Game: Ivanhoe

Image

BoardGameJunkies — 2008-08-26T20:40:40+00:00

Killer bunny plays Ivanhoe at Games of the Round Table theme night.

Thread: First two games

MerricB — 2008-07-25T02:13:49+00:00

The short version: Randy won both games.

The slightly longer version: Rich and I lost both games.

What? You want more detail? Well, ok...

Ivanhoe is a card-game which simulates (evokes?) a bunch of medieval tournaments - you have jousting, wrestling, sword fighting, axe-fighting and possibly mace-fighting. The first player to demonstrate that they are supreme in all five disciplines (that is, to win all five tournaments at least once) is the winner of the game.

It's fast, it's furious, and it involves more than a little guile. The existence of cards that can change the type of contest you're engaging in gave us quite a few surprises, especially when we found ourselves suddenly weaponless!

In the first game, Randy walked all over us; he managed his cards a lot better than either Rich or me, and the end result was a comfortable win.

The second game was closer, but not for me. No, I thought that "coming from behind" would be a viable strategy, but - alas - every time it seemed that Randy and Rich could win the tournament instead of me, even when they'd already won that tournament and (allegedly) had used their cards of that type. Urg.

I thought I'd have a chance in what was the final bout... but Randy switched it into the Green unarmed fight. If either Randy or Rich won this bout, they'd win the game (having won the other four contests already). I had no green cards at all and so faded, and Randy outlasted Rich to take the game again.

I really suck at Ivanhoe! But it's a cool game.

Thread: Re: First Impression Session Report – Ivanhoe of Camelot?

Stormparkiet — 2008-07-16T17:13:48+00:00

ackmondual wrote:
to recap, players draw a card when they back out of the tourney right?

NOT after each turn?

As far as I know, each player draws a card at the start of his turn regardless of whether he starts tourney, continues one, or withdraws.

For example:

Player 1: draws a card, declares 'red', plays a 3-value red card
Player 2: draws a card, plays a 7-value red card, a lady & a squire
Player 1: draws a card hoping for a miracle, submits.
Player 2: draws a card very smugly, declares 'green', plays a green card
etc.

Lots of card drawing!

Thread: Re: First Impression Session Report – Ivanhoe of Camelot?

ackmondual — 2008-07-16T16:49:39+00:00

to recap, players draw a card when they back out of the tourney right?

NOT after each turn?

Thread: Re: Three knights and a Winning Strategy.

Terraformer — 2008-07-16T12:49:47+00:00

Randy, that makes perfect sense. I haven't got the rules with me, but I can see how I've skimmed that, but your explanation makes it clear.

Thanks very much - and now to teach the young knights!

Thread: Re: First Impression Session Report – Ivanhoe of Camelot?

Stormparkiet — 2008-07-16T06:27:43+00:00

Pathirtle wrote:
(only the winner draws a card, and only at the start of a trick (tournament)

Every player draws a card each round of a tournament.

We realised that very quickly, that's the 'false start' I was talking about.

Thread: Re: First Impression Session Report – Ivanhoe of Camelot?

Cantatta — 2008-07-15T20:28:04+00:00

The cards you speak of are as follows:

Sheild - Action cards do not affect your display (any of your cards played in a tourney, basically)

Stunned - You may only play one card to your display per tournament round

Outwit - Place any one card from your display in front of an opponent and take any card from his display and add it to your display.

Ivanhoe - Cancel any one action card

Sheild is a nice card, but remember that as soon as you withdraw from a tourney, for any reason, you must discard Sheild. The same thing goes for Stunned, once you withdraw from a tourney, the Stunned card is discarded. Ivanhoe speaks for itself, I think. Outwit means you could play stunned on yourself, then exchange it with an opponents Sheild, for instance, although it is certainly not limited to affecting those two cards.

We had some trouble with the Sheild and Stunned cards at first, simply because we overlooked the rule about discarding them when you withdraw from a tourney. These cards are not nearly as powerful as once considered, when played according to the rules. At best, Stunned might keep you from joining one tournament. You immediately withdraw from the next tournament after the card is played in front of you and the card is discarded. Granted, this might be critical to the game's outcome, but it is far better than thinking you are stuck with it for the entire game.

Sheild may protect you for a little while (2-3 tourneys), but experience has shown nobody keeps it for long. You have to pick the time and place to use it, preferably after Outwit and Ivanhoe are on the discard pile. That doesn't often happen though, as experienced players will save these powerful cards, just like you would.

Thread: Re: First Impression Session Report – Ivanhoe of Camelot?

ackmondual — 2008-07-15T19:11:54+00:00

I played the version with the "real knights". No cartoon/y illustrations. Not bad. It's a game I'd like to try every now and then. There's some bluffing as to whether you should commit a lot of cards to win, or just drop out b/c you're sure he has enough cards to win out. There's also HOW you're gonna approach. Slowly, or en masse. Last but not least, the special cards give the game a nice 'variety kick', altho I feel the card that makes one player "god", IIRC it made him immune to a certain negative event which occurred alot ruined a good deal of it. The game owner admitted that too. He waited until the only special card that coudl negate that was played to play his "god card".

