Game: Saga

Image

rober — 2008-11-18T15:13:24+00:00

overview

Thread: Re: Good with 2?

caffeinehead — 2008-08-03T22:53:38+00:00

I just played it with two a few days ago - first time for both - and it went nice and quick.

Thread: Re: Good with 2?

Sneezy96 — 2008-07-27T21:21:13+00:00

Game works fine with 2. Orange & Green castles seem to go back & forth quite a bit....

Thread: Re: Saga - First Play

wmshub — 2008-07-02T22:03:56+00:00

I've only played it once 2p, once 3p, and I can say that the 3p was much, much more fun. That adds an element of negotiation, where players can choose whose kingdoms to attack.

I would never play it 2p again, but I look forward to more plays with 3p or 4p.

Thread: Saga - First Play

JayB — 2008-07-02T20:36:06+00:00

This was my first time to play Saga.

There were two players for this session. We played the introductory setup with all cards on their crown sides.

Michael went over the rules with me and then we got started. I went first.

Being my first time to play, I went for the kingdom that looked like it would have the most immediate benefit - Goldland; so, I played an orange card with a value of four. Michael also played an orange card. Within another turn, I picked up the first kingdom, Goldland, with a combined defense of seven. Michael matched my seven for Goldland.

I continued working on picking up kingdoms while Michael worked on mounting additional attacks without actually claiming anything. I quickly picked up Sealand and then Forestland. All the while, Michael had yet to claim one single kingdom.

I was down to two cards and Michael conquered my Forestland, putting the three cards back into my hand. At this time, I realized that Michael only had three cards left and that I needed to try to take one of his kingdoms to get some extra cards into his hand. I began mounting an attack to gain Forestland back but it was too little too late. Two turns went by and Michael was down to his last card using it to take Goldland.

At the end, I had outmatched Michael in fame; having 28 to his 9. Although, now that he had three kingdoms and I only had one he scored major defense points; 26 to my 6. I did still have Sealand though; so, I was able to count my largest attack of 8 as well. Final score: Michael 35, Me 31.

Duration: 17 minutes + 20 minutes for rules explanation.

A quick light game that left me wanting more. Not more of the game but more game play. I don't think that I will be playing Saga with only two players again. It seems that it may benefit from more; perhaps, increasing interaction.

Image

ackmondual — 2008-05-15T00:43:44+00:00

factory fresh components. Intact seal on cards and unpunched sheet

Image

ackmondual — 2008-05-15T00:33:48+00:00

sides of box (cover and bottom half)

Image

Me 262 Schwalbe — 2008-04-09T20:45:19+00:00

Saga box opened

Image

Me 262 Schwalbe — 2008-04-09T20:42:22+00:00

Saga Dutch edition box

Image

Me 262 Schwalbe — 2008-04-09T20:35:38+00:00

Dutch rulebook on top of box

Thread: Re: Lost Castles

dogzard — 2008-02-06T03:29:55+00:00

I agree with El Hidalgo. My .02gg worth:

The Fame point counters do suck. In fact, they so resemble the $$ counters in Arkham Horror, that it's damn near impossible to think them in any other way. It should have been a card with a track and counters

Instead of using them to buy a free Knight, it should have been made either an automatic action, such as:
Prince A just took over Kingdom B. The defeated Knights of Kingdom B then go, in order of power, to the other kingdoms, based on Fame point total, size of remaining defending forces, etc... -OR-

Maybe a bidding Mechanic, where you bid your fame to attract the various Free Knights

Overall, though, a tight, fun, and portable game.

Thread: Re: Lost Castles

El Hidalgo — 2008-02-05T04:21:54+00:00

If there had been a card or two with numbered columns for each player and a counter to keep track it would have made more sense than using money chits as Fame Counters. The Fame Counters on thick card stock seemed like a misdirected production value. A Fame Track would probably have been more cost effective as well as game effective. Still it is a good game and I believe one gets a lot of game for a small price.

Thread: Re: Lost Castles

jeRm! — 2008-02-04T18:43:27+00:00

Would a score track work for this game?
I own this game and may give it a go.

Thread: Re: Lost Castles

Liumas — 2008-02-04T07:54:39+00:00

The constant changing of those 'money' chits is ridiculous!

