Game: Torres

Thread: Re: Arkadia vs. Torres

sekke — 2008-11-07T19:42:55+00:00

Apart from the tower pieces, these are completly different games!

Different but also very good. There are some interresting mechanics in Arkadia that make it worthwhile.

Thread: Re: Arkadia vs. Torres

Friedrich — 2008-10-30T23:19:04+00:00

There are complete different games,in Arkadia you score after your turn,its a good game but a little bit dry.
I prefer Torres its more challenge and with the optional(for me are basics)rulesmake its much better.

Thread: Arkadia vs. Torres

ryanmaesen — 2008-10-30T22:53:28+00:00

I'm a Torres fan, but never played Arkadia. What does Arkadia have that Torres doesn't, and visa versa! Is there enough of a difference to merit having both games?

Thread: Re: Does Torres involve player interaction?

ackmondual — 2008-10-30T19:52:17+00:00

No trading here

I'm assuming "social interaction" is requiring you to talk to other players, such as in Taboo or Apples To Apples? Or perhaps games where you need to work together on how to make your moves, like Shadows Over Camelot and other such cooperative games? Not much of that here. You could play through the whole game and at most say "your turn".

negotiating... not part of the game, but could be there. You and another player could agree that if you expand his castle, he'll expand yours, but then you may as well just expand your own. You could agree not to try to usurp his higher position, but then, I feel you SHOULD do that as that's part of the game. Note that this isn't area control in the sense of "who has the majority, the best, or the highest is the only one to score". The person on top just gets the most points. The next player up also gets his share of points.

Other.... I'd say yes. Specifically, you do need to pay attention to what other players are doing. If they're going to build certain ways, try to move in on your territory, what action cards could they use to get a leg up on you...... all that kind of stuff can change the outcome of the game.

I think it's a great game. Chances are, you'll like it too, but if this player interaction thing goes beyond the usual strategy game, then it may not be as enjoyable as you wish.

Otherwise, please provide specifics. Unfortunately, I've never played Arkadia before

Thread: Re: Does Torres involve player interaction?

dshortdesign — 2008-10-30T19:35:47+00:00

Ambrose wrote:
TermiGator wrote:
chuckles2000 wrote:
Umm, you people saying yes are totally misleading the OP. Interaction for Torres is only in the sense that your move can interfere and affect your opponents greatly, but that does NOT translate into negotiating or social interaction. It is very much a sit there and figure out your moves in silence kinda game. There may be some groans, or "oh, cmon" but that is about it.

Having said that, I love, love, love Torres. The puzzle aspect of each move is wonderful.
I second all of that but has Arkardia the interaction he is looking for? I played it only once, but I don't think I remember lots of interaction other than placing tiles on the same board (which is what some people understand as a lot of interaction these days...).
There isn't any social interaction in Arkadia. Arkadia's interaction is similar to Torres, but IMO has more and of a different kind.

I agree with Ambrose. Neither Arkadia nor Torres have a ton of interaction, but between them, I would have to say Arkadia is the more interactive.

In Arkadia, players build from the same pool of buildings, thus the options are limiting. And players have the ability to directly change the value of gained seals for all players. There is also the ability in Arkadia to influence the length of the game by building slower or faster onto the castle.

Thread: Re: Does Torres involve player interaction?

Ambrose — 2008-10-30T19:14:00+00:00

TermiGator wrote:
chuckles2000 wrote:
Umm, you people saying yes are totally misleading the OP. Interaction for Torres is only in the sense that your move can interfere and affect your opponents greatly, but that does NOT translate into negotiating or social interaction. It is very much a sit there and figure out your moves in silence kinda game. There may be some groans, or "oh, cmon" but that is about it.

Having said that, I love, love, love Torres. The puzzle aspect of each move is wonderful.
I second all of that but has Arkardia the interaction he is looking for? I played it only once, but I don't think I remember lots of interaction other than placing tiles on the same board (which is what some people understand as a lot of interaction these days...).
There isn't any social interaction in Arkadia. Arkadia's interaction is similar to Torres, but IMO has more and of a different kind.

Thread: Re: Does Torres involve player interaction?

TermiGator — 2008-10-30T18:56:58+00:00

chuckles2000 wrote:
Umm, you people saying yes are totally misleading the OP. Interaction for Torres is only in the sense that your move can interfere and affect your opponents greatly, but that does NOT translate into negotiating or social interaction. It is very much a sit there and figure out your moves in silence kinda game. There may be some groans, or "oh, cmon" but that is about it.

