Recent additions | BoardGameGeek Forums

Review: Lord of the Rings:: A fun way to introduce your kids to Tolkien's world

rcmoore4 — Fri, 10 Jul 2009 01:44:28 +0000

First, let’s forget this is a Knizia game. This seems to create some unreasonable expectations as to what a "Knizia game" should be. First and foremost, this is a children’s game. And it is a darn good one as well.

Why do I say it is a good children’s game? First, I’ve played it with my children, and THEY like it. They love fighting monsters. They love spinning the spinner (at least when it favors them). And they love playing guessing games with the "palantir". It’s about having fun with your kids. Period.

Is there a lack of meaningful decisions to be made in the game? The short answer is, who cares if they are having fun? Nonetheless, this isn’t the same as the deservedly maligned Candyland, where the winner is determined before the game even starts. There ARE meaningful decisions to be made. The most obvious decision is movement. There are many routes to Mount Doom, and they are not all equal. Depending on the level of risk one wants to take, you can either go the long way around your enemies or confront them directly (my kids like confrontation). You can either fight the Witch King or Shelob to be able to sneak into Mordor, or go the long way round and risk being found by the palantir and locked in a tower.

When one rolls a "Nazgul" (or bird, or bat...kids see what they want to see here), there is the choice of placing a Nazgul on one of the adventure sites. This simple choice can really stall your enemy if placed in the right place. It’s probably the most strategic choice one makes in the game. I guess you could complain that it’s quite obvious where to place the Nazgul, and thus, not strategic at all. And this is probably true if you are an ADULT, but not necessarily a 5 year old.

Finally, there’s the choice of the "palantir" when you end your turn on a tower space. Your opponent hides the palantir (a red marble) and you have to choose which hand does not contain it. For adults, this is totally random. But play with a kid and things change. My 3 year old, when hiding the palantir, would hold out the hand with the palantir in hopes I would choose it, which, of course, I did.

I’ll also go out on a limb and say this is a good Tolkien game. In fact, it falls within my top 10 Tolkien game favorites (currently number 9). I’m not saying it is an accurate translation of the Lord of the Rings to game; indeed, it’s quite the opposite. You play a generic Hobbit (no, there’s no mention that any of the hobbits represent specific characters in the book), although it’s easy enough to pretend if you want to (who doesn’t want to be Fatty Bolger?). You can just as easily meet a friend as a foe in Moria (indeed, it starts with a friend). There’s a One Ring (the spinner), but everyone uses it. Instead of dunking the ring, you fight Sauron’s eye for the win (although it does sit upon Mount Doom...not a far stretch to imagine dunking the ring after the battle). However, it’s a children’s game, so WHO CARES!? It’s a great way to introduce your kids to Tolkien’s world full of Hobbits, Gandalf, Orcs, The Witch King, etc. One of the sites is Amon Hen! By the time they are old enough to read the books, they’ll already be familiar with Middle Earth (or watch the movies, I guess, but I hope my kids read the books first).

The biggest downside to this game for me is the art. If you are used to Alan Lee or John Howe, the art in this game is a bit of a shocker. It’s very "child-like" in way (go figure, it is a children’s game). For example, the hobbits look like children. The orcs look a little like child Gamorrean Guards. Shelob actually looks like she is smiling. It’s okay, you can get used to it. Besides, some of the art is very good. I love the board and some of the fellowship characters (well, Gandalf is cool, most are decent, but Gimli looks a little goofy). Still, the art seems to be appropriate for this children’s game. At least the kids shouldn’t be too critical of it.

If you love Tolkien and are looking for a fun way to introduce your kids to his world, this game should fit the bill. Just check your cynicism at the door, relax, and enjoy playing a game with your kids.

Review: Metro:: Metro Review

renegaderebel — Thu, 09 Jul 2009 15:57:52 +0000

by renegaderebel

Metro is an easy to learn, tile laying game for 2-6 players. I played my first game with 2 others and the game seemed to move along
at a good pace.

Components
Since this game is a tile game, the majority of pieces you'll be using are the tiles. The board itself looks great having bright, colorful,
easy to read markings. The other peices consist of wooden trains to mark stating locations for you metro lines and a scoring marker.

Setup
The setup for this game is fairly minimal. Each player is given a starting card and they use that to determine where to place there
trains around the board. The starting locations differ based on how many players you have. These cards are quite easy to read and understand.
And thats all there is to setting the game up.

Gameplay
The players take turns by placing pieces of track on their board, extending their subway line from their stations. Whenever a line is completed
the tiles used are counted up and the score marker moved along the side of the board.

Basically this game is easy to teach, easy to play, and plays pretty quickly. Great for a filler game between long drawn out games, or for people
who don't want to spend upwards of 3 hours playing a game.

Review: Supernova:: Reviewing the designer’s review

zinho73 — Thu, 09 Jul 2009 14:42:24 +0000

by zinho73

I never thought I would say something like that, but the definitive review you need for Supernova is the designer’s own take on his game.
Here is the link to it: http://www.boardgamegeek.com/thread/334071.
Harrisson gives a very fair view of the game highlights and pitfalls, with an added backstage flavor, talking a little bit about the process of making a game. Great read!
So my review is also unconventional as I will use that one as a starting point, and just add my own take on the game to, hopefully, give you another perspective on the game without rethreading the basics all over again.

Why highlight the designer?

Because Harrison love for his game is obvious and his commitment to the people that are buying it is remarkable. The original rulebook was really weird and not very helpful. He just reorganized the whole thing, gladly accepting the input of everyone here, and taking every criticism very seriously, without ever losing his sense of humor.
He also is always ready to answer any doubt you might have and will often come to the rescue in any thread about the game.
So, I do think that one of the best things about Supernova is its designer. I wish to Harrison all the luck on the business.

Do I agree with him?

Mostly, yes. Here is what I like about the game:
- Conflict. Things can get ugly on this game and that’s terrific. The attacker has a small incentive and you really can’t go too far without stepping on someone else’s toes.
- Theme. Aliens running away from a Supernova in a race for territory, developing their technology along the way? Sign me in!
- Components. The thing has personality, that’s for sure. And quality.

And I do agree with some of his negatives:
- It is long;
- It has downtime.

But here is my take, in order of greatness:

GREAT

- The moons system. They are basically moving sources of victory points and resources. This is an absolutely fantastic idea and gives the game a very interesting dynamic.
- Components. The artwork is quite Spartan (clean and free of excesses) and is reminiscent of old sci-fi series. To be honest I found it unimpressive at first glance, but it grew on me. It gave the game a very unique vibe.
- The whole concept. Theme and gameplay are quite interesting. Your civilization grows as some kind of giant ameba, spreading itself throughout the galaxy and feeding on other civilizations. You have a tech tree to explore, you have research to do, you have nice decisions to make.

OK

- The combat system. The basic concept is ace, but to my liking it needs some tweaking. I think the comms technology needs to be buffed up (there is rarely any reason to go beyond level 2 or so) and I also think that the special cards are not that special. For those that haven’t played the game, here is a brief description of the combat: every player plays up to four cards (of just one suit or all of different suits), you add up to the result your weapons rating (if you are attacking) or your shields ratting (if you are defending), and the highest value wins. Comms is the technology that lets you have more cards on hand on the beginning of your level. But it is fun, and works reasonably well.

- The gameboard. In the suggested scenario in which every player has a planet, things can take their time to happen. You might like that (Preparing yourself for the final showdown), or you may find that it is boring. Fortunatelly, all you have to do is play with one less planet (and you can even play with less turns if you wish to). But I still thing that that are too many hexes in that galaxy… Or maybe just too many empty hexes (keep reading).

OH, BOY...

- I think the game needs variety to spice things up. The aforementioned conflict is too dependent on the players and your situation on the game. Sometimes, time just passes without tension, especially on the beginning of the game. Secondary objectives, hidden agendas, more things on the board to deal with (satellites, debris, space stations) are all missed here. The euro clean board gives a level of abstraction to the game that detracts from the theme. The mid-game scoring is also very uneventful and I think that a greater variety of VP sources or short term objectives would be interesting to have.

- Lack of personality: the game has plenty of personality on the visuals and gameplay, but not enough on the races themselves. Forget about random special powers - I want to play as the Sauropods (not actually a game race) because they are fearsome (start with 1 weapons) if rather stupid (can only buy one research card per turn). The generic races have nice pictures but no personality at all. I understand the balance appeal of the design (and its euro influences), but space operas are all about the story, and story needs characters.

- It is not the length of the game that presents a real problem (although it is long, matches can vary anywhere between 2 hours and 4, depending on the AP and level of experience of the players), but the downtime. As said somewhere else in the Geek, money really shouldn’t be worth VP - the final turns can become an exercise in optimizing that really burns all the fun. But even when players are keeping things fast, a series of combats can drag the game again. The player turn needs to be streamlined with more consecutive actions (everybody does research, everybody upgrades tech, etc.). I know the design as it is cannot just migrate to this format (Harrison said he tried to do something along those lines), but I do feel that the game looses rhythm sometimes. For some of my friends that was enough to keep them away from another go at the game.

FINAL WORDS

I like the game, but I’m not sure how many times it will hit the table. Some of my friends are all about the setting and they might want to go for a Twlight Imperium match (5 to 6 hours) instead of burning maybe 3 hours with Supernova. Another bunch have found that it is just not euro enough for their tastes and some, myself included, think that it is a great core game that needs some more icing on top of it.