Ugh - toss them out and use something else, ANYTHING.

Thread: Lost Castles

El Hidalgo — 2008-02-04T05:14:29+00:00

Hugh G. Rection gifted me with this game for Christmas. The ratings are from to

PRESENTATION
The fact that this game is small and portable is nice. When going to and fro with gaming friends portability ranks high. The Box Art while engaging and mystical, doesn't tie into the theme of the game. If this was a game of druids and legends...maybe...but it seemed like a beautiful non-sequitor.

COMPONENTS
There are two basic components to the game. Cards and Fame Counters.
Cards
The cards are printed with a nice texture finish that makes them handier than the smooth finish found in many decks. The art depicting knights of the various colors of factions on the cards is nicely done though not great. There are medieval type borders framing these pictures. I am thinking that if they had been done with a stained glass effect it may have been more appealling. But as I said, they are nice.
Fame Counters
The Fame counters are printed on heavy cardstock, and come in quantities of 1's, 2's, 5's, and 10's. While they are called Fame counters they looked a lot like money to me. In fact they were used a lot like money as well. I am thinking that a "Fame Track" with a counter may have driven the theme home a lot more than the small rectangular counters that looked like money but were not.

GAME PLAY
The Theme/Objective
The King's away, so the Baron's play...that is fight...for power.
Each player wants to conquer castles and empty their hand.
When a player has emptied their hand...the King has returned!

The Set Up
There are four factions to choose from.
Each players factions consists of 12 Knight Cards.
These cards include Knights of various colors & values.
There are Six Colors: Red, Orange, Yellow, Green, Blue, and Purple.
There are different Knight values from 1 - 4
Three 4's
Three 3's
Three 2's
Three 1's
Six Castles each with special features sit in the middle of the table.
Two Knights from a non-faction deck defend each castle at game start.

The Mechanics
Each player, on their turn, engage the following
Accrue Fame Points.
If you forget to do this you cannot go back...so remember! You snooze and you lose!
Play a Knight Card
Start a new attacking force on a castle by playing a knight that shares the color of that castle as the starting Knight Card...or...Add to an attacking force by playing a Knight on an existing attacking force. The only caveat is that you cannot have more than one knight of each color in an attacking force. If the sum of values of the attacking force exceeds that of the castle defenders, the castle is taken.
Purchase Free Knights
This is optional. At the beginning of the game knights that are defending a castle and lose become free knights. Any player can expend fame points and add these knights to their hand.

Players can try to take castles from each other once they are all taken from the center of the table. If they lose a castle, the defending knights are returned to their hands...which makes discarding your hand to end the game a lot harder.

If you are caught with cards in your hand at the end of the game it can count against you.

Understanding the special powers of castles will come in handy as game play progressess, especially toward the end.

OVERALL
The mechanics of card play reminded me a lot of Lost Cities, where you can start a number of expeditions on any of five terrains. Once a castle is taken...that attacking force is closed...somewhat like Lost Cities. However that is where the similarity begins and ends. You can replay your cards if you Lost a Castle, you can purchase free knights, and you can take castles from someone else...as long as all players still have cards in their hands.

The game theme is aided by the taking of castles...but I cannot connect either the Title, or the Box Art to the Game Play. I like the portability, the special powers of each castle/kingdom, and the careful thinking one has to do that does not devolve into brain burning. It is this careful thinking and patience in play that puts this game toward the top end of light. The Theme is not as strong as it could be, yet the game itself is fun to play, and more than a filler.

This game plays great with four players and I suspect it would be good for three as well. Saga is a good game with simple enough mechanics, variety in game play, castles with powers, and a pretty level playing field that does not depend on card drafting. While Lost Cities is a great game with excellent artwork and a credible theme, it is only for two players. Saga use of Lost Castles steps it up in some areas and so is fun, but dispenses with the point total calculations that one gets lost in...in Lost Cities.

I find Saga underated on the BGG. For me a three star rating is a good game to keep around for fun and play without a whole lot of rules readings. This has a more to offer.

Thread: Re: Attacking your own kingdom?