Thread: Re: First Impression Session Report – Ivanhoe of Camelot?

Cantatta — 2008-07-15T16:03:30+00:00

A decent and fair assessment, although the game has improved with GMT's latest reprint of the game and updated rules. I would suggest you go to GMT's website and download the latest version of the rules, as written for the english version of the game. They are part of the "living rules" section, whereby GMT updates rule books as needed over time, keeping them up-to-date for the most part. Play again with these rules and see what you think.

For my part, I really like Ivanhoe, as do my friends and family. It comes out fairly often, especially during holidays! It is not a deep game, but it has it's charm and is easy to learn and play, even for younger children. The GMT version is a very nice, quality production, almost too nice to play, IMO. The card art is beautiful and they are printed on very heavy stock, almost like cardboard. While durable, the thick cards do make shuffling somewhat difficult.

Overall, Ivanhoe is fun and usually quick to play. 4-5 players is optimal, but even three players is quite a bit of fun. There is ample opportunity to screw your opponents with back-stabbing card plays, and learning when to use the action cards to best effect is one of the better aspects of the game.

Thread: First Impression Session Report – Ivanhoe of Camelot?

Stormparkiet — 2008-07-15T13:16:28+00:00

Preface: I've committed myself to writing a 'first impression' session report for every 'new-to-me' game I play, then if feeling inclined to do so, follow up with a review. This is the 5th installment of the widely acclaimed series. *cough*

I borrowed this little Knizia from a friend, who, judging from the obvious wear on the cards and box, has played it quite a lot. It was the Asmodée edition called Camelot, with the cartoonish style instead of the valiant knights fighting on the cover of the English version Ivanhoe. I must say I’m not too hot on this pseudo-funny style, but I guess the French have always had a funny sense of humor.

After a false start where I’d interpreted the turn phases wrong (only the winner draws a card, and only at the start of a trick (tournament) – I can assure you the game is BA-RO-KEN when played this way!), we were off. Things went alright for me at first, I’d stolen one card with ‘Chute’ (= bite the dust) and the color (weapon) choices didn’t suit my valiant opponent Sara, so pretty fast it was 4-1 and I was fighting for my last badge of honor – or, playing for my last trick depending how much you’re ‘immersed in the theme’. I slap down another handy action card which allows me to steal one of my opponent’s cards and add it to my own, and my opponent submits! Good thing too, I’d run out of steam at this point.

At which point Sara goes, ‘Oh hang on, I have *this* card in my hand which allows me to negate your action card!’. Mmm ok, that means you take this trick instead of me and it’s not over yet. Fast forward a trick or three in succession won by Sara – she wins 5 tricks to 4. Swingy game!

We played another game right away which took a bit longer, I can’t even remember if I won or lost a second time.

My first impression of this game: it’s a simple filler without much (any?) depth, but fun enough to warrant play from time to time if you’re looking for a game of this footprint. Could easily be pulled out to play with non-gamers or kids, and is very portable. So it’s not a ‘good’ game as I define it, but it has its time & place - and target audience; I’m not buying this game. For the Asmodée edition, I must say I’m not a fan of the cartoonish art style, and the rules could do with some revising - which possibly happened in the meantime as it was a pretty old copy I played. Besides some ambiguity with the rules, I was a bit annoyed and sometimes confused by their consistent use of the theme, which incidently is completely optional, to describe concepts. Examples include weapon for color, tournament for trick, and most confusing of all: ‘personage’ (= character) for the space on the table occupied by your cards. (what the...!?)

Long story short, my initial rating after 2 plays: 6/10

Thread: Re: Three knights and a Winning Strategy.

GeneSteeler — 2008-07-14T04:06:53+00:00

Terraformer wrote:
Nice session report. I'm encouraged that a 6 year-old can play effectively despite the generic 10+ on the box. I'll see if my young knights are similarly gifted!
I have just bought Ivanhoe, and I don't understand (and I am painfully aware that this makes me look very stupid) how the cumulative tabled score makes a difference. The rules imply that the winner of the tournament is the one who doesn't withdraw - i.e. can still play a valid card - with no reference of the final score of the tourney.
What basic fundamental am I missing?!
Help appreciated

I don't have the rulebook with me, but the "cumulative tabled score" simply has to be beat by the next knight, or else they must withdraw. So in the most basic terms, you must "up the ante" by playing one or more cards or "drop". Of course, the special cards sometimes change the ante instead of upping it.