But the fact that Supernova is streamlined is not a flaw of the game, it is a design decision and, in fact, cam be easily viwed as an advantage. The game did not hit my soft spot, but I can understand and respect its ideas, and a lot of gamers are digging this euro slash ameritrash hybrid. Didn’t quite did it for me, but I will play it now and then with the right crowd, but because of its designer, Supernova is already a better game than it was at launch and who knows what else Harrison will have for us in the future?

Review: Lego Robo Champ:: Review for Robo Champ (or Lego Cootie)

Xeenu — Thu, 09 Jul 2009 10:08:45 +0000

by Xeenu

Dear fellow Geeks,

this is my first try at a review so please be a bit gentle with the comments... Not that this is a particularly difficult game to review. It is Lego Robo Champ, a childrens game and thus not very deep or complicated.

General:
Lego Robo Champ is one of the ten Lego board Games new in 2009. This one has no known designer (like Mr. Knizia, who designed other games for Lego). You will see shortly why I dont think its a real "designer game"...
The game is priced at about 9 Euros in Germany, amazon.de has it for 8.98 euros. American readers please keep in mind that all posted prices are including sales tax, which runs at 19 % for this game in Germany.
The game consists of 118 pieces and is for 2 to 3 players ages 6 and up.

Components:
The game is from Lego so its no surprise that the components are also Lego, that means sturdy plastic made to snap together in different combinations. The advantage is obviously that the children can alter the game components. They can also use them together with other Legos that they already possess. Good luck in separating the Robo Champ components again after that.
The robots are special parts, so the possible integration with regular Legos is minor.

There is a very cool die though, that can be customized. I am sure Gamers will like this die, even when they have long outgrown Legos.

Gameplay:
The gameplay sounds suspiciously like the famous american game Cootie. Roll a die and build your bug ehm robot.

So the children have their robots in front of them. The robots are not finished, so they have to be finished by the children. They roll this good looking die exactly for this purpose. Upon a specific rolled colour like red, blue, green they can take and build a piece. Upon rolling white, which is this games form of a joker, any part can be taken no matter which colour. Upon rolling black a part can be stolen from somebody. (Remember the robber in Settlers of Catan?). When the die shows several colours at once the child can choose a part. First one having his or her robot finished is the winner and gets the Robo Champ title.

In conclusion this is Cootie with stealing parts and jokers. The customizable die makes it a bit more interesting, as unlike in Cootie the propabilities of the events can be changed by the children.

Verdict:
If You need a customizable Cootie this might be Your childs game. Apart from the die there is nothing innovative in this game. I would rather save the 9 Euros and get another childrens game. Haba, Selecta and Co. are not Lego, but they know about gameplay. For the same amount of money You would get a small Haba game like Würfelwölfe.
Of course the Lego die is cool...

Review: Fzzzt!:: We are the Robots

Futsie — Thu, 09 Jul 2009 07:19:01 +0000

by Futsie

Cracking open this game immediately threw me back 30 years to the dawn of the modern computer age. The green and white stripy computer paper used on card designs and the REM statements in the instruction booklet will mean little to those under 40.
However, the wonderfully eclectic design of the various robots depicted on the cards should have universal appeal. Again I was thrown back into the mists of time since the style reminded me of Paradroid, one of my favourite old Commodore 64 games.

Up to four players are each allocated a mechanic card and three robot cards. My daughter was a little put out to discover that all four are male. In fact all four are white, overweight males, maybe all mechanics fall into this category, but even so a little more choice would have been nice.

A line of eight extra cards are placed face down on the table, these represent the robot production conveyor belt. The first of the eight is turned face up and the conveyer belt speed number on the card will determine how many extra cards are turned over. So if the conveyer belt number is one then only the initial card is face up but if the card is an eight then the belt is being powered by an army of steroid-enhanced hamsters in lycra bodysuits and all eight cards are revealed.

Players use the cards in their hands, which each have a power rating, to bid for each face up card in order. With a speedy belt lots of cards will be turned over at once meaning players will have to give a bit more thought to their bids.

The auction winner places the card won and the cards used to make the bid into their discard pile. In the case of a tie the winner is the player who is the chief mechanic, this role shifts around the board as the game progresses. The rules suggest that giving the player a spanner should denote the chief mechanic role, but I found that a small slot-headed screwdriver did the job equally well.

Next we come to production cards. When these are won in the auction they are immediately placed in front of the winning player. Production cards allow a player to combine robots to make a widget, they vary in complexity, represented by the number and type of one of four component icons on the card. For instance a simple card may have oil and a cog icon. At the end of each turn players can allocate a robot with a matching component icon to the production card. If a player matches all the icons then they will receive bonus victory points depending up on the complexity of the completed widget.

At the end of each turn players shuffle the cards in their hands with the cards in their discard pile and deal themselves 6 cards. The game finishes after 5 rounds have been played.

I really enjoyed the theme, and you get a nice feel of the various robots trundling off the conveyer belt. The artwork is wonderful but the cards carry a lot of information so the numbers are quite small and can be a little difficult to decipher. The game boils down to managing your hand as best you can through insightful bidding and intelligent placement of robots on production cards. It is quick to play and whilst the basics are easily picked up by younger players, there are still enough nuances to keep more experienced players ticking over.

Review: RoboCop VCR Game:: ProCon Review

freechinanow — Thu, 09 Jul 2009 07:15:35 +0000

by freechinanow

Hopefully these reviews will offer potential players short and helpful pro/con reviews for those trying to make their mind up about playing or purchasing this game.

GAME: ROBOCOP VCR GAME (1988)
PUBLISHER: SPINNAKER

PROS

- Robocop Theme. If there's anything good to say about this game, it's that it is about Robocop. Robocop is one of the great Asimov-like robot stories of the 1980s, and as a lover of board games and Robocop, you've got two good ideas in one box.

CONS

- Useless VCR mechanic. Games like Nightmare use the VCR in an interesting way by having the players run the tape throughout the game, with the 'Gatekeeper' calling out pre-recorded commands to the players. While repeated games of Nightmare didn't quite hold up, it was always worth pulling out on Hallowe'en. The Robocop VCR Game, however, does not have Robocop calling out to the audience. All the tape has is recorded scenes from the movie. When you land on a specific space, you are to play the tape and fast-forward to the frame that shows the spot you landed on. Then watch the scene and follow the instructions at the end of it. (For instance, "Make an Arrest" or "Lose a Turn"). The VHS tape seems absolutely perfunctory.

- Terrible components. Cheap cards, bland playing pieces, and a boring and small gameboard gives the impression that the publisher tried to make this game as cheaply as possible. There is nothing in the presentation of the game that makes a Robocop fan proud to have it on their shelf, or to show it off to their friends.

- Poorly thought-out rules of play. There are several instructions regarding arrests that make this game quite arduous. Having to arrest criminals from different parts of the board means you must go in circles around the board in order to reach your objective. As well, you need the right cards, land on the right space, and be at the right part of the VHS tape in order to arrest any of the bigger criminals in the game. It's not necessary to arrest them to win the game (but it does make the game go faster if you do!) However, so much "being at the right place at the right time" stuff in a game makes you realize there is nothing a player can bring to the game to really influence their chances of winning.

FINAL COMMENT:

Chances are you are like me and bought the Robocop VCR Game because you are a lover of Verhoeven's 1987 movie of the same title. It's true - before opening the box you are promised a game where you "become part of the battle" and offers "awesome action" and "non-stop adventure." And what Robocop fan wouldn't want to be part of the Robocop action... Especially in a board game? Unfortunately, the game calls only on your skill of throwing a die and handling a VCR in order to make this work. Whoever wins is completely arbitrary. Usually, this is expected from games that were themed from films or television shows from the 1980s. In that sense, Robocop could have been at the very most a boring game, decorated with Robocop chrome. Instead, its terrible handling of VCR technology makes for extremely tedious and frustrating play that feels inane and useless. You never once feel rewarded for going through any of the motions of game. For those who collect in the niche of themed board games from the 1980s, you would not be missing out by not purchasing the Robocop VCR Game. It is such a bad game, it is not even cute. Not even by Robocop standards.

Review: Zombie Mosh:: Just For Stoners

VixenTorGames — Thu, 09 Jul 2009 02:48:02 +0000

by VixenTorGames

Market positioning is important for a game company. It's crucial to identify yourself with a specific kind of game. For example, when you think 'Fantasy Flight' you think of a different kind of game than when you think, 'Rio Grande.' Bucephalus Games obviously is aware of this, because as far as I can tell, they're trying to position themselves as the company that makes games you won't want to play more than once.

The latest trainwreck from Bucephalus is called Zombie Mosh. Now, before I go into depth saying rotten things about people I don't know, I will admit that the kind of person who wants to play a game where zombie rockers mosh until their arms fall off is probably also the kind of person who would enjoy a game with so very little going on. After the game, the players may want to do Jello shooters and smash beer cans on their foreheads.

The theory in this almost-a-game is that each of you is a zombie who likes very loud music. You all jump into the mosh pit and flail like crazy, and then your arms and legs fall off. The last zombie still flailing is the winner (unless you count everyone who didn't do drugs all through high-school and therefore knows better than to play Zombie Mosh in the first place - they are also winners, because not only are they living clean, but they're not playing Zombie Mosh).