Having said that, I love, love, love Torres. The puzzle aspect of each move is wonderful.
I second all of that but has Arkardia the interaction he is looking for? I played it only once, but I don't think I remember lots of interaction other than placing tiles on the same board (which is what some people understand as a lot of interaction these days...).

Thread: Re: Does Torres involve player interaction?

ryanmaesen — 2008-10-30T16:08:30+00:00

Yeah, you're right. Not much talking and negotiating. But, you can move into a castle someone is trying to dominate and totally steal it away or screw them so they don't get as many points. That was the interaction I was thinking about. Sorry if that was misleading.

Great game.

Thread: Re: Does Torres involve player interaction?

dshortdesign — 2008-10-30T16:06:52+00:00

chuckles2000 wrote:
Umm, you people saying yes are totally misleading the OP. Interaction for Torres is only in the sense that your move can interfere and affect your opponents greatly, but that does NOT translate into negotiating or social interaction. It is very much a sit there and figure out your moves in silence kinda game. There may be some groans, or "oh, cmon" but that is about it.

Having said that, I love, love, love Torres. The puzzle aspect of each move is wonderful.

Chuckles is right, I don't think in relation to the OP, that Torres has much player interaction. It's not multiplayer solitare, but it doesn't have heavy interaction either.

I would suggest Traders of Genoa. Tons of interaction.

Thread: Re: Does Torres involve player interaction?

Ambrose — 2008-10-30T15:59:48+00:00

geekcow wrote:
Hi, i'm aiming for games that have player interaction (i.e. trading, social interaction, negotiating, etc.) How much does Torres have of this? I heard Arkadia has some of this.
Also, what other board games do you recommend with player interaction?

Try Traders of Genoa. A lot of trading and negotiation going on here. You must do it in order to be good to win the game.

But you must try Lifeboats. Negotiation at it's purest state!!!

Now, Torres has a lot of blocking, but not social interaction. Torres is one of my favorite games.

Image

jsper — 2008-10-30T15:40:58+00:00

Promotional sheet in english

Thread: Re: Does Torres involve player interaction?

chuckles2000 — 2008-10-30T15:03:26+00:00

Umm, you people saying yes are totally misleading the OP. Interaction for Torres is only in the sense that your move can interfere and affect your opponents greatly, but that does NOT translate into negotiating or social interaction. It is very much a sit there and figure out your moves in silence kinda game. There may be some groans, or "oh, cmon" but that is about it.

Having said that, I love, love, love Torres. The puzzle aspect of each move is wonderful.

Thread: Re: Does Torres involve player interaction?

ryanmaesen — 2008-10-30T14:48:55+00:00

Yes. Torres is great! You can buy cards which give you special movement to out-do your opponents. But, remember that they can buy the same cards for themselves. I'd definitely recommend Torres. It's a fun, well made game. Plays great with 2,3, and 4 players. Won game of the year too in 2000.

Get it.

Thread: Re: Does Torres involve player interaction?

Eric Haas — 2008-10-30T11:03:21+00:00

Torres doesn't have trading or negotiation or anything like that. Every move you make affects the options available to other players, so it does have player interaction, but judging by your question, not the social interaction you're looking for.

Thread: Re: Does Torres involve player interaction?

jpinnion — 2008-10-30T08:06:36+00:00

Torres has a lot of player interaction - if you try to play your own game you will lose.

It's also a lot of fun.

Thread: Does Torres involve player interaction?

geekcow — 2008-10-30T06:17:30+00:00

Hi, i'm aiming for games that have player interaction (i.e. trading, social interaction, negotiating, etc.) How much does Torres have of this? I heard Arkadia has some of this.
Also, what other board games do you recommend with player interaction?

Thread: Re: Do not fear this game, it is kid-friendly. You can make it as AP as you want.

OzGamer — 2008-10-21T01:48:07+00:00

jadzianess wrote:
Thanks Corin, I bought it with little intention, or hope of playing Torres with my kids, but when out of the blue, one of them says, "hey, can we play that castle game today?", then you just know everything is gonna be alright. Might be time to break open Mexica now that I know Action Points are my friend.
I haven't played Torres or Mexica with my kids (10, 8 and 5) yet, but I would say Mexica would be even better, as it's simpler in the sense that it's only two-dimensional, the board is more intriguing and it's a more straightforward sort of competition that I would think kids would enjoy.

