Game: Cathedral

Thread: Re: 3 games of Cathedral on games night.

Sphere — 2008-10-22T06:50:37+00:00

I predict that if you play a few more, you'll no longer have a 'just pitch 'em anywhere part'.

Thread: 3 games of Cathedral on games night.

mbourgeois — 2008-10-22T05:54:55+00:00

We played Cathedral for the first time tonight. I have to admit I wasn't fond of it but Kim really liked it and we'll bring it out again.

Game 1:

Learning game. I beat Kim by a smidgeon. I had a four space block to place but she had a total of 8 spaces. This is a game like a combo of Qix and Tetris... it just doesn't give you the satisfaction of completion of a field. No buildings were captured but we did get the hang of the area control.

Game 2:

Kim trashed me in this game. I couldn't focus and managed to have 9 points left over at the end of the game. No buildings captured again this time but Kim had a huge space capture at the first part of the game.

Game 3:

I won this one. I captured a building this game. We pretty much tied up on area capture but I had better luck with the placement of my buildings for the 'just pitch 'em anywhere part'. Kim came ever so close to taking the cathedral this game... the use of a 1 space building took it away... still she did get a good area capture from it... just not enough to win.

All in all we rate this game

Kim: 8 cause she likes it.
Mike: 7 but could increase after a few more games

Thread: Re: 5 minutes may be too much... (But it sure is pretty!)

Barticus88 — 2008-08-15T19:27:05+00:00

B Weage wrote:
In the first plastic version, the players did have exactly the same pieces. It probably saved money in the molding process, but it did make the game marginally less interesting.

It's worse than that: The Mattel edition correctly mirrored the Academy, but failed to mirror the Abbey. This is a disadvantage to the white player, because the Abbey and Academy are supposed to complement each other, but for the white player they both got he same way.

Thread: Re: Cathedral In Review

Blademaster777 — 2008-06-09T21:37:01+00:00

Ostadan wrote:
Note that the black player has a first-player advantage in this game; fortunately, the game is so quick that you can play two games (or a series of several pairs of games), switching sides and totaling game points to address this imbalance.

I think that the ability to place the Cathedral somewhat mitigates the first player advantage, but not completely.

But yes, playing an equal number of both sides and totalling the scores is the fairest way to play.

Thread: Re: Cathedral In Review

Ostadan — 2008-06-09T16:09:15+00:00

Note that the black player has a first-player advantage in this game; fortunately, the game is so quick that you can play two games (or a series of several pairs of games), switching sides and totaling game points to address this imbalance.

Thread: Cathedral In Review

Blademaster777 — 2008-06-08T10:45:22+00:00

Cathedral is a very simple, very pretty and rather challenging two player abstract game.

Mechanics & Game Play:
There are two groups of pieces, light and dark, of varying sizes and configurations. One of the colours will be controlled by each player. The object of the game is to place as many of your pieces as possible while stopping your opponent from playing all of their pieces.

The light player begins and places the 'Cathedral', which is the largest piece in the game, covering six squares. After the Cathedral has been placed black and then white take turns placing one of their pieces onto the board. The game continues until neither player can place any of their pieces.

If a player is able to encircle an 'area' with only their pieces and/or the sides of the board, and the area enclosed contains no more than one non-friendly piece (the Cathedral is considered non-friendly) that is said to be a 'region' and the opponent is not allowed to place pieces inside the area.

At the end of the game every square in the footprint of every building that a player was unable to play is totalled and the player with the least points is the victor.

Generally I find the best way to play Cathedral is to play a pair of matches (one as light, the other as dark) and total each players points for both games. This eliminates any perceived advantage to either side.

Interesting Concepts:
Depending on the version of Cathedral you play, sometimes the asymmetric pieces are mirror images of each other, rather than copies of each other.

Strategy:
The strategy behind Cathedral is simple, yet deep.

Light: Generally, the light player has to play a spoiling game, stopping the dark player from getting large regions into play so as to be able to contest neutral areas for longer and robbing the dark player of their advantage. Good light players are able to 'turn the tide' on the dark player, by working towards regions while limiting the expansion of the dark player. The light player has the advantage of placing the Cathedral; different positions of the Cathedral can produce very different games. Light becomes more powerful as players get more experienced.