Each round, you'll be dealt a couple damage cards, and then you'll have a few cards you can play on your fellow zombies to knock their faces into the dirt (unless the mosh pit is in a carpeted area, in which case you'll be knocking their faces in the carpet). These ultra-complex cards have such powerful descriptions as 'left arm' and 'head.' In case you're wondering, there are no special powers, no tricky combinations, and no reason to practice restraint or planning. You can play cards to block damage, or play them to cause it. That's it. That's all the decision-making you'll find. The game was evidently made for Iron Maiden fans coming down from three-day amphetamine benders, and so it tries to keep it simple, for the stupid.

To be completely fair, I should point out that there are advanced rules for Zombie Mosh, in case your thrasher idiot friends get tired of simply putting down cards that all do the same thing, and decide to wander off to find something to break. In the advanced version, you flip over your game board, and now your arms and legs fall off slower, unless they fall off easier. Yes, that is the advanced version. The optional rules, if you will.

I'm afraid this isn't a very long review tonight. The problem is, there's not much to the game I'm reviewing. I could spend a couple more paragraphs making jokes about junkies, zombies and electric guitars, but that would just be padding the review for word count. Rather than jibber for the sake of jabber, I'll just say that I cannot envision any circumstance in which I would want to play Zombie Mosh, ever again.

I've got a few more games from Bucephalus that I haven't played yet, including a remake of Dwarven Dig that I can't wait to try. I hate to pass judgment on the publisher before I've played them all, and I am really hoping Timestream will be enjoyable with a group. Because I'm starting to wonder if we ought to start a pool for the day Bucephalus closes up the shop, and I hate to see that happen.

Summary

Pros:
Pictures of zombies
Little cardboard skull counters you could probably use for something else

Cons:
Lame game play (and calling it 'game play' is being pretty forgiving already)
Ridiculous theme could have been interesting, but is instead dumber than a box of granite chips
Advanced rules are a complete waste
I would have to be badly brain-damaged to enjoy this game - and I like games where people die

Review: Rugrats - Lookie! Cookies! 3-D Balancing Game:: A children's dexterity game like Arch Rival, but without the alcohol

pete belli — Thu, 09 Jul 2009 01:04:19 +0000

by pete belli

]]>
Box

Lookie! Cookies! is a children's dexterity game based on the Rugrats cartoon show. This unusual balancing game was published by Mattel in 1998. It is a colorful three-dimensional game with plenty of eye candy to attract young players.

I found this copy at my local thrift shop. Lookie! Cookies! reminded me of Arch Rival which is one of my favorite party games. Both titles challenge players to maintain a wobbly structure as they add items to the stack. In both games a player can win the game by forcing the other contestants to topple the thing. Lookie! Cookies! follows a pattern similar to Arch Rival but without the bourbon, slurred speech, double vision, and loss of coordination.

]]>
Example of play: Arch Rival

Lookie! Coookies! can be enjoyed by 2 to 4 players. According to the official Mattel instructions the game can be played by children age 4 and older. No reading is required. A typical child will certainly be able to grasp the rules and play the game with little difficulty. Younger children might need a bit of coaching with the numbers and kids with a low tolerance for frustration might find the game disturbing.

]]>
Rocking Character Stack

The game revolves around a stack of cardboard cartoon characters connected to form a tower. This stack is attached to a plastic base that rocks back and forth. Players use the spinner built into the 3-D game board to determine the number of cookie tokens that must be added to the stack and to determine which character gets the cookies. One quick spin produces both results and this clever device speeds play considerably.

Each cartoon character holds two cardboard plates and the cookie tokens are placed carefully on these flat surfaces. A kid with some tactical skill will try to block the next player by sticking his or her tokens in a location that might render the next obvious position quite dangerous.

]]>
Example of play: Lookie! Cookies!

The use of these plastic cookie tokens (really just high quality poker chips) is brilliant. The serrated edges on the chips help to "hold" them in position on the plates and they stack easily. This helpful design keeps the game from descending into chaos at lightning speed. Well done!

The number of cookie tokens used during a game will vary with the number of players. For younger children it might be a good idea to start with just a few tokens until the kid polishes his or her technique.

My thrift store copy was in good condition but the spinner had a trendency to land on the "Chuckie" spaces. This actually made the game more interesting because that top-heavy stack was swaying like a palm tree in a hurricane. Fun!

The tabs on the cardboard game components are not designed to last forever and will soon become frayed and tattered. This probably won't be an issue because the kids will outgrow the game (or grow bored with the process) after a few months anyway.

If you see a copy of Lookie! Cookies! in a thrift store and know some kids that might enjoy the game, grab it. This could be a nice little diversion.

Review: Kachina:: Review by Joe and Monica Steadman

JoeSteadman — Wed, 08 Jul 2009 22:35:01 +0000

by JoeSteadman

Youtube Video

Review: Battlefields of Olympus:: Is that an army in your pocket, or are you just glad to see me?

RobertaTaylor — Wed, 08 Jul 2009 16:58:58 +0000

by RobertaTaylor

Battlefields of Olympus is a compact 2 player card game which has players battling to control land in ancient times.

The game will fit in your pocket, which is great, because it is also fairly brief and has a small footprint on the table, making it perfect for playing while out and about. The publisher (Smartass games)could have given this one a larger box with a fancy insert to make it look more imposing, but I'm glad they resisted the temptation.

Let's take a closer look.

The small box holds 2 decks of cards, 2 rule books (One in English and one in French), a quick-reference sheet with a gameplay flow chart (every game should have one of these- it's genius!), a sheet of optional rules, and a simple cardstock divider.

]]>

The first deck of cards is the Warrior deck. These are the meat-and-potatoes of the game, and are used to battle for the land cards. The game is won by the player controlling the most valuable total lands (we'll look at that in a minute).

]]>

There are 5 types of warriors: Archers, Cavalry, Heavy Infantry, Spearmen, and Swordsmen. They each are valuable against certain other unit types, as well as vulnerable to certain unit types. For example, Cavalry are effective against Swordsmen and Heavy Infantry, and can be defeated by Archers and Spearmen.

]]>

Battles are fought with the attacker playing a unit and the defender either retreating or countering with an equal or stronger unit. For example, Cavalry is played, and may be countered with Cavalry, Swordsmen, or Heavy Infantry.

The second deck of cards is the Fate deck. These have a red stripe on the back rather than the Warrior deck's green stripe, and there are actually 3 distinct types of cards in this deck.

]]>

The first type are the Land Trophy cards. These represent terrain or monuments which have varying value, from the 1 point Woodland cards to the 6 point Olympus card. When a Land Trophy card is drawn, the player must lay it on the top of the Land Trophy pile, and battles are always contesting the top card. This means that players may avoid starting a battle for a less valuable Land Trophy, such as Woodland, choosing instead to concentrate on building up their hand in the hopes of a better Land Trophy turning up. To prevent this slowing the game down too much, the second type of Fate deck cards come in handy.

]]>

The second type of card in the Fate deck is the Ares card. There are 6 of these cards depicting the god of war, and if one turns up, players must battle for the topmost Land Trophy. This keeps the game moving, whether you like it or not, and can spoil well-laid plans on occasion. Ares is often greeted with groans of 'Oh, no!'. As perhaps is fitting for the god of war.

]]>

The final, and most abundant, type of cards in the Fate deck are the Action cards. These allow special action, usually in battle, and include Ambush, Elite, Flank, Raid, Rally, Scout, Skirmish, and Surround. Like the Warrior cards, some of the Action cards cancel each other out, while others give special strategic benefit. For example, playing a Scout forces your opponent to lay the Warrior cards in his hand face-up on the table and leave them there until they are all played.

]]>

Game play is simple, with players choosing either to draw a card from the Fate deck, discard and re-draw a number of Warrior cards, purchase Warrior cards with Action cards from their hand, or battle for the top-most Land Trophy card. Turns move quickly, with virtually no down-time for either player.

There are some additional rules, including the use of a reserve deck, where you may 'store' Warrior cards above your hand limit of 4, as well as use of a mercenary if you have at least 3 Land Trophy cards bearing the same symbol.

We found that we referenced the rules quite a bit during our first game, but by the end we were really comfortable with what was going on. The flow chart included with the game is brilliant, making it easy to remember when to draw a new card and what actions may be taken at any point.

]]>

The game ends when all 6 Ares cards have been used and discarded or a player reaches 16 Land Trophy points.

In conclusion...

This is a great 2 player card game. My husband and I enjoyed it a lot. The graphics are gorgeous, and really add to the ambiance of the game. I applaud the designer and publisher- this game is beautiful, game length is appropriate, it's fun to play, and did I mention that it will fit in your pocket?

Review: Leader 1:: Leader 1 vs. Leader 2

Garf — Wed, 08 Jul 2009 15:04:06 +0000

by Garf

]]>

Leader 1 (and its expansion: Giro) designed by messieurs Ollier and Leclercq is a fantastic game, and I'm probably one of the biggest fans. However, soon after I fell in love with it, I got the feeling that it lacked something, and that the wonderful components in the box suffer from slightly imperfect rules. As a huge fan of road cycling, I saw a chance of creating the most playable and most realistic simulation of cycling ever. This is how the dream of Leader 2 was born.

Being one of the authors of this variant, I certainly lack the objectiveness to call this a review. However, I feel that both the thread explaining the rules and the downloadable version are somewhat dry. So here comes a rather compact introduction of why you might want to try it, independent from whether you hate or love Leader 1. Since I assume you've tried out the latter, I'll concentrate on differences only.

The structure of this presentation is very simple. I believe there are two main components to any good simulation game: replayability and realism. I'll show how we attempt to cover both of them in a combined fashion: each time we improve the replayability, we do so by introducing an element of the world of cycling!