I want to try both of them with the kids now.

Thread: Re: Torres - session 4 players - first time for every player

Ambrose — 2008-09-29T06:30:30+00:00

F6_Garfield wrote:
To everyone trying this game: forget the standard rules and play the master version immediatly. The rules are not more complicated by it and everyone gets the same bonusses / possibilities.
Ditto. And I would add that the Master version is actually simpler for new players, getting rid of one more action to consider to their non-gamer brains!

Thread: Re: Torres - session 4 players - first time for every player

ackmondual — 2008-09-29T05:20:23+00:00

I somewhat recently got my own copy of the game and was able to play it 3 times. I have the Rio Grande edition.

F6_Garfield wrote:

Things we did wrong all through the end
1- Drawing an action card -> we took the top action card .. now I read somewhere here that you can take three and choose one (still have to check if this really is the case).
2- Move diagonally action card: because of the drawing only thought that you could move diagonally on the board .. not jumping between castles and certainly not climbing one level. So we thought it was a rather sucky card (certainly given that during phase 1 and 2, we still believed that this would cost 1 AP)
3- Kings castle: you get the bonus if you're on the phase level or higher. But you have the be EXACTLY on the phase level (so on level 1 in phase 1, on level 2 in phase 2 and level 3 in phase 3) to get the king bonus.
4- The youngest player always started the phase, not the player we moved the king at the end of the previous phase.
1- Yep. It's draw the top 3 cards, pick one, and then put the discarded 2 cards back at the top of your personal draw deck or at the bottom of the deck (page #6)

2- Yep. On the contrary to what was thought, you can move diagonally, up to one space, and stay in the same castle or "jump" to another castle(page #10)

3- This is one case where it can be good to have 2 knights on one castle. The highest level for maximum normal scoring and a knight on levels 1, 2, or 3 for the King's Bonus

4- ditto (page #8)

F6_Garfield wrote:

Thing that we still not have figured out .. I still have to look in the rules forum or ask the question myself there
- There is anction card to move a tower from one castle to another location, without breaking an existing castle.
Can you take any unoccpied tower from any level or does it have to be one from the ground level.
Can you invalidate a castle with this move ? If a castle if 5 high and has a surface of 5, are you allowed to take a tower from this castle and make it 5 high and only 4 in surface. If this is allowed do you still get points from such a castle ?

I beleive it can be from any level. The maximum height of a castle may never be larger than the surface area, so that would not be allowed. Furthermore, special cases state:
--you may remove a single block castle and move it elsewhere, effectively "destroying" it. A castle comprosing of 6 or less tower blocks may NOT be effected this way.

Thread: Re: Torres as a 2-player game?

clearclaw — 2008-09-28T19:36:06+00:00

I find the master game (all cards in hand) to be an excellently aggressive and cut-throat 2 player game.

Thread: Re: Torres as a 2-player game?

ackmondual — 2008-09-28T17:17:45+00:00

Depends on style. Some players like it with only

1) more tactile play. There are no other player(s) to screw with your plans between you and some other player you're directly competing against for some part of a castle or whatnot.

This is a similar deal with other games that play noticeably differently with diff # of players such as Ra, Ingenius, Samurai, Thurn & Taxis, and Carcassonne. A lot of # players preference is dependant on personal preferences

2) More building opportunities part I. As you can see, in a 4p game, everyone has a stacks of 2 tower blocks. In a 3p game, stacks of 3 and 2. In a 2p game, all everything is a stack of 3. Granted, you still only get 5 action points per turn, but this is nice in where in 2p games, players still have more building options
]]>

3) More building opportunities part II
The board is ALOT less crowded with just 2p, as it essentially stays the same size. It doesn't scale for the # of players, so you can build some REALLY tall structures without having to worry about as much competition.

Thread: Torres as a 2-player game?

cgmoren — 2008-09-28T15:08:52+00:00

My husband and I played our first 2-player game of Torres yesterday. Useful as a reminder of how the game plays, but we found it disappointing as a 2-player game. To those of you who like it as a 2-player, what are we missing? What do you find appealing about it for 2 players?

