Game: Orcz

Thread: Two-Player Version?

hurstdm — 2008-07-24T02:41:37+00:00

I just bought this. I think the rules hint at a 2-player version, but they don't seem to flesh out anything but for three and four. Does anyone have a way they play with two? Or can someone envision a good way to do it?

Thanks in advance!

Thread: Re: Lunchtime Gaming - Our first session of Orcz

Hendal — 2008-04-30T19:13:33+00:00

Well I did get in a game of Micropul at lunch time today, but it was solo, the wife's feet hurt and she was still in work mode - and I never stop someone who is working for me ( or with me ) But I am very hopeful to get one in later.

Where do you work? and any chance they have a branch in the jungles of Costa Rica ?

I looked into Orcz a little more and it seems like a game for me, so I will be looking into that one.

Thanks

Thread: Re: Lunchtime Gaming - Our first session of Orcz

stormseeker75 — 2008-04-30T15:27:58+00:00

I'd be lying if I said it was just confined to lunchtime. We screw around way too much here.

Thread: Re: Lunchtime Gaming - Our first session of Orcz

Hendal — 2008-04-30T15:15:18+00:00

Never heard of this one, but I will look into it, thanks for sharing. I will be checking it out.

I have to admit that your lunch time sounds a lot cooler then mine, I just eat food ( sometimes )

Thread: Lunchtime Gaming - Our first session of Orcz

stormseeker75 — 2008-04-30T14:29:13+00:00

I bought Orcz completely on a whim. The box looked cool and the description was interesting so I picked it up. Like most new games, it sat on my shelf for way too long before getting played. Now that I had a captive group of lunchtime gamers, it was time to bust it out.

I had read the rules many times before our first play. The last thing I want is for a game to go sour because of my lack of preparation. Even simple games can go horribly wrong if you're not prepared. As I explained the rules to Anthony and my mom, I could see confusion sneaking in. I thought the game was very easy, but apparently they felt otherwise. "Lets just play and I'll guide you along." They seemed comfortable with this, so thats what we did.

We began placing our ranks with me taking the lead just so they could see what we were doing. I explained about the target number that we need to beat to win the battlefield so they began placing ranks accordingly. When we had all placed 5 ranks, we moved on to the Struggle phase.

Anthony had a bit of trouble understanding why he should Struggle at first. "You're going to need help to beat the big challenges, but you want to be the strongest at the end." I still don't think he quite got it because he struggled viciously in the first battlefield. But then he backed off, so maybe he got it more than I thought. He battled to hard in the second field, killing of my mom's rank and leaving just he and I. He didn't know it yet, but we had lost that field. My mom managed to win the next one because Anthony could tell that if he struggled with her or I, we would come up short. It was definately better to win and get some of the spoils than lose completely. Anthony and I were the only ones in the 4th field, so we pretty much just left it alone. Nobody was showing a high number so we didn't want to chance it.

When we revealed the tiles, it was clear that Anthony had won the first one. He took 6 goblins and then gave the other 3 to my mom, making up for ones he had taken in the Struggles. Anthony and I lost the second field, coming short by 1. We both gave up 3 goblins. I made my mom give up one and Anthony made me give up one as well. Anthony and I won the last field so we each took goblins and gave the extra to each other.

We played one more round and Anthony just wrecked us both. He killed off several ranks in the Struggles and yet managed to win 3 fields. He made excellent use of his Champion to win one of them. Unfortunately we didn't have enough time to play through all 4 rounds, but we got enough in so that we know how to play next time.

In the end, Anthony won by a huge margin. My mom and I tied for second. She won more fields, but I got a lot of pity goblins. So what did we learn in our first play? This game is great and highly underrated. There's a tremendous amount of double-think going on. The concept is easy, but its a bit tough to understand. There's a definate "push-your-luck" theme here as well.

We can't wait for another go of this game. Now that we know how to play, I think we'll all enjoy it much more next time.

Thread: Re: Contents : how many of the '3' and '1' counters?

echdareez — 2007-10-23T06:33:50+00:00

Hi there Thaadd!

Thanks a lot for getting back to me, I'm repeating myself but you're a superb addition to FF's Customer Service
cheers,
/dimi

Thread: Re: Contents : how many of the '3' and '1' counters?

