Game: Duell

Image

SiskNY — 2008-07-08T13:45:03+00:00

Homemade Box for DIY version

Thread: Re: Making my custom Samurai-themed Duell set

Furunkulus — 2008-07-06T01:14:58+00:00

You could always do an internet search for Samurai themed playing cards (you would need a few sets). I am in the process of making a Pirate themed duel set and have been looking at Pirate themed playing cards for the decks.

Very nice job on your game by the way. It is very sharp looking.

P.S. If anyone is making a medieval knights version they could snag the cards out of Knights of the Charlemagne since the cards are in the same theme and have the required amount of the required values.

Thread: Re: Making my custom Samurai-themed Duell set

petegrey — 2008-05-13T21:03:59+00:00

That sounds pretty cool! I hope you post pics.

I haven't made my Samurai cards, yet. Design is not a problem for me, but where I get stuck is card construction. I dont have a clue where to start. I want more quality than just printing out on cardstock and sleeving them. I'd like them to have cool backs, as well. And be indistinguishable from each other.

How do people manage this?

This very problem is actually keeping me from tackling other card related game projects.

Thread: Re: Making my custom Samurai-themed Duell set

Tradewinds Ted — 2008-05-13T18:42:56+00:00

That Samurai themed set does look great. Have you made a set of Samurai cards yet?

I made my own set using a Puss-in-Boots theme. Two small Puss-in-Boots toys from the Shrek 2 movie, with the trim and the feather in the cap painted red on one of them, and gold/yellow on the other. I also grabbed a variety of pictures of Puss-in-Boots off the internet in various moods and poses, and printed up a set of cards, with the view of Puss more distant at 5 and close up at 1. So far I have a simple cardstock board printed up with a series of stone block shapes. I haven't posted pictures as yet. Puss-in-Boots is really quite a fun swashbuckling figure, as well as being cute. This theme got my wife to play Duell quite a bit for a while there!

-------------

I've found for other projects that the double-sided plastic carpet tape works very well at holding paper down onto cardboard. It comes in rolls that are 2 inches wide, and is cheaper than the TOMBO stuff, and holds much better than the standard 1/2 inch doublestick office tape. But you have to be sure to get the thin cheap plastic version. The cloth carpet tape is way too thick and lumpy, and the paper version of the carpet tape is still a little too thick, and doesn't stick as well. I found the plastic carpet tape as a store brand item at ACE hardware locally.

Thread: Re: Some Rule Tweaks For Duell (En Garde)

Ravenlock80 — 2008-04-09T13:37:08+00:00

provence wrote:
I like the idea that the defender gets to replenish his cards if he parries. I am not a fencer but trust that this is more realistic in that it rewards good defence. But the attacker could potentially end up with 2 cards for the next round if he moved forward and then lunged with 2 cards. What do you all think of this?

Well, assuming you're instituting all of Randall's rule changes, the defender has less of a chance to avoid an advance-lunge in the first place; they either need to retreat with the same card the attacker advanced with, or they need to be able to parry.

Since the chance of the advance-lunge actually landing is therefore increased significantly over the original rules, I think the risk trade-off of the attacker potentially having only two cards left afterwards is a good thing. Makes them more cautious about executing what is, in fact, a fairly risky fencing maneuver (after all, if an advance lunge is parried, the attacker has the dual peril of having been parried AND being off balance).

I haven't picked up the game yet, but I've been playing a makeshift copy with Meeples from Carcasonne, a printed board and playing cards, and so far I like it a lot. I expect these rule revisions will make me like it more. Thanks!

Thread: Re: Making my custom Samurai-themed Duell set

anubis9 — 2008-03-25T20:33:24+00:00

That looks AWESOME!:ninja:
I was going to ask you to post the digital files, but it sounds like you did it all by hand.
Very nice work!

Thread: Making my custom Samurai-themed Duell set

petegrey — 2008-01-09T19:42:02+00:00

I enjoyed playing this game when my friend Pierre (coffeebike) brought it to the Lucky Lab pub recently. It is out of print and proved almost impossible to lay my hands on a copy, however. So I decided to make my own. And why not re-theme it at the same time?

The minis were a relatively easy decision. I was at a game store and nosing through the 1/2 off bin ($5 for both). There were two samurai minis in there. Perfect! I think finding those solidified the theme for me.