Thread: Re: Torres - session 4 players - first time for every player

Topper Harley — 2008-09-28T11:26:57+00:00

F6_Garfield wrote:

Things we did wrong and corrected along the way

- Movement even coming from action cards, cost an AP.

That is wrong.
The rules clearly state that the action on the card can be done for free.
During my first game i also wondered if the cards simply give you the ability for a special move or if actually carry out the action. But they are called action cards and not ability cards, so we did play it correct.
If they would be ability cards and you would have to pay extra for the move, they would be less powerful.

Things we did wrong all through the end
- Drawing an action card -> we took the top action card .. now I read somewhere here that you can take three and choose one (still have to check if this really is the case).

This is one alternative rule in the original german edition from 1999.
But you have to take only the cards in your color and shuffle them before. So, everyone has his own pile of action cards. And after picking a card, you can put the rest on or under your pile.

But i wouldn't like to play this way.
1. Other than the card taking there is no luck factor in this game. Picking 1 card out of 3 would decrease this luck factor and this already very tactical game becomes even more tactical.
2. Because you are allowed to take two cards each round you would be able to pick another very good one from the pile. And because you saw it when you picked the first card, there is nor risk for the player. This can be a huge advantage.

In the end you have got to think a lot anyway. I wouldn't want to remember cards to make it even more complicated.

- There is anction card to move a tower from one castle to another location, without breaking an existing castle.
Can you take any unoccpied tower from any level or does it have to be one from the ground level.

The rules don't say that you are not allowed to take a piece (wouldn't call it tower) which is on a higher level. So i say that you can take any free piece. But the rules tell you that you can put this piece also on top of another free piece. You don't have to put it on the base level like the picture suggests.

Can you invalidate a castle with this move ? If a castle if 5 high and has a surface of 5, are you allowed to take a tower from this castle and make it 5 high and only 4 in surface.

No. it is not allowed and this is said in the rules.

Although this is called a strategy game, it's very much depended on luck by the drawing of the action cards (remember that we had to take the top one and keep it). I had the "luck" to have 5 action cards during the game and at the end of the game I still had all 5 action cards. I managed to get all 4 move diagonally cards and 1 jump over another knight card in the last phase. My oppenents got wonderfull cards to raise a tower under a knight, climb 2 levels , climb a tower and exit anywhere, 6 and 7 action turns ...
You can imagine that I lost .. and by a big margin, but that's beside the point.
...
We had fun, but to our taste luck played to great a part for the expectations we had. We see a potential for strategies but you need to be lucky, both with your own action cards and the action cards your oppenets have. We play luck based games (we like risk ad 2210 a lot .. throwing dice .. how can that not be a luck based game) and like them. We just had a differnt expectations.

... But it will certainly take a great part of the luck factor out of the game.

...

To everyone trying this game: forget the standard rules and play the master version immediatly. The rules are not more complicated by it and everyone gets the same bonusses / possibilities.

You can play the basic version with the alternative card taking mechanism. This way there is less luck and everyone has the same deck of cards.
Considering that you misunderstand quite a lot of the rules i wouldn't judge the game by your first session. IMHO you exaggerate the luck factor a lot.

Image

ackmondual — 2008-09-24T04:13:08+00:00

New building techniques allow for even larger archways

Image

ackmondual — 2008-09-12T13:58:38+00:00

high resolution, box front of Rio Grande edition

Image

ackmondual — 2008-09-11T13:29:55+00:00

The end of a 3p game with orange in 1st.

Thread: Re: REMOVING CASTLES

ackmondual — 2008-09-11T06:55:52+00:00

MENAREUS2000 wrote:
It states in the rules that the 8 starting castles can be removed during the game. Does that mean, before the 1st player starts the game, the 8 starting castles are removed. Or is it posible to removed individual starting castles during the course of the game.I'm guessing it's either referring to the AC (action card) that lets you move a single, lone castle block from one location to another

Thread: Re: moving a tower block

ackmondual — 2008-09-11T06:46:20+00:00

Luke the Flaming wrote:
Phil Fleischmann wrote:
Luke the Flaming wrote:
(but the total number of castles cannot be lower than 6)
Eh? I don't recall seeing this in the rules.
It's where they explain in detail each card, under the entry of the card discussed here.
(I've Ravensburger English edition. Maybe RGG dropped the rule in their new edition, since it seldom has any relevance.)nope. They didn't drop it. It's there all right. Page 11....

