually willing to play it
8 – Very good game, I like to play it. Probably I’ll suggest it and never turn down a game
9 – Excellent game, always want to play it
10 – Outstanding, always want to play and expect this will never change

Thats my .02
Gantrell
"KMG365"

Thread: Re: White at a disadvantage?

houjix — 2008-01-11T03:56:04+00:00

I personally think green is at a disadvantage because it's a longer distance to the green space. That's significant for early game bluffing and incidental moves. You can't fake moving the green pawn nearly as easily.

Thread: Re: White at a disadvantage?

reapersaurus — 2008-01-04T07:39:51+00:00

MrSkeletor wrote:
reapersaurus wrote:
MrSkeletor wrote:
Maybe this is made up for by the fact whites first 'free' cardspace is on it's shortest track, whereas the others seem to have to sidetrack a square or two?I noticed that, too, but I figure any small gameplay advantage/disadvantage of tile-color layout is dwarfed by white's 15 space track as opposed to everyone else's 14 spaces.

And other colors (green) have their tile color in advantageous positions, also.

Seems like a strange thing to overlook though, as whites start could easily have been moved up a space, as red already sets that precident. Yeah, looking at the board I just don;t see a reason NOT to move white up, to copy red's starting position.

Thread: Re: White at a disadvantage?

MrSkeletor — 2008-01-03T23:16:22+00:00

reapersaurus wrote:
MrSkeletor wrote:
Maybe this is made up for by the fact whites first 'free' cardspace is on it's shortest track, whereas the others seem to have to sidetrack a square or two?I noticed that, too, but I figure any small gameplay advantage/disadvantage of tile-color layout is dwarfed by white's 15 space track as opposed to everyone else's 14 spaces.

And other colors (green) have their tile color in advantageous positions, also.

Seems like a strange thing to overlook though, as whites start could easily have been moved up a space, as red already sets that precident.

Thread: Re: White at a disadvantage?

reapersaurus — 2008-01-03T20:29:23+00:00

MrSkeletor wrote:
Maybe this is made up for by the fact whites first 'free' cardspace is on it's shortest track, whereas the others seem to have to sidetrack a square or two?I noticed that, too, but I figure any small gameplay advantage/disadvantage of tile-color layout is dwarfed by white's 15 space track as opposed to everyone else's 14 spaces.

And other colors (green) have their tile color in advantageous positions, also.

Thread: Re: White at a disadvantage?

Grudunza — 2008-01-03T05:53:56+00:00

Taavet wrote:
Out of curiosity for anyone else more Geeky then myself (becuase I don't want to get off my duff and count the cards) are there the same number of cards for each color in the deck? Maybe white has one more??

No, I counted the cards a while ago when I was working on my variants for this game, and there are 11 of each color and 11 mask cards, and 6 of the quicksand cards.

Thread: Re: White at a disadvantage?

baschleicher — 2008-01-03T05:14:13+00:00

Taavet wrote:
Now I better understand why they call it Board Game GEEK!! LOL. I never would have thought to count the spaces for each color on this board.

The card drawing is so random anyway and people aren't just moving their own piece in the most efficient path, that it shouldn't ever really effect him.

Out of curiosity for anyone else more Geeky then myself (becuase I don't want to get off my duff and count the cards) are there the same number of cards for each color in the deck? Maybe white has one more??

Interesting..........

To be honest, I didn't count it either, but this weekend I introduced one of my roommates to this game and the first thing he did was ask why the white track is a space longer. I had never noticed until then.

Thread: Re: White at a disadvantage?

MrSkeletor — 2008-01-03T01:29:00+00:00

Maybe this is made up for by the fact whites first 'free' cardspace is on it's shortest track, whereas the others seem to have to sidetrack a square or two?

Thread: Re: White at a disadvantage?

Taavet — 2008-01-03T01:16:32+00:00

Now I better understand why they call it Board Game GEEK!! LOL. I never would have thought to count the spaces for each color on this board.

The card drawing is so random anyway and people aren't just moving their own piece in the most efficient path, that it shouldn't ever really effect him.