At first, I thought of making a wooden board. I drooled over a homemade copy that is posted on the En Garde game post. Although I have limited woodworking skills, I was considering doing going for it and was actually on my way to a specialty woodworking store that has the fancy wood. Around the corner on my way was a paper-store. I've made a copy of Lost Patrol before using foam-core, so I figured I'd check and see what my options were here. I was pleasantly surprised and instantly abandoning my wood board idea.

This store had a large section that caters to the scrapbooking crowd. As I have zero interest in scrapbooking, I've never really checked this out before. Let me tell you, if you are interested in constructing your own board games-there is a wealth of materials and knowledge to be found here.

The board itself is a solid piece of black cardboard ($2.50 for a big piece- I could make 4 more boards) that I cut almost through, but not completely, at the middle. This was so that I may bend it over like a game board you'd fold up to store in it's box. When cutting it out, I used the sharpest blade I had. The key here is to go very slowly and make many shallow cuts, keeping the work clean and neat. I've erred in this area before and if you go too fast-the work can bunch up under the knife and it looks sloppy.

The person that helped me at the store gave me some advise- "Be really Zen about it and take your time". Wise words.

The red paper I used (.89c) to cover the board had an interesting speckling on it-which I felt really matched the Samurai theme. Used their detail paper cutter to get it just right.

They also sold me on this special scrapbooking double-sided rolling tape ($6.50-but you get a lot). The clerk said they'd used it in a variety of applications, even to bond paper to metal surfaces. They swore it holds up for long periods of time. This stuff is called TOMBO mono adhesive. It is really easy to work with. I taped the edges of the board (each half respectively) and a few lines in the center and was very careful when attaching paper to board.

Completing the board was pretty easy. Its actually just a black sharpie. Using a pencil first. I used a straight edge to help me get in the straight lines before finalizing it with the sharpie. The swords I drew freehand.

The scoring tokens I made from glued together Scrabble tiles (with the letters on the inside). Then, painted and adorned with Fire and Water symbols respectively, to match the board.

The battle cards (25 total-values 1-5, 5 of each) I'm using I scavenged from a thrift find of Trumpet. I sleeved these. I may make my own samurai deck later.

Of the whole project, the minis took the longest. Probably 3 hours to complete. But I'm not really fast at painting these.

My costs:

$5 minis
$2.50 board (multiple applications)
$1 paper
$6.50 tape (I used very little of)

Considering what I actually used of new material bought, I figure the set set me back about $8.00 and 6+ hours.

All in all, a very fun and enjoyable project. A rewarding experience.

Image

petegrey — 2008-01-09T17:11:31+00:00

Duell Homemade - Samurai Style

Image

petegrey — 2008-01-09T16:46:55+00:00

The battle is on!

Image

petegrey — 2008-01-09T16:46:00+00:00

Samurai representing "Fire"

Image

petegrey — 2008-01-09T16:45:05+00:00

Samurai representing "Water"

Image

petegrey — 2008-01-09T16:43:22+00:00

Custom Samurai-themed Duel Game

Thread: Re: play after last card?

tonyfung1205 — 2007-11-23T20:48:17+00:00

It's purely Knizia's (designer) intelligence at balancing the game.

If you keep playing until empty of hands, it creates quite considerable unfairness, because of shortage of cards in performing a parry. And, you know, mutliple cards may be played in form of an attack, which may thereafter cause one side having a cardless hand.

As a final note, my personal opinion, the draw pile does create a great tension for the attack/defense situations. As long as there is still a card in the draw pile, there is still "hidden" (though it may be deduced, sometimes) information. Players may still try their luck by making a risky guess on the remaining card. This idea aligns with Knizia's another popular two-player card game Lost Cities.

Now in Duell, once the last card is drawn, game ends by a final showdown of cards to determine who would make a final blow. It sounds fair, and smart, for a small tactical two-player card game.

Thread: play after last card?

ca26 — 2007-11-23T14:05:09+00:00

I posted this in En Garde but didn't get a response yet, so I'll try here.

Question:
I've seen posted several different interpretations of what to do when the last card is drawn.

Why bother? Why not just let the game continue until there are no more moves/cards left? Admittedly, I'm a total newb at En/Duell so I don't if this would or wouldn't work.

If I draw the last card (presumably at the end of my turn), why can't my opponent then go (assuming he has viable cards in his hand)?
And, then he just can't replenish his hand after he moves.
Then, assuming I have a couple of cards left, I go.
Then he.
etc, etc.
Until the possible moves in our hands are resolved.
Once there are no more moves possible, the game ends.