Dark: Dark is the simpler, more forgiving side. The dark player has to attempt to attack and threaten the light player with large regions. For beginners, the dark side will probably win nearly 75% of matches, but this percentage will fall to around 45% to 55% with experience.

Both: Effectively all pieces can be split into three broad categories; Easy, Moderate and Hard. Generally, a player will attempt to play their hard pieces before moving onto moderate and then easy pieces. After capturing a region, try to contest neutral areas; It limits your opponents ability to play their pieces and your region will still be there when you get back to it.

Components:
The quality of the components varies with the version of the game that you buy. The edition that I own is made from beautifully stained New Zealand hardwood (except the cathedral which is painted hardwood). These components make Cathedral an ideal coffee table centre point, and might even be able to lure a few unsuspecting borderline gamers into learning the game.

Number of Players:
Two and only two. In times of failing inspiration, you might be able to amuse yourself with the puzzle aspect of the game for a little while alone.

Box To Box Time:
Playing a single game of Cathedral should take five to ten minutes. If you attempt to put the game away in one of its perfect solutions it could take five minutes to pack away. All up, you can play a quick series of games and have it all packed away in half an hour.

Overall:
As a two player filler, starter or finisher Cathedral has no equal. Its beautiful components alow it to work as a gateway game and has great replay-ability even for hardcore gamers. The rules of the game can be learned in five minutes and can keep gamers amused for hours (I think I've played twenty games in a row at one point). All in all Cathedral is nothing short of fantastic.

Thread: Cathedral World -> Monumental Moves

Pepsi4Me2 — 2008-06-03T11:52:27+00:00

Cathedral World is being replaced with Monumental Moves late this summer. The board and pieces will be identical.

Image

l10n0fjudah — 2008-05-17T03:47:33+00:00

Homemade Cathedral - The Board

Image

l10n0fjudah — 2008-05-17T03:46:59+00:00

Homemade Cathedral - Bird's Eye

Image

l10n0fjudah — 2008-05-17T03:46:24+00:00

Homemade Cathedral - Other Side

Image

l10n0fjudah — 2008-05-17T03:45:50+00:00

Homemade Cathedral - One Side

Image

l10n0fjudah — 2008-05-17T03:45:12+00:00

Homemade Cathedral - Abbey Closeup

Image

l10n0fjudah — 2008-05-17T03:44:36+00:00

Homemade Cathedral - 3 Pieces

Image

jack61 — 2008-04-17T10:00:04+00:00

Thread: Re: Alternate starting method

etherton — 2008-04-04T22:01:27+00:00

http://www.hypersurf.com/~tlehmann/cathedral.html

-Dave

Thread: Re: 5 minutes may be too much... (But it sure is pretty!)

B Weage — 2008-01-19T22:18:11+00:00

In the first plastic version, the players did have exactly the same pieces. It probably saved money in the molding process, but it did make the game marginally less interesting. That version was in a long box - maybe 15-20 years ago. The picture above suggests that there is a newer plastic version in a square box. If so, I haven't seen it to check for myself, but I wouldn't be surprised if it also had identical rather than mirror-image pieces.

Image

Capitaine Grappin — 2008-01-13T23:57:44+00:00

Image

Capitaine Grappin — 2008-01-13T23:56:08+00:00

Image

Capitaine Grappin — 2008-01-13T23:54:39+00:00

Thread: Re: A Spatial/Tactile game

briandiloreto — 2008-01-08T06:35:15+00:00

There is also an on-line version of a game very similar to Cathedral, called Tiling King. The piece-sets are slightly different and it can be played on hexagonal and triangular boards as well as the standard square board. You can find it at http://www.briandiloreto.jaywebdesigns.com/tilingking.htm

Thread: Re: Review of Cathedral a Dissenting Opinion

Sphere — 2008-01-06T23:11:34+00:00

Like Lyman, I haven't seen the 2nd player advantage. How was that consensus established?

Thread: Re: Review of Cathedral a Dissenting Opinion

Barticus88 — 2008-01-06T22:47:36+00:00

lyman wrote:
There is a certain folk wisdom that the game has a second player advantage but having played many online games I have to say that I have not substantiated that claim. In fact after many games I tend to think that with perfect play on both sides the game is a draw.
Consensus among experienced players is that the second player has an advantage of two to three squares.