So you are correct, the final "score" of the tourney doesn't matter. The trophy winner is the 'last one' to play a card (i.e. not drop).

Hope that is clear. If you still are muddled, send me a PM.

Thread: Re: Three knights and a Winning Strategy.

Terraformer — 2008-07-13T09:34:48+00:00

Nice session report. I'm encouraged that a 6 year-old can play effectively despite the generic 10+ on the box. I'll see if my young knights are similarly gifted!
I have just bought Ivanhoe, and I don't understand (and I am painfully aware that this makes me look very stupid) how the cumulative tabled score makes a difference. The rules imply that the winner of the tournament is the one who doesn't withdraw - i.e. can still play a valid card - with no reference of the final score of the tourney.
What basic fundamental am I missing?!
Help appreciated

Thread: Re: Rules Questions - Ties and Color changes

Beyak — 2008-06-26T16:41:22+00:00

Pathirtle wrote:
Just to add to that, when it's your turn you must either: 1) play one or more cards, after which the value of the cards in your display must be at least equal to the highest display, or 2) withdraw from the tournament.

So if my display has a value of 12 and your display has a value of 12, if it's your turn you still have to play a card or withdraw. Being tied is not enough. Note that you don't have to add to your own display - you could simply play a card that changes the colour of the tournament, and that would be enough. The important thing is you have to play a card.

I know I am coming to the party a little late but the bolded sections in the above quote are not true. At least according to the rules I have. I just played this last night and it was very clear that after playing one or more cards the total in your display must be greater than any other display.

The way Pat has described this above one could have a tie and then your question would need to be answered in some fashion. As is, no problem, there cannot be a tie!

Thread: Re: adapt w/ green tournament

LetsGetTrivial — 2008-06-23T21:19:03+00:00

Thanks for the clarification. For some reason I missed the last part I'd your earlier statement regarding "action cards".

Thread: Re: adapt w/ green tournament

dcorban — 2008-06-23T16:25:21+00:00

The rulebook text is crystal clear.

For the purposes of everything but action cards, during a green tournament, all cards are "1". When action cards mention the value of a card ("highest card", "all cards of same value", etc) you use the printed number.

Thread: Re: adapt w/ green tournament

LetsGetTrivial — 2008-06-23T13:56:46+00:00

Thanks for the help but I am still confused. The issue is (and also has been) the meaning of the word "value". Which value take precedent: printed value or value based on the tournament.

Thread: Re: adapt w/ green tournament

Robrob — 2008-06-23T05:15:46+00:00

That's why once a tournament has a bunch of supporter cards it's a pretty good technique to switch colors to green followed by an "Adapt".

Thread: Re: adapt w/ green tournament

dcorban — 2008-06-23T04:51:59+00:00

The quick and easy answer is printed in the rulebook:
In a green tournament, all cards in the display are counted as 1. However, the cards keep their printed values with respect to any action cards played.

Thread: adapt w/ green tournament

LetsGetTrivial — 2008-06-23T04:39:56+00:00

ADAPT: Each player may only keep one card of each value in his display. All other cards with the same value are discarded. Each player decides which of the matching-value cards he will discard.

So what happens in a green tournament when a player as also played 2-point and 3-point squires. In a green tournament, all cards count as 1. Therefore, which of the following should happen:

1) Discard all but one card because they all are a value of "1".

2) Discard based on the printed values of the card, regardless of what is is worth.

For the record, we played the second way.

Thread: Ivanhoe with 6?

ebridge — 2008-05-15T12:29:56+00:00

Is there any reason that six players could not play this game? Thanks.

Thread: Re: Rules Questions - Ties and Color changes

ryanmaesen — 2008-05-07T03:24:43+00:00

Thanks guys!

Thread: 2 player Variant - Game Knights

ryanmaesen — 2008-05-07T03:20:06+00:00

We played our first game and had a lot of fun. Then I re-read the rules and realized we were playing wrong. We played another game the correct way and didn't have much fun at all. My girlfriend would put down one card, and I had nothing of the same color.
Then she started the next tournament and won on the first card again! We think this is a cool game, but would probably be better with more than 2 players.
So, we tried to lay down some house rules for a 2 player game. Now, it's not perfect, but we had more fun with our house rules than the regular rules.

Game Knights Variant:

We played that you forget about the numbers on the cards and just play the color suits. So if you start a red tournament, you both keep playing red cards until you run out or the suit changes, etc. And you can only play one color card per turn. You play until you can't play any more cards (color cards, supporters, or action cards). We had tournaments last a lot longer and had a lot more fun!

Now, I know this drastically changes the game and I know a lot of people will say "that's not how the game is supposed to be played". But it just wasn't working with the regular rules.

I really want to play with more people. But for just two, this variant worked pretty well. Try it and I'd love to know what you think of it. And I'd love to hear other peoples experience with 2 players.