Seems easier to explain/remember and more logical.
"Just play til you can't" then you don't have to worry about interpretations or arbitrary ending points.

No?

Thread: Re: Duell Rules

them — 2007-11-16T19:55:00+00:00

Thank you!

Thread: Re: Duell Rules

Troxxxa — 2007-11-16T12:58:18+00:00

Sumo rules:

http://www.boardgamegeek.com/thread/26742

Thread: Re: Duell Rules

them — 2007-11-15T21:23:41+00:00

Robrob wrote:
The Sumo rules variation is much better.
Do you have them handy by any chance (or a link)? I could only find a link to an online game, which didn't seem to work for me. :soblue:

Thread: Re: Duell Rules

Troxxxa — 2007-07-15T00:41:43+00:00

I kinda agree on that. I played the sumo variation with some friends and we had more fun than the regular en garde/duell.

Thread: Re: Duell Rules

Robrob — 2007-07-14T03:28:33+00:00

The Sumo rules variation is much better.

Thread: Re: Duell Rules

Troxxxa — 2007-07-13T15:45:33+00:00

The problem is that the En Garde rules I got also have some gap.
I read on some post that if you corner your opponent and he doesn't have a legal move it's a score, and the rules I've read didn't said it so.
These are the rules I got:
http://freespace.virgin.net/chris.lawson/rk/engarde/rules.htm

Thread: Re: Duell Rules

peacmyer — 2007-07-13T14:58:15+00:00

You're better off using the rules here on the Geek for En Garde, Duell's predecessor. Duell left our a significant chunk of the advanced rules.

Thread: Duell Rules

Troxxxa — 2007-07-13T02:00:50+00:00

Hello
Anyone can please scan the Duell rules for me please? I am offering :gg::gg::gg: for the trouble.
Thanx.

Image

cleonhard — 2007-02-07T01:15:56+00:00

scan of box front

Thread: Solitaire play

provence — 2006-11-03T17:27:47+00:00

I tried playing the game on my own last night using the En Garde rules and some variations posted in this forum.

Obviously, I played to the best of my ability for both sides. When it was time for a side to replenish their cards I kept the new cards face down until it was their turn again. This left some uncertainty and actually worked pretty nicely.

I also used the rule posted in this forum about the defender (rather than the attacker) replenishing his/her cards after a parry. In this solo mode, there were almost no parries at all since the attacker did not want to put himself/herself into that situation. The hidden cards allowed for the best plans to possibly fall apart since one could plan not to be parried but when the new cards were revealed there could be just the right card to make the parry happen! Fun.

Finally, both sides used the strategy of moving as fast as possible to the center of the board. I realized that the player who got forced into retreating rapidly lost the initiative and ended up getting trapped at the end of the board.

Thread: Re: What am I missing?

HaoleBoy — 2006-10-31T15:58:55+00:00

That Sumo variant is here:

http://www.boardgamegeek.com/thread/26742

Thread: Re: What am I missing?

Robrob — 2006-10-31T00:00:53+00:00

You might try the 'Sumo' variant (posted on the BGG). IMHO: it adds a lot to the game.

Thread: Re: Different weapons

swandive78 — 2006-10-30T21:55:18+00:00

Interesting ideas.....

Thread: Re: Some Rule Tweaks For Duell (En Garde)

provence — 2006-10-30T19:52:53+00:00

I like the idea that the defender gets to replenish his cards if he parries. I am not a fencer but trust that this is more realistic in that it rewards good defence. But the attacker could potentially end up with 2 cards for the next round if he moved forward and then lunged with 2 cards. What do you all think of this?

Thread: Different weapons

provence — 2006-10-30T19:39:29+00:00

Has anybody considered allowing players to choose different weapons with unique characteristics.

For example you could choose to fight with a heavier weapon that inflicts 2 hits to reflect more damage but you would only allow 4 cards to represent reduced speed due to added weight... or something along those lines.

Thread: Re: What am I missing?

gashlycrumb — 2006-10-29T08:46:33+00:00

There is some bluff and tactics involved, but in the end, I don't think you are missing anything. The added cards add some variety to the duels, but not enough to make the game interesting for me. I actually think the Kosmos Lord of the Rings: The Duel is actually a more interesting game since each side has different cards and tactics to employ, and you save cards for the final hand.