LarryKruger — 2008-01-29T04:26:17+00:00

I do not see the point of attacking your own kingdom. That seems rather counter-productive. I suggest building the attack force to take the kingdom back from another player.

Thread: Re: Flipping kingdoms

tomchaps — 2008-01-22T16:31:50+00:00

Thanks. That makes a lot more sense. Too bad Heroes of the Coast owns the rights to the term "tapping" a card!

Thread: Re: Flipping kingdoms

CharmlessMan77 — 2008-01-22T05:23:15+00:00

You answered perfectly Nate. I know some people who have never used the reverse side of the kingdoms, as we never needed this variability. I have always wished there were some extra clarification in the rules that helped see that the other side is just for variant play, not something that would get used every game, or indeed in any game ever.

Thread: Re: Flipping kingdoms

NateStraight — 2008-01-22T04:49:18+00:00

tomchaps wrote:
For kingdoms that have a can-only-trigger-once ability (i.e., Shadowland, the rules read, "The Shadowland Kingdom card is turned upside-down to indicate that the attribute has been used."

Does that mean that for the rest of the player's possession of the kingdom, they get the points on the other side? For example, if the non-crown side of the Shadowland card is face-up at the end of the game due to this rule (in a game when all kingdoms start crown-up), do you get the endgame special ability of the kingdom?

Thanks in advance.

"Upside-down" just means to rotate the card, not physically flip it over. The different sides of the kingdom cards are just to provide some variability in game setup to increase the replayability of the game. The "turn it upside-down" rule is just a reminder that you've used the one-off action.

Thread: Flipping kingdoms

tomchaps — 2008-01-22T04:41:10+00:00

For kingdoms that have a can-only-trigger-once ability (i.e., Shadowland, the rules read, "The Shadowland Kingdom card is turned upside-down to indicate that the attribute has been used."

Does that mean that for the rest of the player's possession of the kingdom, they get the points on the other side? For example, if the non-crown side of the Shadowland card is face-up at the end of the game due to this rule (in a game when all kingdoms start crown-up), do you get the endgame special ability of the kingdom?

Thanks in advance.

Thread: Re: Attacking your own kingdom?

Samuraicat — 2008-01-20T17:44:12+00:00

You can absolutely create an attack force against a kingdom you already own. The rules don't explicitly say you can but in one section it does mention that you can have more than one attack force aimed at the same kingdom. So, assume your first attack force takes the kingdom. You still have a second one waiting in the wings, making this a legal and valid play.

Rather than taking the kingdom from myself what I have done in the limited plays I have had is to wait until another player sets up to attack a kingdom I already have and then start the new attacking force. If they continue to press the issue then I have added to that force as well. If not then I concentrate on attacking other kingdoms. Basically what I have done is create a counter-attacking force ready to swoop in as soon as somebody takes the kingdom from me.

Thread: Attacking your own kingdom?

Kayvon — 2008-01-20T16:45:58+00:00

If you already own a given kingdom, can you still create or further an attack force against that kingdom? And eventually capture it from yourself?

The rules aren't very explicit, but I'm guessing you can. And you both "lose" the kingdom (taking back the cards that formed the defending force) and "gain" the kingdom again.

I haven't played the game yet. It just arrived in the mail. From reading the rules, it seems attacking your own kingdom would (a) help you make it stronger and (b) re-enable the used ability of some kingdoms.

Thread: Re: Uberplay has discontinued this game...

Morganza — 2007-12-15T06:45:54+00:00

Tanga's dumping it for $2 as we speak; this may be the last of their stock.

Thread: Re: Which side of the kingdom card to use?

mvettemagred — 2007-10-25T17:09:13+00:00

That's my take on it as well. By having two sides to each kingdom, there is more variation available in game setup, leading to higher replayability. The same holds true for the 5 knight decks. Playing with different decks leads to different gameplay.

Thread: Re: adding knights

mvettemagred — 2007-10-25T16:58:37+00:00

Actually, I just got this game and read the English rules, and they seem to be carefully worded. Whenever a kingdom ability involves playing a card from your hand, the phrase "during action 2a" is used. So, Louis is correct; these abilities count as your 2a action.