Thread: Re: Runaway Leader with two players?

ryanmaesen — 2008-05-07T03:10:34+00:00

I feel the same way! We played our first game and had a lot of fun. Then I re-read the rules and realized we were playing wrong. We played another game the correct way and didn't have much fun at all. Same problem you had. My girlfriend would put down one card, and I had nothing of the same color.
Then she started the next tournament and won on the first card again! We think this is a cool game, but would probably be better with more than 2 players.
So, we tried to lay down some house rules for a 2 player game. Now, it's not perfect, but we had more fun with our house rules than the regular rules.

We played that you forget about the numbers on the cards and just play the color suits. So if you start a red tournament, you both keep playing red cards until you run out or the suit changes, etc. And you can only play one color card per turn. You play until you can't play any more cards (color cards, supporters, or action cards). We had tournaments last a lot longer and had a lot more fun!

Now I know this drastically changes the game and I know a lot of people will say "that's not how the game is supposed to be played". But it just wasn't working with the regular rules.

I really want to play with more people. But for just two, this variant worked pretty well. Try it and I'd love to know what you think of it. And I'd love to hear other peoples experience with 2 players.

Thread: Re: Comparisons with Condottiere

Mark_Owen_Reich — 2008-05-04T12:55:25+00:00

Agree - I wouldn't play Condottiere with 2.

However, I've just discovered Caesar and Cleopatra, which feels like Condottiere crossed with Battle Line - and I'm loving it! So I'd recommend that for 2 players instead.

Thread: Re: Rules Questions - Ties and Color changes

Octavian — 2008-05-04T07:49:36+00:00

I tournament cannot be tied. It is essentially an auction that continues until all but one player has dropped out.

All of your previously played cards still count when a tourny changes colors. The current color dictates what cards may be played currently and what color chip will be won. It does not affect the previously played cards (with the lone exception being changing a tourny to green, which causes all cards previously played to be counted as a value of 1 as per the rules).

-MMM

Thread: Re: Comparisons with Condottiere

ryanmaesen — 2008-05-04T07:46:38+00:00

I heard Condottiere wasn't a very good 2 player game?

Anyone agree/disagree?

Thread: Rules Questions - Ties and Color changes

ryanmaesen — 2008-05-04T07:35:39+00:00

So I haven't actually played Ivanhoe yet. I read the rules last night and want to play with friends this weekend...

But I have a few questions.

1. What happens in the event of a tied tournament?

2. Say we're playing a blue tournament and someone changes it to yellow, does that make all the blue cards in my display count as yellow now?

Thread: Re: Solitary Purple card to lead tournament after winning a jousting round

pnorell — 2008-04-15T23:46:58+00:00

Thanks for your thoughts. I would agree entirely with that.

Thread: Re: Solitary Purple card to lead tournament after winning a jousting round

Robrob — 2008-04-15T17:32:10+00:00

What he said.

Thread: Re: Solitary Purple card to lead tournament after winning a jousting round

dcorban — 2008-04-15T12:40:36+00:00

I would play it as if the player only had action cards. In other words, he reveals his hand to prove that he only hold jousting cards and the next clockwise player begins the tournament.

Thread: Solitary Purple card to lead tournament after winning a jousting round

pnorell — 2008-04-15T02:43:00+00:00

Could someone solve this little conundrum please which has just cropped up in a game?

A knight wins a jousting round by playing his very last card. He now has to start anew tournament and happens to draws another purple card.

The rules say that he must play a card (unless he has only action cards) but he cannot declare a jousting round because the rules prohibit the declaration of consecutive purple rounds.

What happens? I can only imagine that he must pass the round to the next player. Is this correct? Or have I missed something?

Image

Jim Krohn — 2008-03-13T22:33:24+00:00

My son hates this card...

Thread: Stunned vs. Shield bearer

Chump — 2008-03-13T10:44:37+00:00

Just wanted to check:

You can play "Stunned" on a guy who has "Shield" in front of him, right?

Thread: Re: Shield removal

dcorban — 2008-02-12T14:06:10+00:00

I never considered it any other way. Imagine how powerful it would be to have it the entire game.

Thread: Shield removal

Langy — 2008-02-12T11:59:09+00:00

Does the shield get removed at the end of the tourny it is played in? Im guessing so as it says the winner puts all cards to the discard pile..

Thread: Re: Shield vs. Color Change cards

Octavian — 2008-01-28T18:19:57+00:00

The cards aren't affected at all - even with Unhorse, all the previously played cards still count towards your totals. All that has changed is what color new cards must match.

-MMM

Thread: Re: Shield vs. Color Change cards

Sphere — 2008-01-28T08:38:47+00:00

Everybody plays in the same color, in all cases. If the color changes, it changes for all players.