Thread: Re: What am I missing?

beri — 2006-10-29T04:20:00+00:00

Are you using the full rules? With parries and such?

In any case, the reason I enjoy the game so much is bluffing and control. What do I hold? Do I know what my opponent holds? If I move into a space 2 in front of me, what will he do? Will he attack or move? If he attacks, can I handle it? If he moves, will he move into a space where I can strike? How flexible are my options? How much control do I have over the situation?

Thread: What am I missing?

cull — 2006-10-29T04:12:02+00:00

My wife and I have played this a couple times. There doesn't seem to be much game here. Move forward. Move back. Get lucky and hit - or not.

I'm sure I must be missing something - but what?

Image

trawlerman — 2006-10-28T17:19:25+00:00

things get serious!

Thread: Re: One, twice, thrice I skewer you

Karlsen — 2006-10-04T21:19:18+00:00

Robrob wrote:
A fun game. Have you tried the 'Sumo' version?
I haven't even heard of the 'Sumo' version (although my mind's eye is conjuring up visions). Please do elaborate...

Thread: Re: One, twice, thrice I skewer you

Robrob — 2006-10-04T21:04:40+00:00

A fun game. Have you tried the 'Sumo' version?

Thread: Re: One, twice, thrice I skewer you

ccarlet1 — 2006-10-04T15:53:12+00:00

Great session report. I like this game too, and it always comes out once a month. A nice filler.

I know what you mean about the Count. In my head he is often counting out the moves, which is rather annoying.

Thread: One, twice, thrice I skewer you

Karlsen — 2006-10-04T12:42:23+00:00

Game: Duell
Date: 10-Mar-2005
Location: Gamers@Dockers
Players: Tanja, Fraser

It was approaching the end of the evening at the Gamers@Dockers session. We had just finished a four player game of Amun-Re in which Pharaoh Kevin had pipped me at the post by one point to be Amun-Re’s favourite greatly assisted by Pharaoh Tanja and Pharaoh Kim who all played -3 cards to considerably devalue my temples.

Kim went home and Kevin went back upstairs to make a few phone calls so Tanja and I got out Duell.

I had previously played this a few times at lunch and had generally gone quite well.

First up was a normal round and Tanja quickly forced me back to the starting line. I wanted to hit but just couldn’t get into position. 0 – 1

Next was three card hands. We approached rapidly, I hit Tanja, she parried, I was forced into moving back to a position where I could not parry and thus as fate would have it she hit. 0 – 2

Next up was open hands. After an initial approach my hand was still a little heavy in high numbered cards and I was forced into the first retreat. Every move I made Tanja would counter and position herself where I would lose any direct combats. Again I was forced back to the point where I had to attack and be defeated by Tanja’s parry or retreat of the playing field and concede. 0 – 3

Next was a normal round again. I quickly got into a position to launch a two card attack which Tanja promptly parried with three cards. 0 – 4

The last round was no-retreat. I attempted to close slowly and safely, but Tanja rushed me and I had no 1 to play! 0 – 5 a clean sweep to Tanja.

My pin cushioned honour had to be avenged, so we played again. The details are beginning to blur, but we played two open hands and a no-retreat where we forgot it was no-retreat until I forced Tanja off the back of the playing field. Whether or not it was the previous crushing defeat that had honed my senses or it was just better cards the result of the second game was 5 – 1 in my favour.

We were waiting for David C to be eliminated from a game of Bang! at another table as I was giving both Tanja and David lifts home. After some initial packing up and strongly encouraging the other players to gun David down – for his own good mind you, so he could get a lift home instead of a walk/tram/walk combination – we realised that the lack of cooperation from the other players meant that David was going to stay unplugged for quite a while yet so we got Duell out again for the decider.

This time neither of us could maintain the upper hand. It was a marathon effort with occasional breaks to see if David was dead yet. We played all the specials including no retreat twice. I was skewered in the three card hand with a deadly three card attack. In close combat I generally had more small cards and could press the victory. The result of our third games was 5 – 4 in my favour for a three game total of 10 – 10

A nice two player filler. Somewhat luck dependant in the card draw, but since there are between four and nine rounds per game this will usually even it out. Depending on the players I would estimate 5-15 minutes per game.

The one question outstand from Duell for me is why area the figures supplied with the game based on The Count from Sesame Street?