The exceptions are:
- Take Back 1 Card (Fieldland): The phrase "This is an additional action..." clearly states this ability is its own action, and does not replace standard actions 1, 2a, 2b or 3.
- Knight for Free (Castleland): Since this ability triggers upon conquering Castleland (action 2b), you could have already performed action 3 (Enlist a Free Knight); yet you still get the "free" Free Knight. Thus, it's possible to get two Free Knights in one turn: one from action 3, and one from conquering Castleland.

Thread: Re: Emptying the VP pool

mvettemagred — 2007-10-25T16:29:38+00:00

One easy solution is to take the same amount of VP from each player and use them to restock the pool. Use the smaller denominations, so players can take the correct amount from the pool each turn.

Thread: Re: Good with 2?

Dave — 2007-09-26T20:41:01+00:00

Enjoyed it for 3, found it dull with 2. I have a ton of 2-player games that I'd rather play instead, but I kept Saga for 3-player.

Thread: Re: Good with 2?

Double 12 — 2007-09-26T19:54:32+00:00

Yeah, I mostly played it with two. (because I had not more than 2 people that were willing to play)

The game is more like a duel when played with two players; there's not the opportunity to choose from which player you want to steal the kingdom.

Image

Double 12 — 2007-09-25T19:58:58+00:00

Image

Double 12 — 2007-09-25T19:57:34+00:00

Image

Double 12 — 2007-09-25T19:56:46+00:00

Thread: Re: adding knights

dsr15 — 2007-09-17T05:06:07+00:00

OK - I found it here: http://files.boardgamegeek.com/viewfile.php3?fileid=5074 . I'll see if I can fix the link myself then.

Thread: Re: adding knights

dsr15 — 2007-09-17T04:59:45+00:00

I tried to download the translated rules, but the doc link is invalid. Are others seeing the same? Anyone have it available to repost? Thanks!!!

Thread: Re: adding knights

Lou-Dawg — 2007-09-15T17:31:03+00:00

Michael Ward wrote:
No, that extra ability does not count as the only thing you can do on your turn. You can still play a knight out of you hand as you normally would. That's why you have to watch a player with Shadowland if he gets down to only two cards. He can get rid of both of them in one turn and end the game.

I disagree with Michael Ward. When you use that ability it IS your 2A action (knight placement action.) You never get to place two knights a turn.

The English rules don't make this entirely clear, but the German (ie original) rules do. The German rules also make it clear that the 'one time only' cards does not mean 'one time per game' but rather 'one time per posession.'

Check out the translation of the German rules in the files section. It is actually more clearly worded than the rules that came in the English version.

Thread: Re: Major kudos to Uberplay

colwarden — 2007-08-31T11:48:21+00:00

I've found virtually all the vendors are really great along these lines. We are lucky to be consumers in such a customer friendly industry.

Thread: Re: Good with 2?

Tsaar — 2007-08-11T19:31:21+00:00

Unfortunately I only played Saga with two, and it was boring. Tried three times and then gave up on the game...

Thread: Re: Good with 2?

billgoode — 2007-08-11T19:23:27+00:00

I don't think it works very well with two people. Whenever I've played with two I run into a problem where the game keeps going and going because after the initial captures of all of the kingdoms, whenever you take one it's making your ONLY opponent pick up cards. This becomes a vicious cycle as it goes back and forth. The game will end eventually, but it takes way longer than a three or four player game does. In a three or four player game when a kingdom is captured one or two people will still be keeping all of their cards on the table, therefore keeping the game generally progressing towards a conclusion.

Thread: Re: Good with 2?

Jormi_Boced — 2007-07-28T01:29:38+00:00

It plays fine with 2. No diplomacy though or leader bashing.

Thread: Good with 2?

Karmic_devil — 2007-07-27T22:46:51+00:00

I'll be that guy =)

Josh

Thread: Re: Major kudos to Uberplay

everlong205 — 2007-07-23T16:51:43+00:00

I had the same problem with a Saga game I had bought (missing a few of the orange cards I believe) and had a similar response from Uberplay. They are very good with replacing parts and quickly, to boot.

Thread: Major kudos to Uberplay

carl67lp — 2007-07-23T16:08:00+00:00

Just wanted to share this...