Out of curiosity for anyone else more Geeky then myself (becuase I don't want to get off my duff and count the cards) are there the same number of cards for each color in the deck? Maybe white has one more??

Interesting..........

Thread: Re: White at a disadvantage?

reapersaurus — 2008-01-03T01:00:38+00:00

Good observation.

Showing the picture makes it clear:
]]>

If it concerns you (which you have every right to be concerned about it), simply move the white starting spot up one (similar to the way the red square is one "ahead" of the other starting spaces).

It does seem odd why the designer didn't make the white starting space to be right across from the red space (opposite).

Thread: Re: White at a disadvantage?

Liumas — 2008-01-02T19:44:43+00:00

It's not important.

Thread: White at a disadvantage?

baschleicher — 2008-01-02T19:14:58+00:00

Has anyone else noticed that no matter how you count it the white piece has to move one more space than the rest? The fewest moves you can get to the end with the white player is 15, all others are 14. Is there a reason for this? It seems like something that should've been caught in design if it is not intentional.

Image

avyssaleos — 2007-12-31T12:10:23+00:00

The problem with the different colours in the back of the player tokens. You can easily distinguish them.

Thread: Re: BookShelf Games Video Review

A Strange Aeon — 2007-12-31T05:04:38+00:00

I too really think this is a good light game. I've been playing it at work with 2-4 players for the past few weeks, and it has gone over very well.

One thing we added to make it a bit more fun was allowing wilds to move characters backwards. This lets somebody who makes a break towards the end become the target of the other players, who can work to move the player backwards towards quicksand or just behind the pack by sacrificing their wilds.

After playing it so much, we've decided that the quicksand cards are actually probably the worst thing you could draw, since in most cases the movement cards could at least push somebody onto their matching space, allowing you to discard, whereas quicksand only marginally slows somebody down, and also reveals important information about your secret identity, with no opportunity for an additional discard.

Nice review--I always watch your videos when I see them on the front page. Keep up the good work!

Thread: Re: BookShelf Games Video Review

Grudunza — 2007-12-31T03:19:08+00:00

Nice job, as usual, Larry! I was actually thinking of doing a quick video review for this game, myself. But I'm glad others have more time/impetus to do that. Saves me the trouble.

Thread: BookShelf Games Video Review

Subhuman — 2007-12-31T01:50:42+00:00

Video Review for Quicksand. This video is about 10 mins long and covers the basic gameplay. I went a little further into instruction then I meant to on this one. I also started adding in points of caution and points of interest. Please let me know if that is a good idea or not.

Vimeo Video

http://www.archive.org/download/BookshelfGamesBSG22Quicksand...

(link opens straight to media or right click and hit Save Target as...to download.)

Thread: Re: Second game report

Hendal — 2007-12-22T23:44:06+00:00

nothing better then getting the family hooked on Boardgames, I just got this one through the $5 sale, but have not gotten to break it out of the box yet, I am really looking forward to this, I am excited to have some light fast games around to play. Thanks for sharing

Thread: Re: Early Christmas present

Hendal — 2007-12-22T23:40:59+00:00

I bought 5 games from FFG at the $5 price tag, but have not gotten to play it yet, glad to hear you like this one, I can't wait to try it out.

Thanks for sharing, sounds like a fun game.

Thread: Re: A few simple Quicksand variants.

Grudunza — 2007-12-20T05:14:41+00:00

Oh yeah, I'm aware of that... Still, there are several blank spaces and colored spaces where 5 of the 6 colors won't match, and specific quicksand spaces, all of which would have the original quicksand effect. So yes, it does skew things a bit and makes those color/mask spaces very powerful (especially combined with the #2 variant), but that advantage depends on how well players are able to use it. As long as everybody's aware of that ahead of time, then each player can decide whether it's worth playing a quicksand card while a token's on one of those spaces or whether they should wait until the token's on a blank space or on a different color space than its own.