Thread: Re: The "capture any number" variant

russ — 2007-12-24T06:22:00+00:00

I've heard of no published edition with those rules, so it sounds like the programmer (intentionally or unintentionally) changed the rules. Being able to capture any number of enemy pieces if they don't include the cathedral sounds quite different indeed...

Thread: Re: Abstract of the Week Project #3 -- Cathedral

latindog — 2007-12-23T21:12:02+00:00

You're absolutely right about piece capture. It's really the potential threat of capture that can force your opponent into suboptimal moves.

Thread: The "capture any number" variant

wmshub — 2007-12-23T18:43:13+00:00

Some time ago there was an online java applet that let you play Cathedral against an AI. It was written by Mark Boon. I have lost the URL, and am not sure whether it is still on the web.

In any case, it didn't play by the rules as I have them! In this version, any pieces that were totally cut off of the cathedral by opponent pieces would be captured, unlike the rules I have that say that once two of your pieces are together, they are safe whether or not they can reach the cathedral.

After playing the AI, this variant seemed to make the first move even more valuable than before. It also made it much easier to get enormous territory chunks.

I think I prefer the standard rules, but this variant is interesting to try, just to see how it plays out!

Thread: Re: Abstract of the Week Project #3 -- Cathedral

wmshub — 2007-12-23T18:34:55+00:00

I agree with your review - for me, Cathedral is fun, but doesn't have enough depth to play it repeatedly for too long. Still definitely worth keeping around though. Also, it plays quite well with young children; they may not play well, but the rules are simple enough, and the pieces fun enough, that it holds their attention.

Thread: Re: Abstract of the Week Project #3 -- Cathedral

russ — 2007-12-23T18:17:55+00:00

I've played Cathedral off and on over the past decade or so, and always find I still enjoy it. By the way, I would say that winning by capturing a piece is pretty rare when the players are playing well. The threat of capture is more important than actual capture, which shouldn't happen once people grok the game.

Thread: Abstract of the Week Project #3 -- Cathedral

latindog — 2007-12-23T15:47:53+00:00

This review is the third installment in my "Abstract a Week" project in which I am planning to play through my collection of over 25 abstract games before deciding which ones to keep and which to put in the trade/sell pile. The previous two games were Abalone and Quits.

Stats: Six plays during the week

Several years ago a friend of mine at work who knew that I played chess brought in an abstract game that he thought I would like. It was a very well crafted wooden Cathedral set and it offered a style of play that reminded me vaguely of the area control aspects of Go, which I was just beginning to explore in books. We played rather consistently on out free periods off and I decided that I needed to buy the game as I could see playing it with my wife and family. Early attempts to purchase it were thwarted by the fact that it was out of print and the wooden version was fairly expensive on Ebay. After about a year of searching, however, I learned that a company had produced a new wooden version and I quickly bought it.

Soon after that, however, I began playing Euro games regularly with my gaming group and my interest in two player abstracts was put on the shelf for a while. I played hundreds of games with clever mechanics and largely forgot about Cathedral. A few weeks ago, I decided to dust off my old copy and bring it into work to see if it was as good as I remembered.

I managed to play six games in the week against two different opponents. One was a fellow teacher who was not particularly impressed by the gameplay. He also didn't seem to have a knack for the game and frequently underestimated the threats of walling off large chunks of territory in the corners by linking up the Tetris style pieces. While I've played several other abstract games which involve spatial awareness against this person, he seemed to be missing something here. As I'm not sure that he understood the strategic aims of the game very well, it's not surprising that the games we played were not terribly exciting for either player.

I also played 3 games after school against a student of mine who stops by regularly to play chess. After he learned the ropes in first game, we were relatively evenly matched. The first move advantage is quite pronounced in this game -- although the rulebook's recommendation of playing two games back to back solves this problem nicely as the games are very quick (less than 10 minutes each). The game often boils down to whether one player can manage a capture of an opponent's piece or whether one played can manage to secure a marginally larger chunk of territory than the other.

In all, I have to admit that I was pleasantly surprised to find that I still enjoyed Cathedral quite a bit. The aesthetic pleasures of the wooden pieces do constitute some of the game's appeal but the gameplay itself is tense and can offer some scope for intriguing tactics. After playing this week, I did lower my BGG rating from an 8 to a 7 -- probably because I have simply played far better games in the intervening years and this one doesn't quite reach the level of many others. As with Quits in the preceding week, several plays in rapid succession can manage to take the steam out of the game somewhat. I'm not sure if this is a consequence of the game itself or just a function of the fact that I seem to crave more gaming variety than the typical fan of abstracts. In the end, I'm not sure where this will end up in my sorting of abstracts into the keep and the trade piles but my gut feeling is that it fills a gap in my collection as a light abstract area control game but I wouldn't be crushed to part with it either.