I contacted Uberplay a couple of weeks ago regarding Saga. I'd just gotten the game as part of a trade, and found it was missing five cards (thankfully, all of the same set--trees, I think). I asked if replacements might be available, and gave my contact information.

Wouldn't you know it, but I got back from vacation, and checked my mailbox. They had not sent the five replacement cards...

Instead, Uberplay sent me an entirely new Saga deck!

I'm really impressed with the company, and will certainly make sure to buy Uberplay whenever I can from now on! (Along with other companies' games, of course...)

Thanks a million, Uberplay.

Thread: Re: Emptying the VP pool

Warbanner — 2007-06-04T07:30:16+00:00

Maybe it was because it was a 2player game. I've always played it with at least 3. More players makes it harder to block everyone at once, plus you've got fewer castles per person.

Thread: Re: Emptying the VP pool

Shakar — 2007-06-04T01:37:21+00:00

Actually it happened only once. At our first game (a 2 players game), we used the advanced settings for the kingdoms; Where the yellow one gives you 3 VP per turn.

We used proxies to replace it. But because there was nothing in the rules for this situation, I wasn't sure about it.

The final scoring was more or less 110 to 95.

(edit): I think the game took between 20 to 30 minutes.

Thread: Re: Emptying the VP pool

Warbanner — 2007-06-03T17:11:11+00:00

Wow, does this happen a lot when you play? I've never seen this happen. I can only think that your games are taking much longer than average, due to something in your group's playstyle. Not that any of this is a direct answer to your question, but I dont' think this should really come up as a question, so I have to ask; how long do your games typically last?

And FWIW, I'd just use additional VP, tracking it with pencil and paper or using proxies from another game.

Thread: Emptying the VP pool

Shakar — 2007-06-03T16:33:47+00:00

What happens when the VP point pool becomes empty? Do we continue playing? or should we end the game?

Thread: Saga - First Impressions

dennpars — 2007-05-29T14:20:33+00:00

I received Saga from Tanga and brought it with me to my parents place where we were staying for the Memorial Day weekend. My family likes to play games and are very interested in the new hobby I have undertaken so they can get to play all the new games I bring over all the time.

We played 2 games of this over the weekend.

Game 1 - 3 players, My father, sister and I. This was a learning game for us and we played with the crown side of the cards. There was quite a bit of kingdom swapping as we were all trying to jockey for position for getting more fame points. All of the free knights were recruited, which I'm not sure is such a good idea. I tend to think of having more kingdoms as the route to victory and I think the rest were thinking that way too.

I think it's probably better to think about going out as better so you stick your opponents with knights in their hand.

I forgot to take fame many times during the game and probably ended up losing because of this. This game played fairly well with three I think.

Scores Father 54, Me 37, Sister 34

Game 2 - 2 Players, My father and I. We played with a mix of kingdom sides this time, determined by flipping the cards in the air randomly and playing with whatever was turned up. We ended up with the three fame gold kingdom which is probably very bad for a two player game.

Again, all knights were recruited, this was facilitated by the red kingdom having the free knight turned up for play. Again, this probably only makes the game longer since it takes more time to empty your hand.

We ended up running out of fame points about 3/4 of the way through the game. The orange kingdom really racked up points and the extended play caused us to run out.

This game didn't play out very well. I found myself hoping the game would end since it was a bit lopsided anyway.

Scores Me 145, Father 85

Overall I think the game plays well with more than 2 players, but not so well with 2 players. This game thrives on the interactions between the players and there just isn't enough interaction with only 2.

Kids should like this game as well since they (my kids at least) derive a lot of pleasure from stealing things from the adults.

Image

ArtEmiSa64 — 2007-04-21T23:04:16+00:00

full content

Thread: Re: Which side of the kingdom card to use?

Michael Ward — 2007-01-26T08:52:15+00:00

I believe the publisher expects experienced players to just ramdomize the kingdom cards by side, or decide card by card which side to use by group vote.

Frankly I've never used anything but the crown side. Even though I've played many times I always seem to have one of two newbies in the game. So I just stick with the "its your first game" set up.

Maybe someday I'll cross over to the other side.

Thread: Which side of the kingdom card to use?