Fraser McHarg 04-Oct-2006
(the session was written up and lost for eighteen months).

Edited to fix typos

Image

Davestar2 — 2006-09-10T09:53:28+00:00

light saber Duell

Thread: Re: Some Rule Tweaks For Duell (En Garde)

mads b. — 2006-07-10T09:25:24+00:00

Oops, forgot all about this thread.

I think that your opponent running out of cards can be compared with the rule in modern fencing that says: if you step beyond the line in your end of the pisté with both feet you loose a point. If you see the game more as a real duel it could simply be that you outmaneouver your opponent and gain the higher ground.

But I agree, winning "for real" is a lot more satisfactory.

mads

Thread: Re: Teaching my girlfriend to play

beri — 2006-07-09T09:27:33+00:00

You need to learn to lose once in a while! Move into a range where you can't defend yourself - that's not losing intentionally, that's bluffing. Give her a few successful touches, then come from behind to win the match, and challenge her to another go.

Thread: A fun two-player game

ccarlet1 — 2006-05-27T02:57:06+00:00

My wife and I have had Duell for about six months, and it never fails to come off the shelf for a few rounds every month. It is a simple, but surprisingly engaging game.

Bits:

The board consists of three interlocking pieces, forming a track of twenty-three squares where your duelists fence. It also has five circles where you keep track of how many matches you have won. The art work is of a shaded lane.

The fencers themselves are heavy plastic and look sort of Count Dracula-ish. The match-markers are wooden cylinders.

Also included are 25 cards for movement (5 each of 1-5) with fencers pictured on them, and eight special cards with symbols indicating different types of matches.

Play/Rules:

The object of the game is to score fiuve points against your opponent in a series of duels.

The game is quite simple in a normal match (see below for variations when playing with special cards), and each player is dealt five cards. These cards are used for moving your fencer closer or further away from your opponent, according to the number of spaces indicated on the card. They are numbered one to five. You play a card, move your token, and draw a card to replace the one played.

Each side of the track consists of 11 squares, with a central square which either player can use. Hence any time you are within five or fewer squares of your opponent, she may score a hit.

To score a hit you need to play a card(s) that corresponds to the number of spaces that would land your fencer on your opponent's. In order to counter a hit, your opponent must play the same card(s) that the attacker has just played. For example, if I played a single 4 card, my opponent would have to also play a four to successfully parry the hit. If I played two 4s, she would have to play two 4s.

However, immediately after a parry, your opponent may counter attack with another card of the same value. For example if I attacked with one 4, and my opponent played two fours, she would parry my attack and counter attack. If I played two 4s, and she then played three 4s, she would parry and counterattack, and I would lose the match because there are only five of each card in the deck. Hence, attacking with oly one card is risky, as there is a good chance your opponent may have two of that card.

If your opponent parries your attack successfully, but does not counterattack, she must immediately move, before drawing new cards up to five in her hand.

Other than the game ending in a successful attack, it may also end with the last card being drawn from the pile. When this happens, the match ends, and the person closest to middle, common square wins. If the last card is drawn during an attack, the defender can still parry.

Special Cards:

These eight cards add a lot to the game. One is drawn at the beginning of the match and may modify the duel.

Two of the cards indicate a normal match, described above.

One of the cards indicates a normal match, but one which counts as two wins instead of just one.

The "3" card indicates that player will only be dealt three cards instead of the usual five. This seriously cuts down on your chance of using two cards for attack, and your ability to manoeveur.

The "10" card indicates that each player will be dealt ten cards, with no additional cards being drawn after discards. This match allows for some very careful strategy and is one of my favourites.

Another card indicates that there is no retreat. That is, fencers can only move forward. This is very cutthroat and intense, and is my favourite.

Another indicates a revealed hand. That is, your hand is laid face-up on the table. Seeing each other's cards usually means there are few successful attacks, although using an attack near the end of the game to deplete the pile and give you good positioning is a good tactic.

The "?" allows the starting player to determine which of the special matches will take place ("3", "10," revealed hand, or no retreat).

Strategy:

There is more strategy than you think in a game where you only move back and forth on a track. As we became more experienced, we found that attacks had to be very carefully planned and that there was a lot of "fencing around." Many matches end with the last card drawn, but manoevering into a position where you can be closer to the middle, with an eye on the diminsihing draw pile, is an art in itself. The special cards, prevent the game from getting repetitious, and different strategies are used for the special matches. The no-retreat match is my favourite, as you manoeveur, lay in wait, and hope that your opponent, lands on the right squares, or, barring that, that you can get to the middle before her.