My highly subjective ranking for the purposes of this project:

Chess
Lines of Action
Cathedral
Quits
Abalone
Backgammon
Checkers

Thread: Re: Before Blokus, there was Cathedral

jaredhayter — 2007-12-12T20:03:24+00:00

Paul,

What's not to like about Blokus? I have Duo and have enjoyed playing the admittedly few times I have.

Jared (seriously considering Cathedral from the Tangathon)

Thread: Re: 5 minutes may be too much... (But it sure is pretty!)

Geosphere — 2007-12-04T21:16:43+00:00

KakarisMaelstrom wrote:
The players have exactly the same pieces.

You would think that, but they don't.

Look your pieces over carefully.

They're mirror images.

Which is ALMOST the exact same thing...

Thread: Re: 5 minutes may be too much... (But it sure is pretty!)

KakarisMaelstrom — 2007-12-04T17:33:40+00:00

jhebert wrote:
The first set shown (in red/gray/white) looks like plastic to me... is there a plastic version? Was there ever?

]]>

It's actually the one in the reference picture even. By Mattel. It was all over eBay a couple years back and I got mine for a whopping $10. Even then, it had been OOP for some time.

Thread: Re: 5 minutes may be too much... (But it sure is pretty!)

Evonine — 2007-12-04T17:31:34+00:00

jhebert wrote:
The first set shown (in red/gray/white) looks like plastic to me... is there a plastic version? Was there ever?

My husband and I have the plastic version. The pieces are fairly hard plastic and hollow.

Thread: Re: 5 minutes may be too much... (But it sure is pretty!)

jhebert — 2007-12-04T17:17:30+00:00

The first set shown (in red/gray/white) looks like plastic to me... is there a plastic version? Was there ever?

Thread: Re: 5 minutes may be too much... (But it sure is pretty!)

pdclose — 2007-12-04T15:59:47+00:00

KakarisMaelstrom wrote:
But there are also several other sets, including this amazingly attractive set including wooden buildings from around the world:

]]>

Just a brief correction: there are wooden sets, and then there are cast polystone sets like the one you show in the picture. The cast polystone set requires the "little more care" molded-plastic insert for storage. I don't think the wooden ones have that. They're like the plastic sets (blocks) except in wood.

I own the polystone set and I agree that it's very nice looking!

Thread: Re: 5 minutes may be too much... (But it sure is pretty!)

CortexBomb — 2007-12-04T15:39:58+00:00

World actually is polystone, and yes, it is very nice

Edit: Putting away World actually isn't that much of a hassle, at least as long as you have somewhere to display it. I traded for it less for the game and more for the look. It occasionally gets dusted off and played, but mostly it just sits around looking pretty. Which is good, because putting it away is a serious pain.

Nice review.

Thread: 5 minutes may be too much... (But it sure is pretty!)

KakarisMaelstrom — 2007-12-04T13:54:35+00:00

Introduction:

Cathedral is a simple game for two players which rewards both spatial and strategic abilities.

Components

The components of Cathedral vary widely. I personally own the plastic set:

]]>

But there are also several other sets, including this amazingly attractive set including wooden buildings from around the world:

]]>

I like mine... mostly because they are plastic, very attractive, and when I'm done playing I can simply dump the pieces in the box, whereas the wooden sets require a little more care:

]]>

The Rules

The rules are simple to understand. They give plenty of examples of play.

Gameplay

It's just this simple. You place a neutral building. You then take turns placing buildings of varying sizes. The picture below shows this pretty well. There is a grey building in the center (the netural building) and the players each have a set of buildings - one light and one dark in this set:

]]>

When a player surrounds an area that contains no enemy pieces, the area becomes private territory. Much of the gameplay is related to trying to establish these sections while preventing your opponent from doing the same.

The game is over when either one player has all of their pieces out or when neither player has a play left.

Player Interaction

It couldn't really get any better for the type of game. The players are vying over the same limited territory.