But if you're suggesting that that's going a little too far in favor of players getting extra cards and/or diminishing the quicksand element of the game (it's the title, no less!), then I wouldn't disagree... I suggested as much to my wife while we were playing last night... But she really liked that as an extra element and made use of it a couple times. And since she'll be my main opponent, that #3 variant will stay for us. In any case, I wanted to list it along with the others, for whatever it might be worth. I definitely like #2 a lot, though, and I think #1 is really a must. So you know, take what you need and leave the rest...

Best,
Grudunza

Thread: Re: A few simple Quicksand variants.

reapersaurus — 2007-12-20T01:27:20+00:00

#3 actually REMOVES control from the opponent player.

Think about what preceded that : you played a Quicksand card on your opponent.
Next turn, he can use a card to flip it back up, and then gets his choice of replacement card? You Quicksanding a token could even HELP him out!

It makes the color spots not only powerful for their powered-up discard ability, it also makes them invulnerable spots cause it takes away the opponent's ability to use Quicksand on those spaces.

Thread: A few simple Quicksand variants.

Grudunza — 2007-12-20T00:44:56+00:00

I like the game Quicksand okay as it was originally designed, but I think that with a few basic variants the randomness of the cards can be reduced somewhat (allowing you some more control over what you do in the game), the hidden identity premise can be strengthened, the time of the game can be shortened (not that it's terribly long, anyway, but sometimes it can feel a bit long for the light filler that it's supposed to be), and a little more strategy can be added to the game. I use all of these variants when I play and they have made the game more enjoyable for me, but of course, you're free to use some, all or none of these suggestions.

1. Discards are all face-DOWN. This isn't so much a variant as something that really seems like an error in the rules. The game is all about maintaining your hidden identity as long as possible. Discarding extra cards face-up when landing a token on its own color space or on a mask space would likely give some glimpse to the other players about what token you're not. Sure, you could throw them off by discarding one of your own color cards at some point, but those can be hard to come by and are usually crucial to hold on to. Start a discard pile distinct from the main draw deck, and when the main draw deck is depleted, shuffle the discard pile as normal.

2. When you move a token to its own color space or to a mask space, you discard an extra card as usual, but then after drawing your hand back to 5 cards from the main draw deck, you choose your 6th card from the discard pile. This offers some better control over your possible actions in the game, and gives a little bit better reward for landing on one of those spaces. Obviously, very early in the game there may not be as many choices, as well as just after the main draw deck is depleted and the discards need to be reshuffled to make a new main deck, but by and large you'll be able to draw what you want almost all of the time.

3. If a token is stuck in quicksand and happens to already be on its own color space or on a mask space, if you play one card on your turn to flip the token over (so it's unstuck), but don't move it any further, it counts as though it ended its movement in that space, so you can do the extra discard/choose a card from the discard pile thing (or the extra discard/draw from the main deck thing, if you're not using #2 above). This adds another strategic consideration to add when moving tokens and playing cards, and along with #2 helps to speed up the game and add a little more control to the player.

Thread: Re: Mitigating the randomness of the card draws.

reapersaurus — 2007-12-19T20:14:45+00:00

Grudunza wrote:
Okay, we played last night using the "choose a card from the discard pile after landing on a color space or mask space" option and I think it worked very well! It definitely gives you more of a sense of control over what happens, while still including plenty of the random card draw from the main deck. The ability to choose particular cards (and not necessarily always our own color or mask cards) helped us to accomplish what we wanted, whether that was subterfuge or moving our own tokens along the path. It seemed to make it a little easier to hide who we were (the major point of the game), as we both were unsure until the last stretch, which hadn't been the case in our previous games.I think it would be an extreme case when you'd ever draw any color other than your own, or preferrably a wild.

We played that when discarding an extra card for landing on a color or mask space, you could first redraw whatever cards from the main deck (until your hand was at 5) and then choose the 6th card from the discard pile. Reason being that what you get from the main deck might affect what you choose from the discard pile, and it did on one occasion for me.I'd shy away from adding even MORE benefit to this variant. I'd think it already turns the game from one of bluffing to one of board-play (trying to make sure you, not your opponent, gets on the masks or color spaces). In fact, with your variant, I'd be concerned that it may destroy the gameplay, if it simply becomes a waiting game of "I'm not going to move that red token one (or even 2) spaces from its color!"