From my 50+ Leader 1 games, what strikes me is the lack of strategic depth once you become reasonably adept at managing your energy by following others and cutting the corners. All races seem to be very similar: give the downhill skill to your main guy, attack at the first "cheap" spot (normally a downhill), often with your entire team, then outsmart the others by using less energy to cover the same distance, et voila...

The two main causes of the above situation are:
a) all cyclists being almost the same,
b) the peloton being so ridiculously weak that it can be completely ignored.

This is where Leader 2 comes to save the day
Since every cyclist in the peloton is different, we introduce more special skills.

]]>

Will your explosive rouleur manage to keep the wheel of the opponent's aggressive leader specialising in cobblestones long enough to use his sprint ability in the final kilometres? That is the question that not only makes your board game more exciting, but also closer to a real-life cycling race.

Still, if those two were left alone, the one riding the majority of time in the opponent's wind shade would prevail. But yes, you guessed correctly: these 100 guys behind them shouldn't exactly be forgotten! But what exactly are they doing to catch the escapees? Well, the team interested in pursuing the break-away usually forms a so-called train. The helpers of the big guys spend all their energy to catch the riders in front, or at least to bring their captains closer, so that they can counterattack. Of course deciding to add +1 (for free) to the peloton roll every fifth turn does not exactly translate to this concept.

This is where Leader 2 steps in again
In the picture above you see all 9 members of the CSC team forming a train. The six in front (known as helpers, domestiques, or Wasserträger) are wasting lots of energy, while protecting their leader (in yellow), their climber and their best rouleur (the two behind the leader). Also, one of them has to go back to the team car and provide the whole team with fresh beverages every now an then, as illustrated here by Matthias Kessler from T-Mobile:

To simulate the presence of your helpers, Leader 2 introduces the concept of Team Pursuit Points (TPPs). Before the race, every team is given a certain amount of TPPs, depending on their strength and the race profile. When the peloton token reaches you, you can decide to form a train (keep the token), and pursue the break-away in a steady pace (maximum peloton movement is 6), while your teammates lose their energy (i.e. TPPs diminish) gradually. The more teams are interested in pursuing, the longer this steady pace can be sustained. And since your pool of TPPs is limited, choosing when and how many to spend is a tactical decision, just like the teams decide in real life which escapees are dangerous enough to be pursued.

The two additions described above (new skills and TPPs) are the cornerstones of Leader 2. You are free to stop there, or pick from plenty of other ideas we found useful to make the game both realistic and playable, like energy consumption tuning (less overall energy, more spent in long breakaways, more spent by rouleurs in high mountains), cancellation of blocking, limitation of the number of attackers etc.

Enjoy the game, and remember that your feedback is important

Review: Pandemic:: Pandemic – curing the world one cube at a time

Karrdedg — Wed, 08 Jul 2009 13:23:00 +0000

by Karrdedg

My wife is a very competitive lady, be it board games, sports or Xbox she always goes full out to win. Normally board game nights between the two us revolve round head to head games like Mr. Jack or CIA vs. KGB, so when I explained the rules she was puzzled why I thought this would be appropriate

We opened the game to be greeted by a nicely made board, two packs of cards and lots of wooden cubes. Packed into the corner were the player pieces – wooden pawns. This immediately raised some slight worry about the game as if they can’t be bothered to make nice playing pieces, is it going to be good. I then pointed out that in Agricola we play as flat discs so it’s not the be all and end all, but they just seemed a bit rough.

Into the rules, which are well presented across 8 pages with good examples of turn play including illustrations. We only mangled a couple of rules when we played and had both read through them ahead of playing.

The game is all about stopping a global pandemic (see what they did there) by researching cures for four different diseases. This is hampered by the diseases spreading each turn and the occasional twist of a epidemic breaking out.

Each player is randomly allocated a specialist roll e.g. medic, which gives them a rule altering ability. They also have a number of action points that allow them to use this ability, move round the board and cure diseases.

The little wooden cubes mentioned earlier are used to mark diseases on the board which accumulate through the drawing of random country cards.

So far, so easy.

Both of us expected to simply move round the board, collecting coloured cards to cure diseases (5 of a colour represents a cure, cure all 4 diseases and you win the game). It’s not that easy though.

Every time a country reaches it’s 4th cube of the same disease, it causes an outbreak. This spreads 1 more cube to the surrounding countries, meaning more disease to cure or spread. You lose the game if 8 outbreaks occur whilst playing, you draw all of the player cards out or if you run out of coloured cubes for any disease.

What neither of us expected was an outbreak in somewhere central e.g. Istanbul then chain reacted, setting off outbreaks in other countries and burning through the black cubes (tastefully now referred to as the black death) meaning we lost the first game despite curing the black death early in the game. For a handy reference, in my wife’s mind yellow cubes = scurvy, red cubes = chicken pox and the blue cubes = the blues.

The game becomes a balance of checking disease progress, collecting cure cards and moving round the board to prepare for the next turn or setting up someone else to deliver the goods.

After three plays we had lost 2:1 but despite the cooperative nature, my wife approved of the game and it’s now in our regular play pile.

So overall thoughts:

The good
- Nice board, the right weight, looks striking and easy to understand where everything goes
- Chain reactions are fun – one of those games where something bad happening is as much fun as something good
- Cooperative nature means lots of talking and good team work. This is a good change to those stab-in-the-back type games where you all live or die by how well you play together
- The rules allow for playing the game as easy, medium and hard. So far we’re still playing easy until we have mastered this and then on to medium.

The bad
- Games can be over very quickly. I could say this was due to the easy level we were playing at, but in all 3 games we played even when we lost. They all felt that they had ended too soon (not something my wife complains about often, I thank you :what
- The city names are tiny along with the space they occupy. Put 3 disease cubes, research station and a player on top and you need to have a good memory for where places are.

The ugly
- The player pieces need a bit more character and love. Is the researcher brown or mustard?

Buy this if you want to spend a few hours chatting and plotting together in order to defeat the global spread of evil wooden cubes!

Review: Admiral Ackbar "It's a TRAP!" GAME:: Review: Admiral Ackbar "It's a TRAP!" GAME

frontlinegeneral — Wed, 08 Jul 2009 13:22:57 +0000

by frontlinegeneral

The Designer, a well-known BGG-er named Robert Wesley, A.K.A. GROGnads, A.K.A. Grogs, has created not only a fun game to play, but one that costs you nothing if you already have Scrabble. The theme centers around Admiral Ackbar and his famous line "It's a TRAP!" as spoken in the movie Star Wars: Return of the Jedi. For a bit of background on the theme, the script leading up to this line is provided below:

LANDO
Break off the attack! The shield is still up.

RED LEADER (VO)
I get no reading. Are you sure?

LANDO
Pull up! All craft pull up!

The Falcon turns hard to the left. Out the window the stars and the
Death Star move off right.

96 EXT SPACE - DEATH STAR SHIELD

The Falcon and the fighters of Red Squad veer off desperately to avoid
the unseen wall.

97 INT REBEL STAR CRUISER - BRIDGE

Alarms are screaming and lights flashing as the huge ship changes
course abruptly. Other ships in the fleet shoot by outside as the
armada tries to halt its forward momentum.

ACKBAR
Take evasive action! Green Group, stick close to holding sector MV-7.

A Mon Calamari controller turns away from his screen and calls out to
Ackbar, quite excited. The Admiral rushes over to the controller.

CONTROLLER
Admiral, we have enemy ships in sector 47.

On the screen can be seen the moon, Death Star, and the massive
Imperial fleet. Ackbar moves to the comlink.

ACKBAR
It's a trap!

Source: http://www.imsdb.com/scripts/Star-Wars-Return-of-the-Jedi.ht...

As you read the script (and remember the scene in the movie), it is certainly one of the climaxes in Return of the Jedi- a brilliant source of stress for the moviegoer- as the Rebel fleet realizes they are in trouble and the shield is still up on the new Death Star.

Before playing this game, the designer implies that you must modify a few tiles for proper punctuation of the phrase. For beginners however, I recommend NOT modifying your scrabble tiles until you've played the game a few times. If and when you do create the proper punctuation tiles, you'll have to determine how many quotations, apostrophes, and exclamation points to add. As a minimum, you'll need four quotation marks, two apostrophes, and two exclamation marks for a two-player game. Modifying a few scrabble tiles for proper punctuation of the phrase is for advanced players. I highly recommend pulling several tiles from a different game of scrabble if you plan to play with more than two players. For example, combining two sets of scrabble tiles is necessary to provide the required minimum number of "P" tiles for four people. You'll also need to double the punctuation tiles for four players.

The game is very simple. Face down scrabble tiles are drawn by each player in turn and placed face down in front of the player until one player can create the phrase "It's a trap!" including punctuation for advanced games. If however, you draw something you already have- for example, two "P" tiles, you must discard the duplicate so that other players have a chance to complete the phrase. This is a key rule, but it should be supplemented with a required "shuffle" or "mixing" of the face down tiles after the duplicate is discarded. The first player to draw the correct Scrabble tiles to complete Admiral Ackbar's "It's a trap!" line is declared the winner.

The basic two-player game, without punctuation, is fairly quick to play. Setup is easy, it requires little space, and the rules are very simple to teach to a new player, including children. In fact, I recommend that you play this game with a child who knows the scene in Return of the Jedi. The game is 'luck of the draw', but it teaches children pattern recognition, word and phrase assembly, spelling, reading, and possibly even use of punctuation in advanced games. Beyond that, simply saying the phrase in your best Admiral Ackbar impression is quite amusing.