Luck

The players have exactly the same pieces. You might theorize that the first or second player may have an advantage... but in order to balance that out, they suggest you play two games and score how many of your opponent's buildings did not get placed.

Theme

This is an abstract game, plain and simple. The theme only comes about due to the pretty buildings you are playing with.

Fun

If you like abstracts, your mileage may vary. I don't consider this game fun. Players don't sit around the table laughing while playing. It is a quiet affair.

Time to Play

It's quick. If you're not caught up in analysis paralysis, a game should take no longer than 5 minutes. If you've got the plastic set like I do, setup and breakdown are basically non-existent.

Conclusion

I could recommend this game to others... however, it really isn't all that fun for me. It falls into that category: "It's fun to play because it takes 5 minutes and you can get on to other things." I groan every time it hit the table but five minutes later we are playing something else.

It falls in that category like Scrabble where you own it because someone else you know really likes it. That's fine... much rather play this than a party game. But there are much better 2 player games out there. People largely get sucked into this because of the high production value, I think. I'd personally look elsewhere unless the land capturing sounds like a lot of fun to you.

Thread: Re: Before Blokus, there was Cathedral

iPAUL — 2007-12-03T13:59:12+00:00

Nice review Drez.

Good comparison between Blokus and Cathedral. Although similar, I am a Blokus hater (I'd burn my copy if it weren't for my kids who enjoy it). That being said, Cathedral is a wonderful game! Similar in many ways but different enough to make it very enjoyable.

Thread: Re: Before Blokus, there was Cathedral

steveoliverc — 2007-11-27T13:18:07+00:00

Nice review!

Cathedral is a much better 2-player game than Blokus (or even Travel Blokus).

About the playing time: it's short enough that you can easily play another game, and it's suggested to do so. Each player starts one of the games, and combine the scores of the two games to determine the overall winner. The first player has a slight advantage, so playing two games gives each player a chance to start.

Thread: Before Blokus, there was Cathedral

Drez — 2007-11-27T08:34:07+00:00

Those of you who enjoy Blokus (especially Blokus duo) might be interested in checking out this little number. It's very similar in that the players have pieces that they are trying to get rid of, usually starting with ridding themselves of large pieces and then at the end filling in smaller gaps with their small pieces.

What sets this game apart is an area-control aspect (similar to Go), and the very nice pieces (which apparently aren't a feature of every set).

]]> Some versions come with gorgeous buildings.

The game consists of placing a neutral building (the white Cathedral), then taking alternating turns placing buildings on the board. If one surrounds an area with their pieces, which contains one or no opponent pieces, those pieces are removed and the area is captured. The end game usually consists of filling in neutral areas with whatever buildings you have left that fit, and then filling in your own area (wow this sounds more like go than I remember!). The winner is the one at the end who has the fewest "squares" worth of pieces left (just like Blokus!).

In conclusion, this is a very well conceived strategy game, which fans of Blokus would almost certainly enjoy, and apparently fans of Go as well! I can't fault this game in any serious way, except it only supports two players, and some people might be turned away with its short play time (~20 minutes).

I used to play this game with my dad all the time when I was 8-10, so I guess it works with kids as well as adults. Definitely worth checking out. You could even design your own set of pieces if you have a hard time tracking it down.

Thread: Re: Cathedral leads to the first example of strategic thinking?

Sphere — 2007-10-17T19:07:10+00:00

When my children were small, I would play Cathedral with the older ones, and then play what we called the 'co-operating' game with the youngest.

In the co-operating game, we would take turns placing pieces, but the goal was to get every piece onto the board (which we could then put away). Doing this requires a very small bit of strategy, but is a great way to get the very little ones started. As they get a bit older, they start to watch the real game while waiting for their turn, and transition to playing the real game when they are ready.

Thread: Re: Cathedral leads to the first example of strategic thinki

cobbz20 — 2007-10-17T16:50:34+00:00

Awesome! I have a girl who will be 4 next month, and I'm waiting for this moment with her. She knows how to play a couple games that can involve some small strategy (Gulo Gulo, Go Fish, Uno, Memory), but has never really made that connection yet.

Good story! Congrats.

Thread: Re: How many pieces?

Garth M — 2007-09-24T08:47:55+00:00

Yes, it should be two "1" pieces per side.

The way to check, as noted above, is to make sure the pieces cover the board exactly. Any gaps and you're missing a piece.