CharmlessMan77 — 2007-01-25T17:04:56+00:00

I just got this game and have read the rules and am just about ready to get this one to the table. My only question unanswered by the rulebook is that each kingdom card has two sides. The rules tell you to use the side with the crown during your first game. Now being the rules freek that I am do you just alternate which side to use between each game, or do you play two games in a row (using the same set of knight cards each time) to even the game out. Just wondering how others play it?

Thread: Re: adding knights

Michael Ward — 2007-01-23T06:03:35+00:00

No, that extra ability does not count as the only thing you can do on your turn. You can still play a knight out of you hand as you normally would. That's why you have to watch a player with Shadowland if he gets down to only two cards. He can get rid of both of them in one turn and end the game.

Thread: adding knights

georgeandpeggy — 2007-01-23T02:07:02+00:00

When you win the services of a kingdom that gives you the ability to do something extra with your knights ie add an extra knight to your defending army, or add a knight [face down in secret] to an attacking army, does that count as your turn or can you add your usual 1 knight per turn? What do you think?

Thread: Re: Capturing a Kingdom

RecklessJester — 2007-01-18T20:08:39+00:00

yes. that's why you want to keep your force a little bit less than someone elses: let them take it first, then you are set to take it from them.

Thread: Capturing a Kingdom

localjester — 2007-01-18T19:09:11+00:00

Must I capture a Kingdom as soon as my force is large enough to defeat the defenders? Thanks in advance.

Thread: Re: Free Knight question

sefton — 2006-12-18T15:43:39+00:00

Thanks. That seems right to me too, I just wasn't sure whether once his services had been rendered, he went back to being a free agent.

Thread: Re: Free Knight question

kentreuber — 2006-12-18T15:32:58+00:00

My interpretation is that once you hire a free knight, he's yours. So when a kindom is conquered the Knight is no longer Free.

Thread: Free Knight question

sefton — 2006-12-18T14:51:23+00:00

If you enlist one of the Free Knights using your fame tokens and place him (or her) into a kingdom and capture that kingdom, when another player then takes that kingdom from you, does the Knight you enlisted go into your hand along with your other knights, or back on the table where the other Free Knights are?

Anyone know?

Thread: Re: Uberplay has discontinued this game...

Smilinbrax — 2006-11-17T01:30:02+00:00

Or just order from Tanga.

Thread: Re: A surprise move to win the game

Shijuro — 2006-11-16T03:46:21+00:00

groening wrote:
ValJor wrote:
Then he pulls one out of the hat: he plays his second to last card on his green army, winning that land from JF and put his last card on the violet army, using that land's special ability! Ouch!from what i can tell..http://files.boardgamegeek.com/viewfile.php3?fileid=5074 wrote:
Purple
Middle: A player in control of the purple land may once, instead of play a knight to build on attack troops, reinforce the defense troops of the purple land. The color rule still applies. This action cannot be used again until the purple land is conquered.

.. it looks like the victory may be tainted.

What about the next sentence?
http://files.boardgamegeek.com/viewfile.php3?fileid=5074 wrote:
Right: At the end of the game, the player is allowed to play one card from hand to any of the defense or attack troops, provided she abides by the color rule. This card may not be used to conquer a land.
Wouldn't that have allowed him to shed a card to purple's defense?

Thread: Re: A surprise move to win the game

groening — 2006-10-31T18:19:52+00:00

ValJor wrote:
Then he pulls one out of the hat: he plays his second to last card on his green army, winning that land from JF and put his last card on the violet army, using that land's special ability! Ouch!from what i can tell..http://files.boardgamegeek.com/viewfile.php3?fileid=5074 wrote:
Purple
Middle: A player in control of the purple land may once, instead of play a knight to build on attack troops, reinforce the defense troops of the purple land. The color rule still applies. This action cannot be used again until the purple land is conquered.

.. it looks like the victory may be tainted.

bonne chance

Thread: Uberplay has discontinued this game...

JeffyJeff — 2006-08-30T19:34:56+00:00

For those that received the latest Uberplay newsletter (I posted it at http://www.boardgamegeek.com/thread/124213) it says:

We are no longer selling the following games: Oasis, Saga and Relationship Tightrope and they have been removed from our list of games.

So you may have to find the German version, or maybe another English language publisher will pick it up?