The game theme builds on the tension created in the movie, and I cannot help but draw some parallels here- in the movie, the pieces of the attack come together to reveal that it is, in fact, a trap! In this game, you'll find a similar situation- the pieces of the game (tiles) come together to reveal "It's a Trap!". The tension of the scene in the movie is certainly felt while playing the game.

The novelty of creating the "It's a Trap!" phrase may wear off for some players quite soon. However, variants have already been discussed and suggested in the forums on BGG for the game, and those variants can increase the replayability of the game.

The Admiral Ackbar "It's a TRAP!" GAME may have started as somewhat of a joke, but credit should be given to the designer. He's created a game that actually works, is incredibly simple, can be explained in one paragraph, uses an old game that's probably sitting in your closet (and thus costs you nothing), is well-themed, and is, yes, FUN. For those who would argue "it's not a real game"- it is no less real than Tic-Tac-Toe or Bingo. It just goes to prove that games can be created from anything- an old box of scrabble tiles- a line in a movie- sometimes we designers challenge ourselves to create something with a lot of depth, yet miss the obvious simplicity of something like this.

I recommend at least giving this game a try. For this player, it was a good reason to break out the old Scrabble game and dust off the cover- and as it turns out, I do a pretty good Admiral Ackbar impression.

Review: Kámen - Zbraně - Papír:: First impressions

Fue — Wed, 08 Jul 2009 12:26:52 +0000

by Fue

I found this game in a local department store, and what a find it has turned out to be! At first I thought it was the new dungeon game from Vlaada, but then I saw that it was actually published in 2007. The real surprise came when checking BGG: I could hardly believe my eyes when I saw that this is a game that the community seems to be unaware of. I guess the reason behind this is the language. I know this game is available in Hungarian, since I own a copy. It must also be available in Czech, since both the author and the publisher are Czech. It is probably also available in Slovakian and Polish, since these four languages frequently go together from a publishing point of view. However, there seem to be no German or English versions available, which seems to be the reason for this game having such a low profile, despite the renowned author. It would actually be great to hear on this from the Czech guys who are more aware of the situation than I am.

Anyway, on to the game. The object of the game is to build castles. Whoever completes their castle first wins. There are three resources in the game: rock, paper, and arms (scissors). Rock is used to build the castle by purchasing cards that show the appropriate segment. Paper is used to purchase science cards that enhance your production. Scissors are used to purchase weapon cards that help you when you fight your fellow players. These cards are flipped over at the beginning of the turn and auctioned off.

The most novel part of the game is the actual combat. Each player in turn flips a combat card and fights their neighbor. The cards show a specific number each of rock, paper, and scissors. Combat is resolved by the two participants playing rock-paper-scissors against each other. The winner gets the number of resources as indicated on the card corresponding to the winning hand. For example, if you broke your enemy’s scissors with your rocks, you get the number of rocks indicated on the card. Ties can be replayed, but after three tries, the fight is tied for good and nobody gets the resources.

One interesting element of the game is that with four players, you only fight the people next to you, which makes the opposite player something of your ally. This is reflected in the rules, so that the second place always goes to whoever sat opposite to whoever completed his castle first.

So far, this is all I can tell you based on the reading of the rules. Hope to try the game this week with 2 or 3 players, and with a full complement of 4 next week. Will get back with more info then.

Review: A Touch of Evil, The Supernatural Game:: Follow Up Frog Game Fantastic as its First

zfairborn — Wed, 08 Jul 2009 09:23:13 +0000

by zfairborn

A Touch of Evil is a fun game. It is not heavily tactical, relying mainly on luck (dice rolls and a draw of the card), but thematically it offers a great chance to play a gothic-supernatural-mystery in under or around 2 hours. Its rules are simple and quick to learn despite the subtle learning curve some players may have, and despite a few falling it remains a great game with plenty of potential to be developed and have its few flaws repaired.

The summary of the game is very simple. Players move to the four corners of the map, drawing cards in the search for items and allies who will help them in the final upcoming Showdown they will attempt against the evil that is terrorizing the town of ShadowBrook. They must also gather investigation which will be used to discover the loyalties of the elders, locate the lair of the monster they are hunting, and to acquire weapons and tools from the blacksmith to assist them in their hunt. All in all there is plenty to do but in the end the goal is always the same - kill the monster before it takes over the entire town (which occurs when the time-bar called the "Shadow Track" reaches 0).

While this game introduces itself as a competitive game, after playing it a few games you quickly come to realize its design was made to be co-operative. Due to the high luck factor of competitive play, it is possible (and rather frequent) for a few players to get a good run of luck and collect weapons from the corner locations while the other heroes find themselves dealing with event after event and being left behind. A possible fix to this would have been to have had the Mystery cards (which represent the evil activities of the monster, and are drawn after each player has had their turn) target the Hero who holds the most corner items/points of investigation, which would have the lead hunter take damage and be delayed to give the competition more time to catch up. Another possible could have been to have some Event cards (cards that offer one-shot bonuses to the Hero, which are drawn at numerous times during the game) to have some similar effects, such as forcing a Hero to hand items over to another player or allowing a Hero to discard an Corner Location event to redraw a card (increasing the chances of them gaining an item/ally they are searching for).

It is possible that Flying Frog may add such cards in one of their upcoming expansions (there have been a few card boosters to date, and at the time of this review many players are eagerly awaiting the larger box expansions) as this may enhance the competitive game by reducing the speed of ‘fortunate’ Heroes and give everyone a chance of being the town hero. And given Flying Frog has such a great player-designer relationship its very possible they will hear the cries of their fans and seek to offer such options (more business for them and better games to up their PR would be welcomed I’m sure).

Visually this game is fantastic. Like their prior game "Last Night on Earth" all their cards are photographed which offer an immediate unity and a distinct look to any other board-game who more commonly focus on illustrations. The figurines, while few in number, are of a detail that would rival some of the bigger companies such as Fantasy Flight, Games Workshop and Privateer Press and add a nice touch that is not ignored. The game CD, while not great, is by no means horrible. I personally would recommend the composer focus more on providing ambience that would be similar to horror movie soundtracks (focus on heartbeat tempo, howling, whispers, paced breathing, scared faint voices asking eerie questions), which they do, but as it stands the CD has been listened to once and then put away in exchange of other soundtracks. While the music is unique and exclusive to ‘aToE’, it has yet to really add something to the game and if anything seems to distract more than enhance. However, a boardgame with its own Soundtrack is not a common move for any company and as far as advertising factors go, it does catch any buyer’s attention and I’m sure Frog will maintain this maneuver (hopefully the music will become more background music though in their next game and not something you’re expected to listen to on its own).

There is also plenty of room available for this game to be modified, and there are many variants around which are welcome additions to the game-play without removing from the game’s original design. Two of my own variants have been welcomed by my gaming group ("draw a second Mystery Card whenever the first card ‘Remains in Play’" and "Roll on the Villain’s Minion Chart every time the Shadow Track moves into a new section"), as has a third that has you place the Village Elder Tokens on spots of the board that most Heroes would never dwell on (i.e.: the fields, the bridge, marshland, town hall, and crossroads) which you must go to discover that Elder’s secrets. The fact that this game allows for such modifications, and is even encouraged by Frog, is very welcomed.

To summarize, A Touch of Evil is currently a co-operative game and quite a challenging one. Competitive is an option you can play though given its design was intended for heroes to work together you will discover a few fallings in its ‘default’ game play. Even so, the game is enjoyable and not broken to the point you can’t enjoy it as it stands now. We eagerly look forward to the upcoming expansions to see how this fun game will evolve further and to see what new horrors our gothic "Sleepy Hollow" Heroes will be summoned to defeat again, and again, and again.

Review: Bundeswehr:: Doug Murphy Quick Start Notes

GROGnads — Wed, 08 Jul 2009 07:16:41 +0000

by GROGnads

From the "grognard.com" 'site' with their LINK on this:
http://www.grognard.com/reviews/bundwehr.txt

While also presented here "just in case"

########################################################################

From: Doug Murphy
Subject: QuikStart Notes on Bundswehr

I have recently reacquired this game and been able to pull together my tattered notes on it. For your reading/gaming pleasure.

Bundswehr (Bu) is one of 4 battles featured in the SPI Quad game set known as Modern Battles II (along with Yugoslavia, Jerusalem and DMZ). Published in 1977, Bu is distinguished by two features nearly unique in all of wargamedom. Can you guess them? (See the end of this note).

22x17 map. 100 counters. Hex: 1mile. Turn: 12 hrs. Units are battalions or regiments. w/ attack/ defense/ movement factors and backprinted Untried.

NATO symbology. Arty has barrage / FPF (final protective fire) / range/defense / move factors.

Turn: Nuke weapons interphase / First player moves / combat / Second player moves/ combat.

Rigid ZOC. Mandatory combat between adjacent units: soak-offs allowed.

2 CRT: Mobile, with mostly retreats and Active, with exchanges/destroyed (bloody).

Retreats # hexes: A1, D1,2,3,4, BR. EX uses printed defense strength vs. printed attack strength. Displacement and advance after combat allowed. Arty can barrage, must attack adjacent enemy units and can use FPF to supplement another defending unit. Ground support points used as FPF and barrage in same turn.