However, you may may not reduce the total number of castles below six.

Thread: Re: another moving through a castle question

ackmondual — 2008-09-11T06:43:01+00:00

wil_soo wrote:
OK, but consider the following scenario:

KxxA CxD
xxxxxxxxxB

According to your interpretation, the knight K can also move through the castle and end up at either C or D for 1 action point, as those positions are on the starting level of K.

This would seem unfair for just 1 AP, as it sort of involves moving down, then back up (through the body of the castle). Does anyone wknow whether the official rules mean to allow for this to happen for just 1AP? I've been confused abot this for a while...I didn't notice the "or lower" part. It seems illogical, but not necessarily unfair.

Image

schlawiner — 2008-09-09T19:00:15+00:00

My handsculpted king

Image

ackmondual — 2008-09-08T14:07:42+00:00

The Phase cards. US, Rio Grande edition. Note that the cards are full sized, but lack text.

Image

ackmondual — 2008-09-08T14:06:50+00:00

All of the Master cards in the game. US, Rio Grande edition. Note that the cards are full sized, but lack text.

Image

ackmondual — 2008-09-08T14:05:57+00:00

The unique backs of all the cards. US, Rio Grande edition.

Image

ackmondual — 2008-09-08T14:04:58+00:00

all 10 action cards for orange. US, Rio Grande edition. Note that the cards are full sized, but lack text.

Thread: Re: Torres Online?

lorna — 2008-09-04T14:52:30+00:00

http://www.boiteajeux.net/index.php

Thread: Torres Online?

ryanmaesen — 2008-09-04T14:49:33+00:00

Where can I play Torres online?

Thread: Re: Torres - session 4 players - first time for every player

UtopianComplex — 2008-09-02T01:54:46+00:00

I have only played the game once as well... but can attest that my rio grande copy of the game makes it very clear it is take three pick one and then you can CHOOSE to put the remaining ones on the top or bottom of the remaining stack. This gives you not only a choice in card but also ability to lay out future strategy.

Image

Toynan — 2008-08-30T12:01:20+00:00

Low-angle shot of a castle with Friendly Giant in the background !

Thread: I forgot how cool this game looks, how well it plays, and - OOPS - the king scores how???

bnordeng — 2008-08-27T13:36:51+00:00

I hadn't played Torres since December - just too many games to play - but we played a four player game again last night and it reminded me of a few things...

(1) This game looks marvelous throughout the game, especially in a four player
(2) The game moves quickly for the most part... turns are fast and there are plenty of decisions and options (we play the basic game)
(3) Make sure everyone knows the rules... we weren't all on the same page for king-scoring and it messed up the end of our game

We all placed a knight on the inside castle pieces and started building away. One thing I noticed is that in this game, we were all getting a lot of knights on the board early (we never really did that before) and it made the game more competitive, more difficult and more fun. After the first round, everyone was expectedly close between 20 and 30 points.

During the second round, the action cards started flying and several clever moves were made to infiltrate other players' castles and trap them in and build up our own. After the second round, it was still very close... I had about 95 and the other three players were at 84 and 85.

The third round was, of course, the most interesting with even more action cards and clever-er moves. On my very last turn though... we realized a bit of a problem. I moved my knight on the king's castle (base of 6) down from the 2nd level to the 1st level. My understanding (and the understanding of Mo and Ma who also had knights on the 1st level) was that we had to be on the same level as the king to get the king's bonus at the end of the round. D asked me what the heck I was doing.

We hadn't played for 8 months so we did review the rules before we started and D even covered this specific rule. Either we all expected him to say this and misunderstood or he said it wrong (we don't know which), but it really messed up the end of the game... obviously. Mo wouldn't have put the king where she did and we all would have moved our knights on that castle differently.

So, we realized that these scores didn't "count" but we tallied them up anyway and D came out on top by about 10 points. It's hard to say what would have happened if we were all playing by the same rules. But, I can say this... it was definitely a very competitive game throughout and we all seemed to have a renewed interest in the game, especially as a four player. I think we'll play this again the next time we play games.

Thread: Re: Torres vs. Arkadia

clearclaw — 2008-08-19T22:42:47+00:00

matthew.marquand wrote:
My use of the term deeper may be somewhat inappropriate. I give Arkadia the nod because Torres feels to me a semi-monotonous spatial puzzle. It very well could be that I'm not engaging Torres on all cylinders.