Conclusion:

This game is a great little filler, and surprises me every time I play with how enjoyable a very simple game can be.

I give this game 7 out of ten, not because it is flawed in and of itself, but simply because it is mainly appealing when in the mood for a simple, filler game.

Thread: Re: Some Rule Tweaks For Duell (En Garde)

RandallKirk — 2006-05-21T02:25:27+00:00

Mads,

Mmm, the deck running out of cards has been a problem, since each point lasts a little longer. I'd consider restarting the point or just reshuffling the deck (and keeping the duellists where they are). We haven't tried it yet. I have to admit winning a touch because your opponent had to back up isn't as satisfying as sticking him good.

Thread: How can moving tokens back and forth be this engaging?

ccarlet1 — 2006-04-03T00:53:37+00:00

I got this game for my wife for her birthday in December, and we played it quite a bit then, but have not played since early January. Last night we brought it out, and I was surprised that we were a little rusty and made some rookie mistakes. Today's match was better and I am impressed by how good this simple game can be. (We only play the main game with special cards).

Round 1 was a normal match, in which we mainly jockied for position until the cards ran out, with me closest to the middle.

In round two (also a normal match), I managed a strike with two fours, and Penny could not parry, as she only had one. I had just thrown out a four, so Penny assumed that I would not have two more. So that match worked out just as I hoped.

In round three, it was the three card only match. I like this type of match because you can take more chances and do more bluffing. Our tokens got within two, struck and parried; then backed off. Penny moved in again to five, but was bluffing. I had a five, struck and won. Unfortunately, that was the last match I won.

In round four, in which your hand is exposed, we jockied for position, had one strike, and Penny ended up closest to the centre when the last card was drawn.

In round five, which was worth two points, we again ran out of cards, with Penny closest to the centre.

Round six was the no-retreat match and I always find this one very intense. We used up a fair amount of small cards to advance within 6 spaces of each other. It was my turn, and I decided to advance one space, to better position myself for a strike with either my threes or ones. Penny had two fives to my one, and I was dead.

In round seven, we were dealt ten cards, and I played very agressively, and misread my cards, thinking I had two threes and two twos, but I actually had three twos and one three. I moved myself within three, and got hit with two threes and that was it for me. Penny won 5-3.

This is not a game I would play a best of 11 of (which is usually what my wife and I play), but it is a great filler game. The special cards add just the right amount of depth to make this simple game admirable for its simplicity.

Thread: Re: Some Rule Tweaks For Duell (En Garde)

mads b. — 2006-03-28T04:56:32+00:00

I guess from your suggestions that you don't play with the rule that the match ends when you run out of cards? Normally a point would then be awarded to the player whose figure has advanced the most.

mads

Thread: Re: Drawing the last card after retreating

cktjharris — 2006-02-11T16:28:01+00:00

Yes, thanks, Jean-Luc!

Image

puppi — 2006-02-11T13:48:36+00:00

Thread: Re: Drawing the last card after retreating

Fantomius — 2006-02-10T20:34:02+00:00

cktjharris wrote:
However, in this case I actually retreated BEFORE the last card was drawn.
Does he still win, or do I win because I have a 3 and he does not?
I believe that generally, after the last move has been made, one final attack can be made by both players simultaneously. The winner of this attack (and therefore the winner of the round) is the player who has the most attack cards in his/her hand.

However, this only applies if the last move was not a retreat. (Apparently, retreating on the last move makes it impossible to have a final simultaneous attack.)

I found this answer at http://freespace.virgin.net/chris.lawson/rk/engarde/rules.htm which states:

If the defender parries the advance and attack, then it is handled as in the standard game but if the defender retreats, then the winner is determined only by which figure has moved furthest down the board.
I hope this helps, Katie!

-- Jean-Luc

Thread: Re: Duell (2004)

River Blue — 2006-02-08T15:44:15+00:00

peacmyer wrote:
The advance-lunge rules are what is missing.

The variant discussion I was remembering is actually under the Duell forums, at:

http://www.boardgamegeek.com/geekforum.php3?action=viewthread&threadid=30326

This was extremely helpful, thanks!