Thaadd — 2007-10-22T23:25:00+00:00

echdareez wrote:
Hi there,

Could somebody tell me the exact count of 3 and 1 counters in this game? Yeps, talking about those goblin slaves
appreciated! thanks a lot!!!
/dimi

PS : A small components list for those in need :
24 events
4 bases
24 battle field challenges
4 player shield
1 overview event card
4 plastic bases
per player : 13 square tiles in their color + 1 round marker / overview thingy
1 manual
1 inner sheet that has the magical timespell : "Gnorish ... "

Ok, this is a bit extrapolation - I can only find in the replacement parts 11 of 12 of the sheets.

However, there are twentyfour '1' goblins, and twentyone '3' goblins, and the layout is such that 3 tokens were spaced per sheet of the '3' die.

This was one of our very early games, and it features sheets of cardboard with only 2 different die cuts. (Cheaper that way!) So I can tell you with some certainly there are either twentyseven '1's and twentyone '3's, or the more likely 24 of each!

Thanks for playing,
Thaadd Powell
Customer Service
Fantasy Flight Games

Thread: Contents : how many of the '3' and '1' counters?

echdareez — 2007-10-19T18:14:38+00:00

Hi there,

Could somebody tell me the exact count of 3 and 1 counters in this game? Yeps, talking about those goblin slaves
appreciated! thanks a lot!!!
/dimi

PS : A small components list for those in need :
for each player : 13 square tiles in their color + 1 round marker
24 events
4 bases
24 battle field challenges
4 player shield
1 overview event card
4 plastic bases
1 manual
1 inner sheet that has the magical timespell : "Gnorish ... "

32 x "1" goblin slave
24 x "3" goblin slaves

Image

Tobold — 2007-05-20T13:09:16+00:00

Storage Solution

Image

Surya — 2005-11-02T20:55:00+00:00

2 player game

Image

Surya — 2005-10-04T16:10:10+00:00

HQ box art

Image

Surya — 2005-09-28T17:15:50+00:00

Unpunched contents of the box

Image

Surya — 2005-09-28T17:15:46+00:00

The yet unopened box. Fingers start itching to do something about that.

Thread: How to play this game?

benwang — 2005-02-10T05:59:33+00:00

This game is best played with 4 players. The game also features a good catch-up mechanics.
1)If you are last player--
You do not need to be the majority in battle field. You should put at least one rank in battle field. The reason is that the majority war lords have choice to allocate the secondary number on the defeated challenge to the last players. In the other hand, if orc faild to win in a challenge, the majority would force the second-in-lead player to pay the secondary value. Thus, you have nothing to lose.
2) If you are leading player-- unless you are run-away winner, concentrating on 2 battle field and win the challenge. In the same time, gain few points from struggling; but not too much.
3) If you are second or third-in-lead players-- you can on purpose to make orc lose challenge and let leading player to pay a huge compensation. In other hand, you may choose to give few points to the last player and make yourself the new last player. Thus, you are forcing the leading player to give you the secondary reward. In the same time, save your 3 special card for a final boost.

Thread: A surprizingly good game

tom_clymer — 2005-01-05T22:03:35+00:00

I'd never heard of this game when I bought it. I had a gift certificate to a game shop, and could pick up a game I'd been wanting or two I'd never heard of, and went with quantity over known quality. One of the two was Orcz, and I didn't expect a lot out of it, but I've been pleasantly surprised.

Someone's already gone over the basic rules in a session report, so I won't go into great detail. The interesting components of the game are the rock-paper-scissors-style rules for how different units defeat one another, the cooperative/competitive nature of the interactions between players, and the "hidden" armies, which can be a power move or a bluff.

The bottom line is that the game has quite a lot of subtlety, despite the fact that the rules are quite simple. I haven't figured it all out yet, but am enjoying the process quite a bit!

Image

casterlyrock — 2004-12-08T13:15:35+00:00

Image

randall — 2004-03-26T04:28:40+00:00

Image

creech — 2003-05-07T12:18:28+00:00

Image

2001-07-05T16:39:27+00:00

Image

2001-02-16T14:39:01+00:00

Thread: User Review

BoardGameGeek — 2001-01-01T21:04:54+00:00

"Gnorish vor kladden imtach, hadick vor lotten, ab zamock vor nuamsh!" (You're as slow as a dwarf, cowardly as an elf, and clumsy as a human!) - ORC SAYING

I picked up this new release from Fantasy Flight Games today ("Orcz") and gave it a whirl with a friend for a two-player game. I was pleasantly surprised!!!