Another thing we incorporated, which probably was not the intent of the rules (though they might be interpreted in such a way) is that when you flip over a "quicksanded" token that is already on its color space or mask space, if you leave it there, you can do the extra discard/pick from the discard pile thing.
* The rules are clear, in my opinion:
The Rules wrote:
When you end an explorer's movement on a board space of its color, you may discard one card from your hand.

A face-down explorer pawn is stuck. When you move an explorer that
is stuck, the first card you play is used to rescue the explorer. When you rescue a stuck explorer, turn its pawn face-up.You are rescuing the explorer, not ending their movement on the color space, so no free discard.
Not that it's long, regardless, but it does feel a little long ... when it sometimes takes a while to get anywhere until people can draw the right cards while tokens are bunched up in spots.I'd think this is a valid observation, in the early part of a 2-player game. I felt the same thing.
I don't know if I'd feel that on a 4 or 5 player game, though.

Thread: Re: Mitigating the randomness of the card draws.

Grudunza — 2007-12-19T16:41:32+00:00

Okay, we played last night using the "choose a card from the discard pile after landing on a color space or mask space" option and I think it worked very well! It definitely gives you more of a sense of control over what happens, while still including plenty of the random card draw from the main deck. The ability to choose particular cards (and not necessarily always our own color or mask cards) helped us to accomplish what we wanted, whether that was subterfuge or moving our own tokens along the path. It seemed to make it a little easier to hide who we were (the major point of the game), as we both were unsure until the last stretch, which hadn't been the case in our previous games.

We played that when discarding an extra card for landing on a color or mask space, you could first redraw whatever cards from the main deck (until your hand was at 5) and then choose the 6th card from the discard pile. Reason being that what you get from the main deck might affect what you choose from the discard pile, and it did on one occasion for me.

Another thing we incorporated, which probably was not the intent of the rules (though they might be interpreted in such a way) is that when you flip over a "quicksanded" token that is already on its color space or mask space, if you leave it there, you can do the extra discard/pick from the discard pile thing. In one sense, it defeats the purpose of a quicksanded token costing an extra card to unquicksand, because you'll get that back in a sense with the extra discard. But that's balanced by the person doing that not being able to move that character more than just flipping them over (if they want the color/mask space bonus) and it adds a nice extra strategic concept to consider when quicksanding tokens in the first place, as there is some benefit to it. And it can also help with the mystery... My wife twice quicksanded her own token to accomplish that, and though I had been suspicious of that color, seeing her do that made me wonder.

Another advantage of these variants is that it does make the game go a little faster. Not that it's long, regardless, but it does feel a little long for what it's supposed to be (a very light filler) when it sometimes takes a while to get anywhere until people can draw the right cards while tokens are bunched up in spots.

Anyway, with these variants I do appreciate the game a lot more, though I can certainly accept if others like it how it is with the original rules (though I would still question the face-up discards... I really think that's just plain a rules error). I'll go ahead and add them as a Variants post.

Thread: Re: Production Warning: Token Backs

avyssaleos — 2007-12-18T22:50:03+00:00

Same here!

Has anyone received any same-coloured ones from FFG?

Thread: Re: Mitigating the randomness of the card draws.

Grudunza — 2007-12-18T22:47:15+00:00

reapersaurus wrote:
And your variant of discarding the cards FACE-DOWN is certainly worth a try - have you playtested that yet?

That's actually the only way I've played it so far. It just seemed like the right thing to do from the moment I read through the rules... As I said before, with discards face-up you could try to bluff in that respect, too, and make sure to discard one of your own cards at least once, but it just seems simpler to discard everything face-down and leave it at that.

I like your idea of playing 2 tokens each in a 2 player game. I'll have to try that. But I do think that being able to draw a specific card from the discard pile is a good way to add a little bit more control to your hand, and also add a bit more of a reward for landing on one of the color or mask spaces.