Thread: Re: Duell (2004)

peacmyer — 2006-02-07T20:23:14+00:00

The advance-lunge rules are what is missing.

The variant discussion I was remembering is actually under the Duell forums, at:

http://www.boardgamegeek.com/geekforum.php3?action=viewthread&threadid=30326

Thread: Re: Duell (2004)

Fantomius — 2006-02-07T18:32:00+00:00

I noticed from your profile that you really like Cribbage, so I felt obliged to mention that Duell (played with the intermediate or advances rules) reminds me somewhat of Cribbage more than any other board game.

In Cribbage, you are faced with discarding cards in the hopes that the card turned over by the dealer will combine with your remaining cards to give you a high-scoring hand. And during the pegging phase, you must decide which card to play for your turn, sometimes delaying placing a good card (like a 5) in order to benefit from it later.

Likewise, in Duell you are faced with playing a card in the hopes that the remaining cards (along with any cards you draw later on) might combine to form a strong attack. If you have good cards in your hand, you may play them right away, or hold on to them in the hopes that they'll come in handy later when you can guarantee a successful attack.

I hope this makes Duell more interesting for you. (If you'll notice from my ratings, I gave both Duell and Cribbage a rating of 9.)

Thread: Re: Duell (2004)

Fantomius — 2006-02-07T18:14:32+00:00

River Blue wrote:
I do, however, love my kids, so for her sake, I'll ask: are we missing something? Is there more to this game than moving back and forth and winning a duel?
I know for a fact that the instructions for Duell gives basic, intermediate, and advanced rules. Which rules were you using?

I've played the basic rules and I've found them to be very... lacking. To be honest, I feel that the basic rules were only included to give time for the players to get a basic "feel" for the game. But after one game is played with basic rules, those rules shouldn't be used again.

(The game played with the basic rules is somewhat flawed in my opinion. Basically, whoever is the first to enter the opponent's striking range has an immediate disadvantage in that they are fairly likely to get stabbed. On the other hand, the intermediate and advanced rules allow a player to parry an attack, giving a brave player some insurance against getting stabbed (and losing the round) in the very next turn.)

So if you were playing with the basic rules, it's no wonder that you found the game rather dull. Play it one or two times with the intermediate rules, and then try playing with the advanced rules. You'll find the game becomes much more interesting once you have the ability to defend against your opponent's attacks.

Thread: Re: Duell (2004)

peacmyer — 2006-02-07T18:10:20+00:00

Here's a second for using the En Garde advanced rules. A severe misstep not to have included them in Duell. There are also some thoughtful variants for En Garde in the Geek forums for that game....

Thread: Re: Duell (2004)

River Blue — 2006-02-07T17:13:49+00:00

Thanks, I'll give the alternate rules a try...if I can peel my girl away from Ingenious!

Thread: Re: Duell (2004)

mrraow — 2006-02-07T17:11:00+00:00

Use the advanced rules from En Garde... you'll find them on the Ed Garde BGG page. Ignore the rules that come with Duell, especially the special cards.

Great game, requiring psychology, forward planning, and card counting to play well.

Thread: Re: Duell (2004)

wmshub — 2006-02-07T16:54:25+00:00

Just take a look at the personal comments - it has a good rating, and some people like it quite a lot!

From reading the rules summary, it sounds to me like the kind of game where you have to really struggle with finding the "best" move for it to become interesting. That is, in some games, interesting things happen all the time. But in Duell, well, you move back and forth until somebody gets jabbed with a foil...so either you enjoy trying to figure out what cards your opponent has left, thus which card you should play, or else you are bored by it.

Thread: Re: Duell (2004)

Evendir — 2006-02-07T16:23:26+00:00

Depends on the person, I suppose. I know the game has quite a few fans, but although I've played it quite a few times, I find it to be probably the driest and most boring game that ever hits the table in my gaming group.

So, no, I don't think you're really missing anything. The game only really appeals to people who really enjoy trying to outbluff and outguess their opponents, since there isn't much else to it.

I'm not saying it's a bad game. It's just really, really dry.