First off, don't think that you're buying into another "Diskwars" type of game eventhough the artwork and counters all look and feel very Diskwars-ish. This is a stand-alone, non-collectible game for 2-4 players that can be played in 20 minutes to an hour, tops!

The basic mechanics have a decidedly "German" feel to them (extremely simple conflict resolution (certain symbols beat (or trump) other symbols, matching symbols default to their numerical values and three "special" characters allow you to bend and break the rules once per character per game).

The object of the game is to engage one another in various battles and defeat certain Challenges in order to acquire Goblin slaves. The winner of the game is the player with the most slaves at game's end.

There's not a lot in the box, rather there is "just enough", and the retail price seemed quite fair for what you get ($19.95 at my local game store): A 4-page rule booklet, 4 player screens, 4 plastic stands and large character discs that fit together to indicate who is playing which color and 12 sheets of game tokens featuring Troop and Hero Cards, Battlefields, Battlefield Challenges, Event Cards (although they're more chits than "cards") and
several Goblin Slaves in 1 and 3 denominations.

The entire package is fun, fast, compact (a great game to take along with you), easy-to-learn and definitely easy-to-play with a hint of strategic decision-making that will please both gamers and non-gamers alike.

The first I heard of this game was a month or two ago via rec.games.board and I was intrigued then. As of today, my curiosity has been satisfied and I am extremely happy with my purchase!

A really nice little game from FFG! Give it a try, why dontcha'!!!

Thread: Session Report

shadowkeeper — 2001-01-01T06:00:00+00:00

My honeymoon hosts and I played this game while my wife was sleeping off some jetlag. Orcz is very
similar to the card game corruption -- in both you place "cards", some face up and some facedown, under
prizes, and whomever has the highest total of cards when they are revealed wins the prize. Orcz adds a bunch
of twists which improve the game. In each round there are four battlefields. Players each have a set of tiles
which show orcish forces, and each tiles has a value (1-4) and a "suit" (archer, calvary or grunt). On a turn a
player puts two tiles under any battlefield, one tile faceup and one tile face down. After everyone has taken
five turns, each of the battles plays out. If the total of all the orcish forces under the battlefield exceeds the
battle value for the field (battle values range from 6 to 20), the the orcs win. The person who had the largest
total strength in the battle gets a bunch of victory points; he also gets a smaller set of victory points, which
he may distribue amongsy the other players as he sees fit. If, however, the orcs lose the battle, the person
with the largest force has to pay (the bank) a penelity, and can make other players play a smaller penelity as
well.

What makes the game interesting is that the orcs on the battlefield fight with each other before the final
battle is conducted. A player may attack another player's orcs, and, in doing so, reduce the total number of
orcs in the army. The object, here, is to ensure that you have the most total orcs so you'll get the big reward,
without elimination so many orcs that you are unable to overcome the main challenge. It's a very clever (and
tricky) combination of cooperative and copetitve elements.

Unfortunately, the game kind of foundered. There were three rounds in total, and once all the battles on a
given field are completed the battlefield is removed from the game. By our third round we only had one
battlefield left, which mean that everyone had to put all of their forces in the same army. This removed a lot
of the strategic maneuvering that had taken place in the first round and was generally unsatisfying.

I suspect this won't happen once we have all become more experienced in the game, but it's hard to say. I'll
reserve judgement. For now, I must say that I thought Orcz had some really innovative ideas and, if it works
at all, ought to be great fun.

Thread: Session Report

BoardGameGeek — 2001-01-01T06:00:00+00:00

After we finished racing, they were still playing Vinci... so we pulled out Jim's new copy of Orcz. None of us had played (though Jim had read the rules earlier in the day... and was prepped to teach us).

We set up and prepared to see if this was any good. We ended up catching on to the strategies pretty earlier (though in the first round, we missed the rule about getting a goblin slave when you win both sides of a challenge). We were having a blast smacking each other around... as we only had the tough 5 and 6 battles come up early (usually one 3 or 2... and the rest 5 and 6).