Ah, you know, I'm not remotely suggesting the game is broken or anything. Obviously, from the other reviews, a lot of people like it a lot as it is, and that's great. Sometimes when I read variants or rules changes for other games that are talking about trying to "fix" a certain element of the game, I think "nah, forget it... it's great as it is!" So I guess it's my turn to be on the other end of that and to be a little dissatisfied with this particular game and tweak it a little to my liking.

Anyway, just sharing some suggestions, for whatever they're worth...

Best,
Grudunza

Thread: Re: Mitigating the randomness of the card draws.

reapersaurus — 2007-12-18T22:22:19+00:00

I was actually thinking that in a 2-player game, it would improve gameplay if each player selected TWO characters to play.
If either one reached the temple, they'd win.

This would buffer the randomness of the card draws, like your variants are attempting to do, and increase the "what color(s) is she?" aspect.

Haven't been able to give it a playtest, though.

I'm not sure if a 3-player game would work with each one playing 2 characters, but it's worth a try.

And your variant of discarding the cards FACE-DOWN is certainly worth a try - have you playtested that yet?

Thread: Re: Mitigating the randomness of the card draws.

Grudunza — 2007-12-18T21:52:00+00:00

I went through the deck, and there are 11 each of the color cards and also 11 of the tiki mask cards, and 6 each of the quicksand cards. So I think it would be easy enough to use 4 each of the color cards for the "second deck" and then remove 4 of the mask cards and 2 of the quicksand cards, to balance out the main deck.

Otherwise, if the tiki mask cards alone are to be used for landing a token on its color space or on a mask space (which would seem simpler...), then I would think maybe 5 of them could be used (still leaving 6 for general redrawing from the main deck), and there would be a limit on their availability, so if they were all claimed and in people's hands, you wouldn't be able to get another one until one was discarded. Hmm, so then you'd have to have a rule where the mask cards are discarded to the second pile automatically unless there were already 5 there. Ah, I don't know... the same problem could happen with a second deck when it runs out of one color. Could be confusing...

Hold on... I think I've got it...

When you land a token on its color space or on a tiki mask space, you discard an extra card and can retrieve any one card from the discard pile. There you go... forget the second deck idea. The only limitation to that is that the first player moving in the game wouldn't be able to take advantage of that. Well, wait a minute, sure they would, but they'd be limited to retaking one of the cards that they just played and had discarded. Eh, that's okay, though, and it gives a very slight offset to any possible "first person" advantage (though I don't think that's a major factor in this game).

I'm going to try another game of this tonight with that variant and see how it goes...

Thread: Mitigating the randomness of the card draws.

Grudunza — 2007-12-18T14:02:41+00:00

As per my recent review, I enjoy Quicksand okay as it is but I find it to be kind of arbitrary because of the heavy randomness of the card draws and the huge importance your hand has on your ability to do anything useful in the game. With just a little bit more control over the cards you have, I think it could be a much better game.

A suggestion I have for mitigating the randomness of the card draws is to remove about 4 or 5 of each color from the main deck and make a separate deck for those, whereby when you land a token on its color space or on a tiki mask space, instead of discarding and drawing a random card from the main deck, you discard and draw a specific color card from the second deck. Or perhaps you have the option of drawing from either deck, though I suspect in most cases you'd want to choose a color specifically.

The second deck would probably have to be shuffled after each person takes a card and when drawing from there you would have to only look at each card until you find the color you want... otherwise there would be the possibility that you could notice a particular color missing and know what was taken previously (not that that would necessarily give anything away).

I realize that taking several color cards from the main deck might skew that deck in favor of quicksand cards or tiki mask cards... But perhaps the proportionate number of quicksand and tiki mask cards could be removed from the main deck. I'll have to count the card distribution later and see what it's like.

Another alternative would be that when you land a token on its color space or on a tiki mask space, you discard one of your cards and specifically get a tiki mask card. That might be a simpler way to achieve the same result.

I haven't tried this yet... just a theory open for comments and suggestions. I'll try to incorporate one of these options in an upcoming game and report back...

Thread: Re: Grudunza's WHAT review of Quicksand

Grudunza — 2007-12-18T13:20:31+00:00

Played Quicksand again last night with 3 players... As I suspected in my original review there was a little bit more of a mystery as far as who was who, but otherwise I found it to be exactly the same in terms of gameplay and still highly dependent on what cards you are able to draw and use.