Thread: Shield vs. Color Change cards

thermald — 2008-01-28T06:43:01+00:00

This came up in a two-player game tonight. My opponent had played a "Shield" in a purple tournament, and I wanted to play "Unhorse" to change to yellow. We couldn't decide if "Unhorse" would affect his cards or not. It doesn't make a lot of sense for it to affect one display and not the other, although I guess it could work such that I was adding yellow cards and he was adding purple.

We settled it thematically, arguing that since "Shield" specifically says it prevents action cards from affecting your display, his knight was not unhorsed, but mine was, and since cavalry has the advantage over foot soldiers, his display was winning. Of course, this reasoning breaks down in the case of a "Change Weapon" card played against a "Shield."

Thread: Re: Three knights and a Winning Strategy.

Jim Marshall — 2007-10-29T10:30:13+00:00

I've been playing Ivahoe with my two young knights recently, and we've been enjoying it too

Thread: Three knights and a Winning Strategy.

GeneSteeler — 2007-10-29T01:22:14+00:00

Ivanhoe – Three knights and a Winning Strategy.

It was a warm spring evening and we had only 30 minutes to play something before two of the knights had to go to bed. What to do? A quick Tournament of course!

The three knights lifted their banners to the sky. The youngest had a fleet and agile Wren on her pennant. The next had a strong Willow tree on hers. The final knight, an old codger, had some sort of Alien on his shield.

So far the final results were: Willow:3, Wren:1, Alien:1

As we were about to commence, the reigning Champion, Willow, boasted (as knights do), “I have a winning strategy! I let you win the first couple bouts then I win a whole bunch in a row and win the tournament!”

So we began…

Wren opened the tournament with a sword bout. Willow and I, both bereft of swords conceded and Wren had her first trophy.

Wren then challenged us to a joust. I immediately conceded but Willow took up the challenge. Briefly. And soon Wren obtained her second trophy.

Wren started an unarmed boxing match. I decided to challenge her and with the help of a couple squires I had her beaten. Or so I thought. She performed a most-timely “Riposte”, stealing my last punch. I had nothing left and Wren won her third trophy.

Next came the Axes, and Willow decided it was now she had better start her Winning Strategy. But Wren, with the aid of her Maiden, was again victorious and won her fourth trophy.

Only needing to win with the Footman’s Flail Wren attempted the sweep. But, as I, the Alien, was saving my strength, she was no match for me and I took my first trophy.

I challenged Willow to a Sword fight as Wren rested. We had a long hard battle, and as the score soared and points were gained by both of us (with me ahead 23-21), Willow caused us to drop our weapons. Or, I should say, attempted to. Ivanhoe was watching and said “No! Pick up those swords, I want to see how this ends!” Willow, beaten had to concede the Sword trophy to me.

The next bout was unarmed and Willow beat me up.

A joust was next on the lists. Wren, being very wily, played her multiple lances driving up her score and then… Unhorsed us, picked up a Flail!

Willow was beaten and conceded as I, with the help of a Maiden took the lead. 11-7. With Wren down to a few options, I was sure she was beat.

Or so I thought.

Wren is a very savvy knight. You see, she is only 6 years old. But she understands strategy very well. Probably because her parents are such geniuses Back to the story; Wren called on the aid of two squires (for 5 points) who brought her a Shield! (the Shield makes the bearer immune to any ‘special’ actions)

I was out of moves and so tenuously drew the next card slapping it on the table. It was Adapt. I swung at Wren, Adapting to her last attack, but her shield blocked me and I fell to one knee. “I concede”, I breathed. Victory to Wren!

The crowd cheered! The crowd roared! My Maiden in disgust took a trophy away from me!

The evening tournament belonged to Wren, with a glorious 5-1-1 victory!

I questioned Willow on her "Winning Strategy" She replied with a

Wren ran to her mother, visibly shaking with excitement and adrenalin. “I was so scared!” she loudly proclaimed.

It was glorious witnessing the delight and reward she felt from a game well played and a victory meaningfully earned.

After a victory celebration, the two young knights went off to bed (and were still awake an hour later). I guess the excitement for Wren was a bit much before bedtime!

Thread: Re: Are we having fun yet?

Jim Marshall — 2007-10-24T01:26:17+00:00

I've been playing this with my two kids, and we've been having a geat time.

Image

Meat — 2007-10-06T02:38:38+00:00

Box Front - 2007 second printing edition

Thread: The Quick and the Red

GeneSteeler — 2007-10-05T00:14:57+00:00

The Quick and the Red

Yesterday I played two games of Ivanhoe with my daughters.

The first competition was over fairly quickly (yes, at times I’m a merciless father). I allowed my two girls to beat each other up relentlessly and get two trophies each while exhausting their hands. With a hand full of about 12 cards I then ploughed my way to quick victory getting 5 trophies in a row.

The second tournament was a bit more exciting and is the purpose of this session report….