Ahh. It is that singular unfailing focus that gives the game its charm to me. There are many tools players may employ but (outside of the master cards which I rarely use) there is only one measure to accomplish.

SybotCB wrote:
We always play Torres where all players have their cards available to them from the start and we play with a Master rule. Hope that helps.

Likewise, except that I rarely ever use the master cards.

Thread: Re: Torres vs. Arkadia

BrenoK — 2008-08-19T21:49:21+00:00

clearclaw wrote:
Arkadia is a fine little lower middle-weight family game with a healthy dose of luck, not much ply analysis and relatively low confrontation levels. I think it plays well only with exactly 2 or 4 players.

Weird, I think Arkadia is definitely best with 3. With 4 you're too much in the hand of what other players do, and with 2 there isn't enough conflict of interests going on, not enough people pushing each other around.

Thread: Re: Torres vs. Arkadia

SybotCB — 2008-08-19T13:31:25+00:00

matthew.marquand wrote:
clearclaw wrote:
matthew.marquand wrote:
I'd give the nod to Arkadia for the slightly deeper game in my opinion and would probably give it the nod if presented with a choice of what to purchase and play.

This surprised me. I find Torres deeper, more difficult and challenging than Arkadia.

My use of the term deeper may be somewhat inappropriate. I give Arkadia the nod because Torres feels to me a semi-monotonous spatial puzzle. It very well could be that I'm not engaging Torres on all cylinders.

We always play Torres where all players have their cards available to them from the start and we play with a Master rule. Hope that helps.

Thread: Re: Torres vs. Arkadia

matthew.marquand — 2008-08-19T12:03:18+00:00

clearclaw wrote:
matthew.marquand wrote:
I'd give the nod to Arkadia for the slightly deeper game in my opinion and would probably give it the nod if presented with a choice of what to purchase and play.

This surprised me. I find Torres deeper, more difficult and challenging than Arkadia.

My use of the term deeper may be somewhat inappropriate. I give Arkadia the nod because Torres feels to me a semi-monotonous spatial puzzle. It very well could be that I'm not engaging Torres on all cylinders.

Thread: Re: Torres vs. Arkadia

Drew1365 — 2008-08-19T01:10:15+00:00

Echoing everyone else in saying that these are two very different games that coincidentally use similar pieces.

Like Matthew said, the tower blocks in Arkadia are only a way to adjust the value of the items you collect as you build buildings in the spaces around the castle. (This adjusting value mechanism is usually referred to as a "stock market" mechanism; players get to influence the scoring of certain items.) The castle is also a game timer of a sort, because after the second level of the castle is completed, the game goes into the final round. But other than marking time and value, it doesn't do much except look pretty. The main thing you're doing is placing buildings and attempting to surround them with your workers for "seals" (from the families that want them built).

In Torres, on the other hand, the castle blocks are the core of the game. The theme of Torres is only evident in the rulebook, however the basic idea is that you're building castles and trying to get your pawns/knights up as high as you can because the higher they are, the more you'll score. There are rules governing movement, and only a certain number of actions you can take per turn. This is essentially a game of positioning. A good one, but if you don't particularly like abstract strategy games, you may not like it.

Both games tap into the spacial thinking part of the brain. I think both games scale well from two to four. I'd rather play both games with the full count of four -- Torres in particular, because it doesn't seem as interesting with only two.

Thread: Re: Torres vs. Arkadia

manymoodys — 2008-08-19T00:45:30+00:00

Thanks everyone for the feedback. Once I wade through a few new games - Modern Art and Agricola - maybe I will be in the market for one of these. Both sound promising - although not sure my family would buy off on me getting two games that "look" the same! Thanks!

Thread: Re: Torres vs. Arkadia

Ambrose — 2008-08-18T23:34:58+00:00

I love Torres. Arkadia is currently on my "must-have" list.

I guess Arkadia would be better for the gateway factor.
Replayability would probably go to Arkadia, too.
The 2-player aspect goes to Torres, but they are both good games for that.
Kid friendly really depends on the kid, but Arkadia would probably get that, too.

All in all, Arkadia might be slightly better. I say get them both!