And having played it again and having formed the same impression I had after the first game, I guess I would have to respectfully disagree with reapersaurus' implication that someone must have played a game several times and in every possible player configuration in order to make a useful review. In the case of some games where it takes several plays to really understand the ins and outs of the game, yes, I would agree... but is there really any way that after playing Quicksand a couple times, or even once, no matter how many people you play it with, that you can't grasp what happens and what it's all about and form a useful impression to share with BGG and the world? That's not a dis to the game, but let's face it, it's very simple.

I think there's just as much value in a "first impression" review as anything else, and some of the reviews I read on BGG and certainly many reviews on game review websites have that same perspective. It doesn't necessarily skew better or worse from there with more time and plays, depending on the person and the game. I don't like the idea of there needing to be any major criteria for reviewing games here, other than describing in as much detail as you can how the game plays and what you felt about it having played it, which is what I did.

But regardless, I'll continue to play the game and if there are any major changes in how it plays out or how I enjoy it, I'll certainly share that here.

Best,
Grudunza

Thread: Re: Grudunza's WHAT review of Quicksand (2 player only)

reapersaurus — 2007-12-17T20:39:59+00:00

Grudunza wrote:
I'm just trying to get in the habit of doing more reviews in general, and the game seems simple enough to write about without having played it much, though the number of players is always an important factor. I may amend the review later once I've played it with different numbers of players.Thanks for adjusting the title.
And please - re-visit your review to give it more benefit to readers, after you've played it with more people and more plays.

And the more I think about the design question of "should the discard be face down or face up", I'm really beginning to think that the design should have been face DOWN.

The little strategy and timing there is in the game revolves around taking advantage of the mask spaces, and getting each color onto their own spaces to discard a card of your choice.

I shouldn't be penalized (by showing the opponent what colors I'm NOT playing) by doing so.

Thread: Re: Grudunza's WHAT review of Quicksand (2 player only)

johnweldy — 2007-12-17T20:05:35+00:00

CharmlessMan77 wrote:
The main crux of the game is that you are trying to keep your identity hidden, but how much harder is this if you are discarding a tonne of blue and this is obvious to those people you are playing against.

I don't necessarily agree. I don't think the discards should need to be facedown. The way the rules are written, the game plays in 2 phases:

1. Bluffing
2. Racing

In each game I've played (and I also have only played this 2p so far), there is a point where you build up enough of your own cards that you just say "to heck with it", ignore the bluffing aspect and just get the heck out of Dodge.

Thread: Re: Grudunza's WHAT review of Quicksand

Grudunza — 2007-12-17T18:22:41+00:00

reapersaurus wrote:
At the very least, the title should reflect the (very) narrow review perspective: "2-player only, first-play Review".

Agreed, and I'll change the title to reflect that.

I'm just trying to get in the habit of doing more reviews in general, and the game seems simple enough to write about without having played it much, though the number of players is always an important factor. I may amend the review later once I've played it with different numbers of players.

Thread: Re: Grudunza's WHAT review of Quicksand

reapersaurus — 2007-12-17T18:12:25+00:00

Nice idea, on the discards being face-down.
We may just try that next time.

However, I do have a point of contention with posting a review of a game when you've only played it with 2 players. You yourself say that is not the likely best-fit for Quicksand (and I agree) - why would you you deliberately write a premature review?

Combine that with this being a first-time-play review, and it seems like you'd be doing the game (and BGG) a better service by making this a session report.

At the very least, the title should reflect the (very) narrow review perspective: "2-player only, first-play Review".

Thread: Re: Grudunza's WHAT review of Quicksand

CharmlessMan77 — 2007-12-17T18:05:36+00:00

Great review. I have to admit that I am a total rules nazi at times, but something did not sit with me regarding the discarding of cards. The main crux of the game is that you are trying to keep your identity hidden, but how much harder is this if you are discarding a tonne of blue and this is obvious to those people you are playing against. I think next time we play this I am going to use that variant. Great.