Thread: Re: How many pieces?

advaita — 2007-09-24T06:50:07+00:00

I just bought a set at a renaissance faire, the light side has three 1-unit pieces and the dark side only has one. Is this an error? Is it supposed to be two and two?

Thread: Re: Review of Cathedral a Dissenting Opinion

Steampunk — 2007-09-16T05:20:27+00:00

Excellent and intelligent review. I have looked at this game for years, but never made the jump to buy until today. I have played it about a dozen times and though i'm not a big abstract fan, there is something very satisfying about building a 3-d city map while trying to out-think your opponent. As a a die hard theme guy, I highly recommend this pleasant 2 player diversion.

Thread: Re: How many pieces?

mark_biggar — 2007-08-27T15:16:12+00:00

There are just enough pieces to completely cover the board, which makes it easy to see f you are missing any.

Thread: Re: How many pieces?

LetsGetTrivial — 2007-08-27T13:36:52+00:00

Here is the Cathedral website that should have the info you need: http://www.cathedral-game.co.nz/play.htm

The pieces should be mirror images of each other. This really only effects 2 pieces (if memory serves) and the rest are identical.

Thread: How many pieces?

rowdyray — 2007-08-27T13:03:37+00:00

I just bought a wooden version of Cathedral on clearance (75% off), but there are no rules or paperwork. I can obviously get the rules off the Geek, but I think there might be a few pieces misssing. How many of each color should there be, and are both color's pieces identical in shape?

Thread: Re: Polystone?

Liumas — 2007-06-15T04:29:36+00:00

We walked into a store years ago and loved the large wooden version. It was broken, and out of stock. It then became a side quest. Eventually we were able to find that one, happy, looked nice in the library.

A few years back I stumbled on the 'polystone' version for dirt cheap (at a dollar store), picked it up, 'that would make a nice gift.'

Have since retired the large wooden version in the library in exchange for the polystone.

(it's a 'synthetic marble' of sorts, whatever that exactly means.)

Thread: Re: Polystone?

wyldeoak — 2007-06-15T02:53:37+00:00

I don't know what it is made of. It is hard and looks and feels stone-like. My grandson dropped a piece and it chipped like a cast substance might. I do think it is some type of plastic, but it has many hard plaster-like qualities.

Thread: Polystone?

songbird — 2007-06-15T00:56:12+00:00

So what is polystone? Just a heavy plastic? Or something else?

I've always thought either polystone edition of this game looks very cool, but if it's really just plastic, I'll pass on it...

Thread: Re: Cathedral: Why I Got 20 Plays In 2 Days

SliverXII — 2007-05-25T14:42:00+00:00

I've just been reminded that I don't play this game enough.

Thread: Re: Cathedral: Why I Got 20 Plays In 2 Days

Geosphere — 2007-05-25T14:22:33+00:00

I heartily agree.

One tiny detail that you'll learn to appreciate as you get into it more:

Each players pieces are not identical.

They are mirrors.

Thread: Cathedral: Why I Got 20 Plays In 2 Days

jamesdavis — 2007-05-25T04:57:05+00:00

I got this game in a trade. Its a beautiful game with wooden pieces (well my version anyway). When I first opened it up to have a lok my mother in law said 'Now, thats a very nice looking game, but it looks difficult to play'. Well she found out quickly that it isnt difficult, but it still has alot of though involved.

The aim of the game is simple try and put down all your pieces onto the board before your oppenent does. If there is no space left to put the pieces of the players the person with the pieces that cover the least amount of space wins.

The game is very simple. It has a rulebook that is 3 A5 pages long, but could be shortened to 1/4 of an A4 page. I explained the game to my girlfriend and my mother in law in about a minute. This is important especially for the 2 women in the house, they can not sit there for a long period of time listening to rules, so a short set of rules is always welcomed.

With such few rules I am very suprised with how deep this game can be.

You try to place your pieces so areas get blocked off and you oppenent can not place pieces in that area anymore, the bigger the space the less pieces your oppenent gets on the board. If you can trap 1 of your oppenents pieces in an area, the piece is removed from the board. Thats all there is to this game.

But suprisingly there is alot of thought in this game. You always have to think what your going to do. Are you going to go for a bigarea of space? Do you want to trap a piece? Do you just want to take small spaces? All of this while you must worry about what your opponent will do.