Bu covers 1970s-era combat across the Luneburg Heath/ North German Plain...(see also later 3W S&T of the latter name for comparison). Units unrevealed until moment of combat (must make "exploratory" attacks at low odds to uncover). 22 bridges can be demolished by Nato with dr-(die roll). Note blown w/ a blank counter from another game...

Both sides receive significant reinforcements making the lack of a turn TRACK more than an annoyance. Use of nukes is optional and significantly impacts play. Nuke weapons chart is "fun" though: choose your weapon by yield all the way (for Soviet at least) up to 200 kt. NATO must use Mobile CRT save during 2 consecutive turns (counterattacking). Soviet has air supremacy mostly with a variable number of pts. 3 scenarios: initial attack; Nato counterattack; final assault. Victory on exiting units and capture greatest number of 6 cities. Final assault Scenario: Uses revealed (depleted) units and is most interesting IMHO. Map is murky green (lots of grove/forest/mixed hexes) with 4 rivers. No supply rules per se.

Soviet: 32nd Guards Mech div; 9th Armored, 20th Armored, 38th Armored, 8th Mech (E.Ger) vs. NATO: 7th Panzer Grenadier Bde, 8th, & 9th Panzer (Lehr) of 3rd Panzer div, 31st, 32nd, & 33rd Bde of 11th Panzer Grenadier div, 1st Royal Tank Regt, 17th/21st Lancers, 1st Gordon Highlanders, 1st Irish Guards, 4th Field Rgt (RA), 15th/19th Hussars...

Russian is awesome in arty attack in combination with use of Active CRT. NATO must use FTP to blunt attacks/ save units. Almost any grognard should be able to play this one within 5 minutes of scanning rules.

Distinguishing features:
1) Bu is one of the only wargames designed by a woman: Virginia Mulholland.
2) Bu is one of the only wargames of the "NATO/WPact" era without any American units.

Doug Murphy

########################################################################

Review: Doubloons!:: Where be me Pieces Of Eight!? (A Doubloons! Review)

JovenShadowcaster — Wed, 08 Jul 2009 07:05:44 +0000

by JovenShadowcaster

Before I go any further, let it be known that this is my first official BGG review. I have until now been content to trust other reviewers' opinions without the need to stick my two cents in, but once I noticed this little gem had received no reviews at all (to date), I thought I'd do some justice and let the community know just what they might be missing out on.

SUMMARY:

Doubloons! is a simple card game in disguise. Two to four players attempt to "evenly" divide the 40-coin loot between them, as pirates would; the game ends the instant every Pirate has 10 doubloons in front of them. However, since the loot is in varying denominations -- some worth 1, 3, 5, and a few worth 8 -- this means not everyone will have gotten the same value in loot; thus, the winner is the player with the highest share, and this generally takes about 20 minutes to achieve.

Another catch -- when you toss the doubloons on the table, they are played as they land; some face-up, some face-down, so you may not always know what you are taking or giving away until it is too late.

GAMEPLAY:

The game is exceedingly simple. The game begins by dumping the bag (or jar, or box, or whatever) of 40 doubloons on the table and spreading them around. Each doubloon is marked only on one side; you do not turn over the face-downs or face-ups, but play them as-is. The deck is shuffled, hands are dealt, and play begins.

Players will always have 3 cards to work with, each with different effects. Some tell you to take a face-up coin, some to give one to another player, some to make other players drop a coin, trade coins with you, and so on. All one does during his/her turn is play one of the cards, follow its instructions, and draw a new card to end that turn. Alternatively you may take a face-down coin instead or just pass, both requiring you discard a card and redraw anyhow.

Much of the fun comes in not knowing which face-down coins are worth what. You may always look at your own and mix them up, but you can never change their orientation. This leads to a lot of bluffing as you try and protect high-value facedowns and get rid of the cheaper ones.

The last few turns become more about forcing everyone to fill up on doubloons so that you can keep your high score and end the game. Since no player may ever hold more than 10 doubloons, this calls up some interesting strategies and predicaments to players who get too greedy -- or get forcefed too much junk -- too fast. As the deck dwindles, you wind up with less cards to do it with: if the deck empties, you do not re-shuffle, instead being stuck working with only the last few cards in your hand. At first, I thought this mechanic would lead to trouble, but lo and behold, the 50-card deck is exactly enough to do the job every time. So everyone gets their tenth doubloon somehow or another, then points are tallied, a winner chosen, and (more often than not) the doubloons get cast for another round.

MATERIALS:

Since this game is free and do-it-yourself, your components will be as good as the bits you make them out of. Frankly, my set probably cost me no more than four dollars in odds and ends I already possessed, and still came out fairly nice-looking, and the game thus attracts attention from people who later become amazed that it cost me NOTHING to dowload this game, yet still derive so much enjoyment from it.

Five pages of business-card stock will print the entire 50-card deck, or you could use regular printer paper like I did -- I cut out the cards, glued them to a deck of playing cards (Magic: The Gathering spares would work, too), and sleeved them in some extra premium card sleeves for heft and protection. After that, I marked up some old Dollar-Store poker chips to cast my first doubloons with a Crown Royal bag. Maybe it's a little "ghetto," but it gets the point across, and it's still a lot of fun. If one was so inclined, though, one might use real coin -- pennies, foreign currency, or SCA "Coin-Of-The-Realm" possibly -- to give the doubloons a proper gold-nugget "ching-plunk" sound and feel. this is, of course, up to individual tastes.

MY OPINION:

This game is a lot better than I had initially expected. In fact, since it was a freebie, I expected far less than what I got -- a game that's far better than a lot of the retail "filler" games that I own. It's a blast getting into fights over the rare Eights whilst always reshuffling your face-downs to make sure someone doesn't steal back their 5-spot, and ramming low-value coins down the throats of people you do not want to see do well. And throughout my many plays in the last few weeks, I keep uttering the same words -- "I can't believe I didn't pay money for this! This is awesome!"

I have also played a few games with 5 players -- the rulebook does not mention this as a possibility, but the game works quite well this way. You just have to remember to do the right math -- everyone caps and stops at 8 doubloons istead of the usual 10.

So whether you're looking for more filler for game night, or you're into medieval reenactments (SCA, anyone?) and looking for something period-ish to do during campouts, this game will tickle your fancies. But if you're a grognard looking for high-strategy and deep rulebooks, then this is not for you. This is a very light but very fun game, simple and elegant, easy to teach and learn, and very much worth the very little time needed to make your own set and try it out for yourself.

Thanks for reading!

Review: Lord of the Rings:: How To Completely Ruin A Theme

VixenTorGames — Wed, 08 Jul 2009 05:22:18 +0000

by VixenTorGames

There's a riddle in Germany. It goes, 'how do you get Reiner to make a bad game?' The answer is, 'make him start with a theme.'

That riddle isn't very funny. In all honesty, it's not even a real riddle. I just now made it up.

Real or not, though, I maintain that this riddle is true (that's probably why it's not funny). If you make Reiner Knizia start with a theme and try to build rules that match it, you're just begging for trouble. Everyone knows real Reiner games are supposed to have interchangeable themes, so you could make Through the Desert into a sci-fi game or make Kingdoms into a game based on a movie. Say, Beowulf.

So when Reiner Knizia starts off with Lord of the Rings instead of some wacky adding mechanic he came up with while he was fixing his calculator or counting his money, you know there's trouble a-brewing. And then make him take that theme and make it into a kid's game. If there was any hope of this being a cool game, it's gone now. But that's what he went and did in the Lord of the Rings game for children.

In this light-hearted adaptation of Lord of the Rings (you know, that trilogy about the ring that dominates minds, and the horrible entity that seeks it and destroys all before him? Yeah, that light-hearted story), the players each take on the role of one of five hobbits.

No, I didn't type that wrong. There are five hobbits. Apparently, you can play as Merry, Pippin, Sam, Frodo, or Brian Epstein. That's the hobbit who didn't make the final cut and was heartbroken to be left behind, until he found out that the other four had to get chased around, tortured, beat up, frozen and otherwise abused, while he was left home smoking a bowl of Longbottom and banging Sam's lonely girlfriend. Then he didn't mind as much.

So anyway, all the kids pick out a picture of a hobbit and they get a matching wooden token to move around the board. There's a path, just like Candyland, except that the path branches, so you can cruise through Moria and Mirkwood or take the scenic route through Barrow-Downs and Isengard. You roll a die and get to move on the path you choose.

When you get to a place with a name, there will be a disc with a picture of a friend or enemy. You can fight the enemies (hobbits were kick-ass brawlers, is what I hear) or befriend the friends. If you don't win the fight/negotiation, your turn is over.

The fighting system makes a huge amount of sense in a kids' game. There's a spinner with four spaces on it. One space has two red blocks. One space has three. One space has one block and a picture of a black bird, and the last space has a spooky red eye that your kids will see in the closet after you tuck them in and turn off the light. You spin the spinner and remove the number of blocks from the enemy, unless you roll the horrible red eye, and then your turn is over. If you've pulled off all the red blocks, your kung-fu is more powerful and Billy Preston is able to shiv the Uruk-Hai in its sleep.

These are obviously very tricky rules, which is why this game has a basic version and an advanced version. God knows your kids are suffering from Down's Syndrome, and could therefore not handle advanced rules until they mastered the basics of rolling a die and then spinning a spinner. In the advanced game, you can throw away your friend cards to avoid capture or take another turn. This advanced tactical possibility proves one massive, important point - there's no way Reiner has children, or he would know that they're not all retarded.