Thread: Duell (2004)

River Blue — 2006-02-07T16:19:02+00:00

My daughter bought this game, at Winners, of all places. We were looking for snow pants, and they had books and one copy of Duell on a table beside the winter rack. It was cheap, she liked the look of it and bought it to add to our collection. The problem is that we both find it slightly less interesting than tiddly-winks.:snore: She still thinks there is something we're not doing correctly (ah, innocence: she believes that no one would invent a game that wasn't perfect!). I think we are, and that it is just a dull game. I do, however, love my kids, so for her sake, I'll ask: are we missing something? Is there more to this game than moving back and forth and winning a duel?

Thread: Drawing the last card after retreating

cktjharris — 2005-12-10T20:27:14+00:00

We use the Advanced rules from En Garde. I was hoping someone could help answer a question that came up in our last game…

The pawns were 6 spaces apart, at the end of the board where my pawn started.
My husband did an Advance and Attack.
His advance card was a 4, which put him 2 spaces away from me.
His attack card was a 2.
He then drew 2 cards to replenish the ones he’d played, which left only 1 card in the pack.
I did not have a 2 to defend against his attack.
I played a 1 to retreat and moved my pawn one space backward.
At this point, our pawns were 3 spaces apart.
I then drew the last card to replace the one I played. This card happened to be a 3.
My husband did not have a 3 card in his hand.

Okay, so here’s our question:
Do we consider the cards in our hands to see who won?

We know that if my husband had drawn the last card then he would win because I would be forced to retreat after the last card was taken (and he had moved farther along the board).

However, in this case I actually retreated BEFORE the last card was drawn.
Does he still win, or do I win because I have a 3 and he does not?

Thanks in advance to anyone who might know the answer!

Thread: An experienced player vs. a new player

Fantomius — 2005-12-10T15:32:50+00:00

Session Report for Duell
played on Wednesday, December 7, 2005

Jorge had time to play a game with me, so I decided to bring out Reiner Knizia's Duell. I've learned that new players almost never win this game, but after they've played one game, they learn enough to become formidable opponents. Therefore, I decided it was time to introduce Jorge to the game, in the hopes that the next time we played he would be a much better opponent.

The players were: Jorge and myself (Jean-Luc).

Jorge actually played a lot better than I thought he would. He won the first two rounds. This was unusual because I wasn't letting him win any rounds. Jorge was just able to force me back so that, when the cards ran out, he was further along the track than I was.

Finally, I won three rounds in a row. In one of the rounds I bluffed (placing my duelist in a position in which I had no cards to defend myself). Fortunately, Jorge retreated instead of attacking me. Had he attacked me, he would have won that round, as I wouldn't have been able to parry the attack.

Then Jorge won one round, I won one round, and Jorge won one round, making the score four-to-four, where the winner of the next round would be the winner of the game.

Interestingly, Jorge was able to end the next two rounds with him just as far along the track as me, resulting in a tie both times. This seemed to increase the tension, as the all-important win we were coveting so much narrowly slipped out of our hands two times.

In the last round, Jorge attempted to bluff himself into the space right next to mine. I attacked with my two 1 cards. Jorge couldn't parry since he had no 1s. This won me the round and the game.

It was Jorge's first time playing this game, and I must say that he was an excellent player, especially for his first time. Immediately he asked how much I paid for the game, letting me know that he liked the game. He did have a tendency to take a long time to think about his next move (which I admit may have given me a clue as to when he was bluffing). As a result, the game lasted just over one hour (!).

Despite this session's unusually long playing time, we both had fun. I look forward to playing Jorge again now that he's more experienced.

Thread: Good for some quick fun

ValJor — 2005-11-05T15:18:19+00:00

Date: November 4th, 2005

Game: Duell

Players: Chantal and Valdir (myself)

]]>

Having just finished a very close game of En Garde, Chantal wanted to have another go at it, but this time using the "special cards" that change the game into Duell. Here is the story of this second game...

The fist card turned was one of the two X's, so this round was the same as in En Garde. I won this one. And the next one as well, which was the "no retreat" one, I believe. Chantal won the next one, I won the other, so after four rounds I was standing at 3 x 1. My third point was with "the eye" (cards open). Later on Chantal commented that this was the one she liked the least, it changes the game too much.

Anyway, at this point we turned the 2x card, which makes the round be worth double, so the game could end right then, if I were able to win it. However that was not to be and she tied the game at three points each.

Fortunately for me I won the next two rounds (special cards 10 and 3) and won the game 5 to 3. We didn't get to use the question mark card.

Chantal liked the game both with and without the special cards. She commented that there is a lot of luck in this game but it's ok for some quick fun.