Thread: Re: Torres vs. Arkadia

SybotCB — 2008-08-18T21:42:33+00:00

I very much prefer Torres. But the don't give me similar feelings at all if that is what you are looking for. They are very different games.

Thread: Re: Torres vs. Arkadia

clearclaw — 2008-08-18T21:40:20+00:00

matthew.marquand wrote:
I'd give the nod to Arkadia for the slightly deeper game in my opinion and would probably give it the nod if presented with a choice of what to purchase and play.

This surprised me. I find Torres deeper, more difficult and challenging than Arkadia.

Thread: Re: Torres vs. Arkadia

clearclaw — 2008-08-18T21:37:51+00:00

Arkadia is a fine little lower middle-weight family game with a healthy dose of luck, not much ply analysis and relatively low confrontation levels. I think it plays well only with exactly 2 or 4 players.

Torres plays well with 2, 3 and 4 players. Additionally it can be scaled from a somewhat luck-dependent game to a perfect and certain information game. Additionally the optional use of Master Cards allows for varying the player goals across and within games. Either way it is always quite confrontational and very subject to ply analysis.

I like Torres a lot when played as a perfect and certain information game and rate it a comfortable 8. Conversely I found Arkadia a perfectly forgettable piece of fluff that I rate at 4.

Thread: Re: Torres vs. Arkadia

jeffwiles — 2008-08-18T21:08:54+00:00

Torres can be played in a variety of ways - draw the action cards, everyone has a set of action cards in their hand to start, use the Master cards, etc, etc.

You can play Torres with very low luck or with zero luck, and it plays well with 2, 3, or 4.

With Arkadia (which I like) you're stuck with the amount of luck-of-the-draw. It's not a lot of luck, but it's there, and it's a difference in the two games. Haven't played Arkadia with more than 2, so I can't speak to how well it scales. I expect it will play well with 2, 3, or 4.

Have fun!

Thread: Re: Torres vs. Arkadia

matthew.marquand — 2008-08-18T19:09:25+00:00

They both fit your description of what you want. They're both easy to learn and teach. The games, although visually similar are completely different.

Torres is a spatial game. You'll need to be good at using cards to move your knights in, up, around, through, over, under, and down through the castles to accomplish your goals.

Arkadia is at it's heart a stock market game. The "castles" are nothing more than a cute gimmick to adjust the value of the "seals" that you're collecting in hopes of selling when they're valuable (you get to decide when you want to sell). The value of the commodities are determined by what what's visible in the "stock market" when looking straight down on the stacks of towers. There are some spatial aspects to the game (when you place your guys around the Tetris-shaped buildings) but it's strictly 2-dimensional.

I'd give the nod to Arkadia for the slightly deeper game in my opinion and would probably give it the nod if presented with a choice of what to purchase and play.

Thread: Re: Torres vs. Arkadia

kevinb9n — 2008-08-18T19:05:54+00:00

These two games use the same identical little beige tower pieces. However, they use them in *very* different ways. And I can't really think of any other similarities between the games.

I like Arkadia much more than Torres, and I think it fits your criteria well.

Thread: Torres vs. Arkadia

manymoodys — 2008-08-18T17:48:35+00:00

Wondering on opinions of purchasing this game vs. Arkadia. They look similar, but mechanics may be totally different. Some factors I would want to consider are that I often just play with my wife, so 2-player but would like it to scale up to 3 or 4. Also, kid friendly down to the 10ish age range, but not so simple that it affects interest/replayability. Gateway factor for non-gamers could also be considered.

Any thoughts are appreciated. Thanks!

Thread: Re: Do not fear this game, it is kid-friendly. You can make it as AP as you want.

jadzianess — 2008-08-14T12:57:49+00:00

Thanks Corin, I bought it with little intention, or hope of playing Torres with my kids, but when out of the blue, one of them says, "hey, can we play that castle game today?", then you just know everything is gonna be alright. Might be time to break open Mexica now that I know Action Points are my friend.

Thread: Re: Do not fear this game, it is kid-friendly. You can make it as AP as you want.

Ambrose — 2008-08-14T01:20:05+00:00

Been waiting for a long time to hear someone say that Torres is kid friendly. 'Cause it is. Thank you for the review! Torres was the first game I got based on reading about it on BGG, and nothing has beat it since. (Princes of Florence has tied it. But that doesn't count.)