I would like to say that this Lord of the Rings game has limited strategic decision-making, but if I did, I would be exaggerating. That's like saying Death Valley gets limited rainfall. You roll the die, then you move, then you spin the spinner, then your turn is over. This is Candyland with hobbits and orcs.

Making games for kids is tricky, I'm sure. Chutes & Ladders and Cooties have apparently made game designers think our kids all have persistent brain damage from which they fully recover at age twelve. I don't know about you, loyal readers, but when I was six, my dad taught me checkers, and when I was eight, I played chess. I know seven-year-olds who can whip me at Connect Four. The point is, kids are smart enough that after they hit kindergarten, you can break out rules with a little meat on them.

Lord of the Rings fails completely for many reasons. First, if you're going to make a theme game, try to follow the theme. I can't figure out who this fifth hobbit is supposed to be, but I would love to know how he's able to throw a beating on the Witch King of Angmar. The Nazgul are represented by black wooden tokens that were evidently taken from a game about ravens, because they just look like big black birds, and they don't do a damned thing except move around the board and be a pain in the ass.

Another reason the game blows is because the game itself has no meat at all. The entire thing comes down the toss of a die and the spin of a spinner, and even kids are smart enough to see right through that. Any kid old enough to have outgrown Candyland will be bored to tears by this game.

Reiner Knizia is obviously a clever guy. He's able to make some really cool games with really cool mechanics. He's easily the world's most successful board game designer. But few game designers are able to so completely ruin a game. Other game designers would have to test the game for a long time and iron out all the kinks before they sent it to a publisher. For some reason, Reiner can crap out a game on a piece of toilet paper and get somebody to publish it, and every now and then, that's exactly what he does (metaphorically speaking, of course).

This concludes my series on Reiner Knizia. I'll go back to writing about new games tomorrow night, but in the meantime, sleep easier knowing that Reiner's Lord of the Rings kids' game is out of print.

Summary

Pros:
A very nice storage tray
Lots of wood pieces

Cons:
Takes the richest theme a game can have and ruins it
Somehow has four pages of rules designed for people too young to read
More luck than roulette
Five hobbits

Review: Beowulf: The Legend:: Ripping Off Arms and Killing Mothers as Heroically As Possible

VixenTorGames — Wed, 08 Jul 2009 05:21:13 +0000

by VixenTorGames

The other day I got a copy of a new Reiner game called Beowulf from Fantasy Flight Games. And today I'm reviewing a Reiner game called Beowulf, from Fantasy Flight Games, but they're not the same game. Blows your mind, huh? That, or I shouldn't write reviews when I've been drinking.

I'm not going to tell you about the new game right now (it's actually called Beowulf: The Movie). I might eventually, but right now I want to tell you about the old one (with the full title of Beowulf: The Legend). This is a series about Reiner games, and I'm swapping off between games I like and games I don't. This one is the 'game I like' Reiner game. In fact, this is more like a 'game I love' Reiner game.

I like games with themes. Maybe I just played too much D&D as a kid, and so I want every game to invigorate my imagination and tell me a story. Actually, I can virtually guarantee I played too much D&D as a kid, but that may or may not have anything to do with my love of games with themes.

Reiner Knizia doesn't specialize in themes. He's a math nerd, and his games are often mathematical exercises. Check out the Atlanteon review to see what I mean. For that matter, check out nearly any Reiner game ever made. Just about all of them entail more math than I generally want to do, whether I'm playing a boring game or balancing my checkbook. Beowulf is the exception, and it's a wonderful exception.

Unless you dropped out before your senior year (or you're under 16, and your parents would not approve of you reading my reviews), you've probably read the tale of Beowulf. But my 12th-grade English book left out a lot of stuff, like Beowulf raiding Friesland and becoming king and getting poisoned by a dragon. I hope I haven't ruined the story for you, but then, I don't really care. If you don't know the whole story, you will after you play this game, because Beowulf: The Legend starts with sailing to Denmark and ends with Beowulf's death.

In Beowulf: The Legend each player takes on the role of a friend and ally of the great hero. You join him on his exploits as he rips off Grendel's arm, kills the monster's mom, and all that other heroic stuff. And as you go, you try to get fame and fortune, so that when Beowulf finally dies, you can take over as king.

The mechanics of the game occur in episodes. One episode might be Sail to Denmark, where another is King Hygelac and yet another is Swedish Betrayal. At each stop along the hero's journey, players bid for fame, fortune and cards. Each stop is different, too - good things in Beowulf's story let you stock up on the cards you might need, while the dangerous scenes might just entail avoiding loss or injury, but might get you some fame or treasure as a reward for surviving the scene.

Each player carries a hand of cards showing axes, helmets, longboats and other Viking stuff. Each encounter where these cards come in handy shows two pictures, and players try to have the most of whatever is showing at that episode. If this sounds complicated, that's because it is. I'm not going to run down an eight-page rulebook in a game review, so I'll just tell you that it's fun. Players will be trying to out-bid opponents, weighing risk over reward, and plan for future turns while making sure they get what they need now. Sometimes it's worth getting scratched up by the troll to have the advantage when it comes time to hunt down Grendel's twisted bitch of a mommy.

Players compete at the big conflict episodes, and each player gets something. The highest bidder might get a bunch of fame, the second bidder might get a little gold, and the lowest bidder might wind up with a bloody nose and nothing else. But at the next stop, that lowest bidder is going to be holding all the cards, while those high-rollers have blown their wad and don't have any way to keep from getting curb-stomped by Swedish backstabbers.

Despite having rules more complex than I intend to relay in a game review, Beowulf is actually very easy to play. There are icons everywhere to remind you of what you're supposed to be doing, and everything tricky has a very clear description. I've played the game with a 9-year-old, and she understood it just fine.

This game is the optimal mix of Reiner cleverness and theme. The great story is inseparable from the game play, so you may not even recognize it as a Reiner game (I know I didn't). Then you get to the beauty of the rules and nail-biting decision-making, and you can really see the Reiner genius. If you like theme, bidding, strategy and long-range planning, you should get a kick out of Beowulf: The Legend.

Beowulf: The Legend has everything I like in a board game. There's great theme. There's fantastic strategy. There's tough decision-making. There's beautiful art. If the only Reiner games you ever play are Maginor and Beowulf: The Legend, you'll probably think Reiner Knizia is God's gift to gaming. I would certainly stop playing his games before you get to the Lord of the Rings kids' game, because MAN ALIVE is that a stinker. Like dead-body-in-the-sun stinky. It's so bad, I'm going to review it as the last game in this Reiner series, because that will be fun.

Summary

Pros:
Fantastic art
Great theme
Follows the story beautifully
Nail-biting strategy and decision-making
Great cutthroat bidding

Cons:
Takes a play-through to understand the rules

Review: Atlanteon:: 'Undersea Conquest' = 'Boring Math Game with Sea Monsters"

VixenTorGames — Wed, 08 Jul 2009 05:12:14 +0000

by VixenTorGames

My last review was for Maginor, which I really like. It's a Reiner game, and I'm willing to admit that he makes some really good games. What I want to emphasize, however, is that he also makes some of the most horrible, overrated crap you'll ever have the misfortune to hate.

Which brings me to Atlanteon. I will not beat around the bush here - this game really, painfully sucks. It blows my mind how many people say they like this game, because I couldn't find anyone to play with me who didn't think it was horrid.

I came to own Atlanteon when Fantasy Flight Games sold a whole pile of games really cheap, right around last Christmas. It was a great sale, and I scored some really fun games. When the box came it was like Christmas - which was a weird coincidence, because it really was Christmas.

I punched out and played the games as quickly as I could, so I could decide which ones I loved. A few rose to the top. Some were OK. One in particular sticks in my mind, the way images of starving African babies stay with you until you die. That one is Atlanteon.

The box says that Atlanteon is a game of undersea conquest. The theme for this game is so weak, however, that it could be a game of dogs marking trees, or bums taking each other's subway vents in the middle of a New York winter. In fact, you could strip the theme off the game completely without affecting it in any way at all. The box ought to say that Atlanteon is a game of boring math with some pictures of sea monsters.

The fact that there's a theme at all is almost an insult, except that the art is really cool. The board is a grid with this kick-ass painting of an Atlantean city, with a mean-looking mer-dude perched on either side (yeah, it's the same merman, they just colored him different). Even the pieces look like there should be quality in the box - they're heavy-duty cardstock and wooden markers, and they're classy.

Too bad Reiner Knizia couldn't have been bothered to make some rules that actually went with these pretty pieces. Instead the game is a sleep-inducing math class. What you do is, you get someone who you're pretending is your friend, and the two of you take turns putting down numbered tiles to try to surround spaces. You don't want to leave room for the other guy to surround a tile, and if you do have to leave room, you want to make sure your tiles all have bigger numbers than his. When a tile is surrounded, you add up the point values for every tile around it, and the one with the higher point value gets to say that tile is his.

That's pretty much it. If you've ever played that stupid game where you connect the dots and try to block off squares while you wait for your dental appointment, Atlanteon should be a snap. You put down tiles until both people are out of tiles or one dumb bastard gets his king tile surrounded, and then the game is over and you see how many tiles each player owns. There's some lame crap about who surrounds castles or what-not, but it's irrelevant - the game sucks.

I wanted to like this game. I bought it, paid money for it, and I hate it when I pay money for horrible games. I can tolerate a mediocre 'meh, we'll break that out when family visits' game, but 'hide this crap so nobody knows we own a copy' games really bother me. So I wanted to like it, and to make sure I hated it, I played Atlanteon four times. I had to find four different people to play it with me, because nobody else had paid for it so nobody else was willing to subject themselves to the game twice.