However, we got serious in rounds 2 and 3... and defeated a few more battles. In round four... there was a 3 and 2 battle and a 6. The random event gave a +4 to the strength of the battle... Yikes! We had to win the 3 and 2 battle to win the game... but the 6 battle was worth SOOO many slaves that we all started jumping on it to see if we could win (we needed 28 strength to beat it!). In the end... we won the battles... and i cut a deal to ensure that the big battle was won (i could made sure that it was lost... forcing another player to lose 6 slaves... but i cut a deal to get the 3 slaves... hehehe).

In the end Jonathen beat me by 2 slaves! Grrrr... Final placing was Jonathen, me, Kory, and Jim. A fun game... we will play it again!

Thread: Preview

BoardGameGeek — 2000-12-27T17:53:22+00:00

Not counting their reprint of Through the Desert, this is the closest Fantasy Flight Games has gotten to creating a "German" game. In a turn, each player distributes his pool of markers across four battlefields, not unlike the chief mechanics in Doge and Alladin's Dragons. This pool is primarily made up of 4 Grunts (valued 1-4), 3 Archers (valued 1-3), and 3 Cavalry (valued 1-3), which get grouped into five pairs (or "ranks") and assigned, once face-up and one face-down. The armies' collective objective is to defeat a series of three challenges at each battlefield by having the armies' total values exceed the value of the challenge; if three battlefields have not been conquered by the end of the fourth round, *all* players lose. Otherwise, the warlord who accumulates the most points wins.

The values of the challenges vary greatly and scale with the number of players. The most difficult challenges offer the greatest reward, or the stiffest penalty, to the warlord with the greatest force, depending on whether the armies had sufficient orcpower to defeat the challenges. Additionally, this same warlord gets to apply a lesser reward/penalty to the other warlord(s) of his choice (let the grovelling/whining ensue!) There are also some random event markers that get pulled out once per turn that affect the mechanics, or the value or reward of a challenge; I suspect a common variant someday will be to pull out two of these markers per turn.

All-too-familiar so far, right? The spin is that the warlords want this reward so badly that they will have their units sneak up behind others' units and take them out, even at the risk of losing the challenge. When resolving a challenge, starting with the last rank played, a player can attack the rank in front of his own. The three different army units fight in paper-rock-scissors, with unit value used when units of the same type combat. This makes token placement tough, and, perhaps ultimately, predictable. You can rarely afford to place a 3-value unit face-up, as the 1-value unit that defeats it will surely be behind it soon enough. Also, a rank cannot be made up of two Cavalry or two Archers, meaning that placing one of these units face-up is even more risky, as it then makes certain placements behind the face-down unit more of a sure thing. Whether this causes players to play mostly grunts face up, and save high-value units for the later rounds, remains to be seen. Helping to alleviate this are three special one-time units: the Scout to get info about a face-down unit; the Hero to escort its partner in the rank (and automatically win that challenge!); and the Shaman to also escort, and, additionally, force the attacking rank to attack the rank in front of the Shaman! Well-timed plays of these units appears to be crucial. It is these conflicts which keeps winning challenges from being a sure thing, and the warlords may eventually be forced into resentful cooperating (a neat spin on the Lord of the Rings "most shields wins" variant).

The components are primarily punch-out cardboard tiles that come in Diskwars-sized flats -- which makes sense, given that they reused a bunch of Diskwars art! 2 of the 4 player markers got smushed as I tried to cram them into the plastic stands; these markers are not important, but it was a slight drawback. The numbers on the challenge markers could have been of a larger font, but sharp eyes will appreciate being able to see more of the delightful artwork. The rules were clear and concise, with sufficient examples in full color, although not without a flaw or too (e.g., it was not clear to me that the secondary points to distribute following a won challenge come from the central pool, not the winning warlord's pool).

In summary, Orcz appears to be a winner. It is quick to learn, has streamlined mechanics with little ambiguity, and contains plenty of suspense, although brisk play will be needed to keep it under an hour's length. The lack of chrome will either be a plus or negative depending on what you want out of the game; personally, I would not have minded some differences among the orc armies, or among the four battlefields (the knight, elf, dwarf, and barbarian makeups are identical except for artwork). I hope that FFG, one of my favorite gaming companies, continues to woo the "German" game market.