After Each tournament the score will be given Wren/Willow/Randy)

Wren began a Joust. Willow accepted the challenge and Randy sat on the sidelines. Soon Willow unhorsed Wren and it turned into a Ball & Chain bout. Eventually Willow needed to call on the Maiden’s favour but in a cunning move Wren Counter-charged and Willow conceded. 1/0/0

Wren then drew her sword and Willow again took up the challenge while I twiddled my thumbs on the sidelines. After three rounds Wren was desperate and very tensely called on the Maiden’s Favour (she was very scared about losing her first trophy). Willow was unable to compete and conceded. Close call for Wren 2/0/0

Wren began another Joust (which I watched) and in the second round Willow Broke Wren’s Lance. Willow won. 2/1/0

Willow drew her sword and I finally got off my ass to take up her challenge while Wren watched. In the second round I Adapted to her strategy and she conceded. 2/1/1

I Drew my Axe and no one was willing to take up my challenge 2/1/2

So, I picked up the ball and chain. Wren took one look at me, flicked her wrist, and I dropped my weapon. Not ready to fight unarmed, Wren took the Unarmed trophy 3/1/2

Wren tried to get her Axe trophy, but, being Axe Master I defeated her and denied her the trophy.

I kept a hold of my Axe and inquired if anyone was brave enough to fight me. They weren’t.

“Ball & Chain anyone?” I intoned. Wren and Willow both took two swings at me, but me second shot was too powerful and they both conceded. 3/1/3

Needing only the unarmed and Joust trophies I began a Unarmed fight. Wren joined in (to stop me) while Willow took a water break. I Riposte her second swing, but she Outmanuevered me! Too save my unarmed strength I Retreated!

Wren began a joust again (for the third time!). Although I needed the trophy and Willow didn’t, I dropped out while Willow took her challenge. In the second round Wren called on the Maiden’s favour, only to be Disgraced by Willow. Wren had another Maiden lined up, but Willow was able to Riposte. Wren luckily pulled out the most powerful maneuver the Purple-7 and Willow conceded. 4/1/3

Wren, sensing her first tournament victory Drew her Axe and both Willow and I joined in the field to stop her. I dropped in the second round, hoping Willow would do the job for me. This was an incredibly close battle. In round three Wren tried to Knock Down Willow, who cried Ivanhoe!. Wren then took the lead by Outwitting Willow who responded with two quick Axe swings. It was too much for Wren and Willow took the trophy. 4/2/3

Willow challenged me unarmed while Wren began to recover from the Axe bout. We exchanged two blows for three rounds, when Willow grabbed a Shield! and Charged me. I was defenseless and lost. 4/3/3

Willow drew her sword. I attacked her twice and then Changed Weapon to Ball and Chain. Willow conceded.

I was then Ready for some fisticuffs, but no one was willing or able to stop me. 4/3/4

Not even having a lance, I couldn’t start a joust, so I waved my Ball and Chain around a bit, but both daughters declined.

So, it worked once, so I waved it around some more, but Willow with the help of a Squire bashed me up WWF style and took the trophy 4/4/4! We now were all on our last and final trophy.

Willow drew her sword for the win (I conceded) but Wren tried her hardest to stop her in another epic duel. Willow strikes. Wren strikes twice. Willow Dodges. Wren smacks hard Red-5. Willow Knocks Down Wren and Outwits her! (I was thinking at this point that I should have tried to stay in). But Wren hung in there with a strike and help of a Squire. Willow responds with a strike. Wren strikes. Willow calls on the Maiden’s Favour but Wren Riposte it away and Willow was defeated!

Wren, partly exhausted, but undaunted tried for the win herself and drew her Axe. Willow and I both joined in. In round two I was forced to drop. Round three Wren went for gold by Knocking Down Willow and Stunning her. It wasn’t enough though and Willow struck back and won. She stopped Wren from winning the day.

In an anti-climatic match, Willow barely able to lift her sword Squire-2 challenged us. I responded Red-3 while Wren stuck her head in the water barrel. Willow drew and struck back Red-4. Unable to respond I conceded and Willow won the Day!!! 4/5/4

An incredible come-back for Willow and some very exciting bouts!

Thread: Re: Opening Ceremonies, The First Tournament

Daddy-O — 2007-10-02T02:39:25+00:00

That sounds like it was a lot of fun. I've been mulling over buying Ivanhoe and now I think I will do just that!

Thread: Opening Ceremonies, The First Tournament

GeneSteeler — 2007-10-02T01:31:03+00:00

Opening Ceremonies, The First Tournament (Session Report)

Background:
I’m a strategy gamer at heart (This morning before work I set-up one of the Vignette’s for Onward, Christian Soldiers. But I am always looking for quick lighter games I can play with my kids. I picked up Ivanhoe as I’m a member of the SCA (Society of Creative Anachronism) and a big fan of the era.