Thread: Do not fear this game, it is kid-friendly. You can make it as AP as you want.

jadzianess — 2008-08-14T00:23:18+00:00

Hello there, I got my hands on Torres after seeing it on Tanga and doing a mad dash to purchase it before it ran out. You know how Tanga can make you panic at times. It had been on my radar for years...and you all know the lure, the power of Tanga. But then it was MINE.
I figured it would be a good game for my non-gaming husband as he does have a little thing for chess, and I recall this was referred to as 3D Chess before (but can't say I agree with that much now).

The game was delivered to my house, but then I feared it. I let it sit on my table unopened for days. I just knew the rules would be intense and confusing. And AP points, what would I do with those? I hadn't played one of those games before, Action Points would do me in, I just knew it. Still, I opened the box with trepidation, saw the big colored Rule Book, and hoped it included lots of different languages. Thank the heavens it did. There are only 11 pages of English rules, big print and nice illustrations to go along. I read the rule book, mentally going over each rule in my thick skull, and it wasn't hard. I didn't fully grasp the moving through castles thing for the 1AP cost, but after a few games and reading the rules section here, it clicked.

This is the Rio Grande Games version of the game and I liked the way it looked, but had nothing to compare it to. The components seem very nice and they will last a long time.

After reading the rules, I cajoled my 8 year old gamer to have a play test game with me. She readily agreed and we got 90% done with the game when we had to quit. Later that night, we got the older 12 year old sister to play. She picked it up easily and we finished the 3P game with the 8 year old winning.
A day later another 3P game was done and I am so happy that the kids can play this and EVEN LIKE IT. Honestly, that makes me wonder if I am doing something wrong when playing it, but I am a bit of a rule freak, so I think I got it down pat. We also don't have a lot of downtime, we take our turns pretty quickly, realizing our errors shortly afterwards. My husband, bless his heart, turned down 2 opportunities to play with us. I am on the verge of giving up on him, sigh.

CONCLUSION
Maybe I haven't read everything that there is to know about Torres, but I always felt it was a very AP game with a lot of downtime and not much of a family game. Well, I think it is a fine family game. The rules are not that difficult or fiddly. My gosh, what I went through to learn the rules for Last Night on Earth makes Torres look like childs play. For some reason I want to compare this game to Downfall of Pompeii, that is how difficult I think it is. I know I have barely touched the surface of playing this game well, and having 8 and 12 year old opponents is not the same as playing with an experienced player, but I think the fact that these ages can play the game, and play it with some smart moves makes it an accessible game to everyone. I guess in that respect it is like chess.

I think we all give it about a 7.9 rating, and I think that may even be a little conservative. Admittedly it isn't a lighthearted game that you can laugh at while you play, like Incan Gold, Ubongo, or even Pompeii, but it holds your attention, plays pretty quickly (under an hour) and has good strategy. It definitely has its place in a collection of games.

Thread: Re: 100% Perfect-Information Torres

Ambrose — 2008-07-13T21:44:06+00:00

I agree with you completely, and I also do the same with the cards: flip them over when we're done with them rather than discarding them.

Thread: Re: 100% Perfect-Information Torres

beckeykevin — 2008-07-13T20:24:22+00:00

Drew1365 wrote:

Huh. I guess when we played the Master Version, we did exactly this without really thinking about it. It never occurred to us to hold them in our hands. We just kept them in a row in front of us, and as we used them, we discarded them.

We do the same thing except that we flip the card over instead of discarding. I sometimes play with hidden cards, but I often find that having the cards face up allows for more time to actually concentrate on the board. Flipping through your 10 cards slightly lengthens the game.

Thread: Re: 100% Perfect-Information Torres

Ambrose — 2008-07-11T04:21:31+00:00

Nice.

Thread: Re: 100% Perfect-Information Torres

Drew1365 — 2008-07-11T03:53:59+00:00

Ambrose wrote:
This variant is simple: Play the Master Version, only keep all your cards face up on the table. When you use one, turn it over.

OK, fine, the Master Card draw prevents a 100% perfect-information game, but you could decide which one to use, or get rid of it completely. In any case, the game play is 100% perfect-information.

Huh. I guess when we played the Master Version, we did exactly this without really thinking about it. It never occurred to us to hold them in our hands. We just kept them in a row in front of us, and as we used them, we discarded them.