The game plays extremely quickly, On average my games might have taken 6 minutes. So you can get lots of games in a short amount time. While I personally would rather play 1 game for +4 hours it is good to have short games to play when we dont have much time.

All in All this is a short and fun game that is enjoyed by many in my household. I like it because its short, easy to explain while still being deep.

Id recommend this game to everyone. I think it has enough to keep gamers happy, while still be easy and appealing to non gamers and children. If you havent played this game Id highly recommend you do. It is a beautiful game and is very fun.

Thread: Re: Alternate starting method

the_kid — 2007-04-01T01:24:16+00:00

Yes, that was it. It attempts to take away the seond player advantage.

Thread: Re: Comment on Versions

Wibblenut — 2007-03-16T11:14:57+00:00

I have the Mattel 1986 plastic version, with the scarlet and grey pieces, where the Abbey is not mirrored but the Academy IS.
The little details on the base board and individual pieces are a very nice touch (which would lend themselves well to a lick of paint in a style reminiscent of Mighty Empires), and the pieces 'slot' onto the board nicely...

Thread: Alternate starting method

wyldeoak — 2007-02-28T01:17:36+00:00

I know I saw a suggestion for an alternate way to start Cathedral. But, I can't find the link and I can't remember the details. It was something like light places a piece and then dark places both the Cathedral and a piece.

Your help is appreciated.

Thread: Re: How many 1x1 pieces of each color should I have

steveoliverc — 2007-01-22T04:53:16+00:00

Aonghus wrote:
...counteract the advantage the first player has?

I always play 2 games so each player gets a chance to go first. We add the scores from both games to determine the overall winner.

And as noted above, you should have 2 of the 1x1's in each color.

Thread: Re: How many 1x1 pieces of each color should I have

spacerx — 2007-01-21T18:56:17+00:00

you should have two 1x1 pieces (taverns) of each color. each player has the same number of pieces and, combined with the cathedral, there are exactly enough to fill all spaces on the board.

Thread: How many 1x1 pieces of each color should I have

Aonghus — 2007-01-21T18:44:50+00:00

I my copy (wooden) of this game I have 1 red stained 1x1 piece and 3 unstained 1x1 pieces. Is this a miskake or is it to counteract the advantage the first player has?

Thread: Cathedral - A Light Review

Neil Thomson — 2007-01-03T05:12:44+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.

Cathedral is one of those classic games that has been around for some time but still remains extremely popular due to its simplicity and strategic challenge.

Cathedral pits both players as adversarial landowners vying for control of a medieval city. The game comes with a board which depicts the space within the city walls where each player will place their buildings. The game begins with the player’s taking their 14 buildings which range in size and configuration (both sets are identical in shape and size).

These buildings represent various buildings of the time including abbeys, towers, castles, market squares, infirmaries etc. One set of buildings is light and the other is dark. The game set-up is completed by the light player placing the Cathedral somewhere in the city. This helps to ensure that each game starts differently. The dark player then starts the game by placing the first piece.

On a player’s turn they must place one building onto the board. They can place it anywhere they like as long as all of the building can fit. If a building is placed so it completely encloses part of the city with the help of the city walls or other pieces owned by that player then that space becomes controlled by the active player and the opponent cannot place pieces in that area. If one player manages to enclose a space including only one building of their opponent then that piece is removed from the board and returned to the player and the space is again controlled by the active player.

In this way the aim of Cathedral is to place your pieces to limit the options of your opponent. Play continues until both players have placed all of their pieces. If one player manages to place all their pieces and their opponent cannot, they will win. If both players cannot place all their pieces the winner is the player that has the buildings that would take up the least space.

The Final Word

Cathedral is a very clever game enjoyed by people all over the world. It is as appealing to many adults as it is to children and it is a great way to introduce strategic options and thinking to young children.

The game box recommends children aged 10 and up but Cathedral can be played with children as young as 6. They may not fully understand the concept of enclosure initially but they will enjoy the game anyway and will quickly grasp the notion.

The game comes in two forms Cathedral (wooden pieces) and Cathedral World (Plastic). Whilst the wooden version is nicer to feel and more natural, the plastic version is slightly better as the board uses a grid which the pieces grip onto (best for children). The wooden version uses lines and the pieces can move by accident.

Since writing this review I have seen a 3D version of the game. This looks visually stunning but comes with a price tag to match. One for the real fans I suspect.