I read through the rules and realized that this is another Knizia http://www.boardgamegeek.com/designer/2 game with a loosely painted on theme. But we’d make the most of it anyway!

Gameplay
After the opening ceremonies of unwrapping and separating the fresh cards, I dealt out the opening hand and Willow began the tournament with a sword melee. Wren quickly dropped out of the bout and after playing numerous strikes and squires, Willow defeated me for the first trophy.

Eventually I took the lead with four trophies (requiring only the unarmed combat trophy to win the tournament). Willow was on three trophies and Wren was on two.

A big mace bout was underway between the two W’s and Willow was lagging, although desperately wanting the trophy (which would be her fourth). She took the gamble and played the maiden (worth 6 points), but was countered by Wren showing great savvy by Stunning Willow and playing a number of squires. Willow was unable to win and lost the bout (losing her Swords Trophy at the same time as the maiden was dishonoured. Willow won the next bout, and Wren the following. The scores were now:
[c][/c]
Willow: 3 (needing Swords and Mace)
Wren: 4 (needing unarmed)
Randy: 4 (needing unarmed)

I was holding a hand of 2 green (unarmed), 2 squires and a couple ‘action’ cards. I was pretty confident that I could beat Wren in the final unarmed bout. But Wren chose to start a joust instead. This is one of the interesting things about Ivanhoe. Is that there is a lot more strategy than on the surface would seem. It’s often worthwhile participating in tournaments you don’t need to win in order to improve your hand. I.e. you get rid of those purple cards you don’t need and hopefully draw something you can use.

Willow won the joust and began a Mace bout that she easily won. We were all tied at four. Willow then began a sword round to attempt the win. Wren, having nothing special in hand dropped out, which put the heat on myself to stop Willow from winning the bout and the tournament!

The bout proceeded as follows: (Willow score-Randy Score)

Willow struck first (played a red “4”) (4-0)
Randy struck back a bit harder (played two red “3’s”) (4-6)
Willow responded back (played another red “3”) (7-6)
But Randy was ready with a Riposte! (4-6)
Willow Riposte back (4-3)
But a Squire came to Randy’s aid (4-5)
Willow gained the favour of a Maiden (10-5)
Only to have it suddenly removed (4-5)
But Willow was unphased as the Maidens were lining up to support and another one granted her favour (10-5)
Randy had no response and withdrew.
Willow was the crowd favourite and gained her fifth and final trophy! The tournament was won!

We had a good time with the final score being very close at 5-4-4. Play time was around 30 minutes.

Huzzah!

Thread: Re: Are we having fun yet?

tritone — 2007-09-17T04:15:12+00:00

itsmarty wrote:
tritone wrote:
The way the chips are handled squeeze the last couple drops from this game. Having to play a red tournament when you already have red and so does your opponent.

I haven't played in six months or so, but I don't remember the game forcing you to play a certain color. You can call one that you've both already won as a relatively safe way to dump cards, but if your opponent calls one you don't have to participate and no one will get another chip.

That was poor wording on my part. I didn't mean to imply you "had" to play red (or any color) under certain circumstances. I was referring to a situation where everyone already has red chips, and all you've got in your hand is more red cards.

For such a simple game, this one has always been surprisingly polarizing. My group really gets into the theme, but it leaves many people completely cold.

We are big Knizia fans... perhaps a little too "fanatic" at times... so we own and play a lot of RK games. Some work better than others for us. We tend to ignore theme in most RK games we play... maybe it would help us to think more about the theme here? Hmmm, have to give it a try.

Thread: Re: Are we having fun yet?

tritone — 2007-09-17T04:07:19+00:00

kentreuber wrote:
For a multi-player card game, I prefer Condottiere or its sister game Iliade. For two players, try Hector and Achilles.

We own and have played Iliade. I'm sure it plays great with 3+ as you suggest. I printed the rules for Condotierre and had tentatively pencilled that on my Christmas list! But I didn't know about Hector and Achilles. I'll definitely give that a look instead.. thanks!

My wife and I own, play, and enjoy a lot of the typical 2p games (Lost Cities, Jambo, Balloon Cup, Battlelore, Princes of Florence works great with 2, etc.) But I like to pretend I'm a "big boy" and still buy lots of games that we just shouldn't be playing with two (Fury of Dracula, Arkham, Caylus, Puerto Rico, etc.) despite "workable" 2p variants. I don't see that ever changing, because I just like too many games! I always figure someday I'll find a larger group to play with, and then I'll already know how to play (sorta).

Thread: Re: Are we having fun yet?

tritone — 2007-09-17T03:57:52+00:00

Octavian wrote:
Changing the rule about who gets to call the next tourny is a huge change for the worse, IMO. It isn't infrequent for a player to go on a streak of wins. What is rare is for that streak to be maintained long enough to win the entire game. Typically they will have to give up initiative at some point and the other players will have an easier time of things while the leader is rebuilding his hand.

Thanks for your insights... I appreciate them. I'd love to play with 3+, but it's not an option right now. I shouldn't complain about multi-player games with only two, since it's a common theme I'm sure most are tired of hearing about. I'm still relatively new around here... so I'll learn. You'd think.

Thread: Re: Are we having fun yet?

tritone — 2007-09-17T03:50:53+00:00

grantham wrote:
I don't know that I've ever played the game as a 2-player game. In a multi-player game, the winner of a tournament is generally so depleted in cards compared to the 3rd place player (who generally dropped out early) that it's nearly impossible to string together a streak of more than 2 wins in a row.

I believe you. It is very hard IMO to find a multi-player game that plays well with two, even if the box *says* two can play. Since my "group" is just my wife and I, I start salivating the moment I see a "2" anywhere at all on the back of a box.

Thread: Re: Are we having fun yet?

kentreuber — 2007-09-16T15:40:30+00:00

I should have liked Ivanhoe, since I'm a big Knizia fan and I like Eurogames with conflict. But, it just didn't do it for me. The game seemed to really drag. I ended up trading it away.

For a multi-player card game, I prefer Condottiere or its sister game Iliade. For two players, try Hector and Achilles.

Thread: Re: Are we having fun yet?

itsmarty — 2007-09-16T14:19:38+00:00

tritone wrote:
Just when you think you are about to win a tournament... boom, somebody plays their "crazy eight" and now it's a whole 'nuther tournament in a whole 'nuther color!

I've played two-player a number of times and find it just as fun as the multiplayer game, but cardplay as you describe above is exactly the sort of tournament I enjoy. I like games where you can actively foil your opponents plans (or be foiled) rather than just race towards a common goal.

The way the chips are handled squeeze the last couple drops from this game. Having to play a red tournament when you already have red and so does your opponent.

I haven't played in six months or so, but I don't remember the game forcing you to play a certain color. You can call one that you've both already won as a relatively safe way to dump cards, but if your opponent calls one you don't have to participate and no one will get another chip.

Dunno. I couldn't wait to get this game and was so thankful that GMT reprinted it. Now I'm not so sure.

For such a simple game, this one has always been surprisingly polarizing. My group really gets into the theme, but it leaves many people completely cold.

Thread: Re: Are we having fun yet?

Octavian — 2007-09-16T13:39:44+00:00

Ivanhoe is awesome - but I've never played two player. Perhaps that's what is dragging down your experience. If two players have a red chip the third is quite pleased for a red tourny to be called. Even if all players have a particular color of chip I am likely to call that color if I have a lot of it in my hand - not only do I get to exchange my red cards for new cards, but if my guess is correct that I have more reds left than my opponents I will still have control over the next tourny.

Changing the rule about who gets to call the next tourny is a huge change for the worse, IMO. It isn't infrequent for a player to go on a streak of wins. What is rare is for that streak to be maintained long enough to win the entire game. Typically they will have to give up initiative at some point and the other players will have an easier time of things while the leader is rebuilding his hand.

Changing it so that the loser picks the next tourny...'
a) muddles things for games with more than two players - which loser gets to choose?
b) makes it EASIER for a leader to win. As the rules stand, if the leader needs only one more chip but does not have control he needs to win two tournaments - one to gain control and then the one needed to win the game. Your change makes it much too easy for a player to regain the initiative.

But mainly I suggest playing with at least three, and preferably four or five.

-MMM

Thread: Re: Are we having fun yet?

grantham — 2007-09-16T13:34:22+00:00

I don't know that I've ever played the game as a 2-player game. In a multi-player game, the winner of a tournament is generally so depleted in cards compared to the 3rd place player (who generally dropped out early) that it's nearly impossible to string together a streak of more than 2 wins in a row.

Image

Capitaine Grappin — 2007-03-16T18:11:51+00:00

tournament victory markers (Asmodée)

Image

rholzgrafe — 2007-01-22T01:00:34+00:00

hholzgrafe's print-and-build card tuckboxes, available in the Files section of Ivanhoe.

Image

EndersGame — 2005-12-12T18:48:46+00:00

The two SUPPORT cards: Squire (left) and Princess (right)

Image

EndersGame — 2005-12-08T22:11:08+00:00

Six of the ACTION cards with special abilities (see text on cards) in Ivanhoe

Image

EndersGame — 2005-12-04T19:02:00+00:00

A clear and detailed image of the wonderful bright artwork on the box cover

Image

EndersGame — 2005-12-04T18:58:10+00:00

The FIVE different COLOR TOKENS in Ivanhoe: purple, blue, red, yellow, green

Image

EndersGame — 2005-11-29T16:00:59+00:00

The IVANHOE card, with some special ACTION cards