After four failed attempts, I had to admit that I really hated Atlanteon. I didn't just hate it because the theme was completely pointless. I didn't just hate it because the dark tiles used the exact same art as the light tiles. I hated it because it was more boring than long division.

Some people have asked me why I don't like Reiner Knizia. In all fairness, I don't entirely despise Reiner games. That's why I started this series of reviews with Maginor - that's a really fun game, and I don't want people to think I just dislike the man's games in general. He's obviously a clever guy, and when he puts his mind to it and does a little playtesting, he can make a great game.

But I have little patience for a man who could make great stuff and settles on making garbage he can sell. At this point, Reiner trades on his name, and manages to sell perfectly legitimate game companies total crap because they can put his name on it. When a game like Atlanteaon can be purchased at nearly every game store in the country, someone is a little too big for his britches (I mean Reiner, in case that wasn't clear). And when stupid suckers like me will buy these rotten chunks of mucal fungus because of his name, someone is too dumb to know not to buy a game just because it's on sale (in this case, I mean myself).

Now maybe I'm being too hard on the guy, but I tend to think that if Atlanteon had been Reiner Knizia's first game, there would not have been a second. I tend to think that Reiner's early games had to be better than his later games, because otherwise nobody would know who he is today. He's the Quentin Tarantino of board games (seriously, did anyone like the last half of Grindhouse?).

So now you know why I don't like Reiner games. I don't actively avoid his games, it's just that I don't really care if his name is there or not.

Join us next time when I'll review Beowulf, another Reiner game I enjoy. Then I'll wrap with one more I hate because it's as cathartic as beating rude children.

Summary

Pros:
It's from Fantasy Flight, so it's pretty
You can get it real cheap
Finished in five minutes, so you can go play a game you like

Cons:
Boring math game
Theme is completely worthless
Recycled art

Review: Maginor:: Reiner Knizia is Pretty Good At This

VixenTorGames — Wed, 08 Jul 2009 05:11:21 +0000

by VixenTorGames

Maginor is a pretty old game. I actually bought it long before I ever started reviewing games. It's from the Silver Line of games from Fantasy Flight Games. Since this is an older game, and it seems odd to review a game this old, I'll explain exactly why I decided to review it.

If you read my reviews very often, you may have noticed that I'm not a big fan of Reiner Knizia. You may be wondering why I dislike Reiner games (yeah, I'm going to be all flippant and refer to the man by his first name, despite never having met him, because I can pronounce 'Reiner' and 'Knizia' sounds like Polish food). So I decided to review four different Reiner games and be crystal clear exactly why I like to say bad things about the world's most well-known game designer. We'll lead off with a great Reiner game, and then I'll get into some real stinkers.

So back to Maginor. To start off, Maginor is not like most other Reiner games in that it has a fairly decent theme, one that doesn't feel like it was pasted on after the game itself was designed. The time has come to choose a new High Wizard, and the potential successors (the players) must garner the support of not just the wizarding council, but a panoply of oracles. Centaurs and dragons, witches and unicorns must all be wooed to gain their support, for without the support of these supernatural allies, you don't stand a chance of taking the top job.

So the players hit the election trail. They have spells ready to cast to impress these unearthly creatures, but time is not on their side, because the current High Wizard (his name is Maginor, which explains the game's rather silly name) is making the rounds and asking the oracles to commit to their favorite candidates. Players must travel quickly and persuade effectively to get the oracles to back them, because once Maginor talks to an oracle, the votes are collected and there's no point in going there again. Kind of like New Hampshire.

So far, this is almost as un-Reiner as a game gets. Theme in a Reiner game is like a baseball uniform on a little league team - you've gotta have one, but it doesn't really matter what it is. So for Maginor to lead off with a theme this deep means it's not your average Reiner game.

There are twelve oracles, each with different values. It's a lot better to get the big red dragon to vote for you than to get the wise old owl, for instance. That makes sense - the red dragon has lived for thousands of years, and is a powerful creature. The owl can only tell you how many licks it takes to get to the Tootsie Roll center of a Tootsie Pop. But the owl is easier to persuade, so players may focus on the smaller targets and let their opponents fight over the dragon's attention.

To get support from an oracle, a player has to travel to an oracle and then cast a spell using one of the four elements. To cast a spell, a player rolls a die that has six different symbols. If an elemental symbol shows up, the player places one of his vote markers on the oracle next to the corresponding symbol. If the star shows up, the player usually gets to choose which symbol gets the voting marker. And if the die shows the hat, the player still gets to choose, but Maginor moves forward. Choosing your symbol only matters in case of ties, because the top symbol always wins ties.

As Maginor moves forward, he talks to the oracles and collects their votes. If the players have spent enough time campaigning at a particular oracle, they get to collect the support of the oracle. Once Maginor completes his rounds and gets back to the High Council, support is added up and the player with the highest total support wins, and gets to be the new High Wizard.

If all you did in Maginor was move to a location, roll a die and wait to see who wins, the game would suck. It would be really boring, and my kids would probably want to play it all the time. They seem to have a soft spot for games that make me want to tear out my eyes. Happily,
Maginor has quite a bit more.

For starters, each player gets a handful of spell cards. These let the player choose which symbol to place on an oracle where they're standing, or lets them roll on an oracle where they're not standing. You can only roll for your location once a turn, but you can use all the spell cards you want, so you can use spell cards to force an oracle to throw all its support behind you in one turn. The trick is, once you use a spell card, it's gone. A smart player will save a few for the end, to have the deciding vote where he needs it, but if other players snatch up all the prime oracles early on, it won't matter if you do have spell cards left, because there won't be anything left worth grabbing.

Then there are second-place prizes at every oracle. See, the oracles will support the candidate they like the most, but they feel sorry for the runner-up, so they give them consolation prizes. I'm not sure why the Sphinx feels sorry for anyone, but if you come in second for his attention, he'll throw you a bone.

These runner-up ribbons can save your bacon, because these are really powerful spells. They let you move for free, or bump out another player's vote, or even reclaim some of your spell cards. In some cases, a player who wins an oracle may even decide to take the spell instead, because being able to break the tie at the High Council is worth a lot more than getting the support of some lame pixie.

I have played Maginor countless times. It is easily my favorite Reiner game, and one that gets pulled out of the game closet more often than most of my other games. That's impressive, especially because I have a lot of games. My kids like it enough to play it a lot, my wife will play with me, and my dad even plays with us when he visits. It's a really fun game that requires minimal setup and plays in about an hour.

Plus Maginor looks great. That's not a surprise - you don't see Fantasy Flight Games making ugly games on anything like a regular basis. I guess FFG is like a sorority house full of cheerleaders - now and then their stuff might be boring, but it's almost always pretty.

If Maginor was the only Reiner game ever made, I could get behind Reiner Knizia 100%. This game is fun, pretty and easy to play. It's affordable, too - twenty bucks and shipping can make it yours, and you can probably even find it cheaper somewhere. I heartily recommend Maginor to just about anyone who likes playing board games, because it's got enough theme, strategy and plain-ol' fun to please nearly any gamer I've ever met.

So why don't I like Reiner? I'll tell you next time, when I review Atlanteon. Because man, does that game suck.

Summary

Pros:
Really fun
Great art
Ridiculously affordable
Quick and easy to learn and play
Great decision-making with minimal luck

Cons:
There really aren't any. This is a really good game.

Review: TransAmerica:: First Impressions of Transamerica

ColinK — Wed, 08 Jul 2009 00:13:18 +0000

by ColinK

After a game of Ticket to Ride someone suggested we play Transamerica while waiting for another game to end.

A small orange box was pulled out and a map of the US was unfolded. Then a bunch of cards were dumped on the table. The game owner said, "Ok the game is setup".

]]>

image uploaded by werbaer

We were told to grab 5 cards. One of each color. There were blue, green, yellow, orange and red cards. Each card had a symbol in them to help with color blind gamers. (Often overlooked) The object to the game was connect all 5 cities while laying 1 or 2 tracks on our turn. Double spaces cost 2 "lays" while single space cost 1. Each space were short when the round ends costs us 1 point per track lay were short.

]]>

image uploaded by tabbysunlion

]]>

image uploaded by henk rolleman

The game had 3 rounds before someone ended up taking 6 points and pushing past the end game marker. Game time was under 30 minutes.

Pros:
1. Game is fast to play and setup
2. Rules took all of 2 minutes to explain
3. Game is very easy for new players to pickup and not feel intimidated by.
4. US map should be easy for US players to find the cities on.

Cons:
1. "Veteran" gamers might be turned off by a game with a 1 page rulebook and very simple gameplay
2. Limited "control" choices but the vexation expansion helps with this.

Summary:
Transamerica makes a good "gateway" or icebreaker game for new gamers. It does not have dice. Some people think games require dice to have fun. This game is a good introduction to "diceless" games. Once the new players want something "meatier" add vexation or its time to pull out a meatier game. This game makes for a good choice in the game library since "new" gamers should always be added and welcome to any gaming group to keep it alive and fresh.

Review: Flames of War:: FoW review – mid war period

Dzon Vejn — Tue, 07 Jul 2009 21:16:39 +0000

by Dzon Vejn

I’ll limit this post to mid war period, as it is the only period that I play, and which interests me (things might change if rules for early war come out).

I played hundreds of battles in many different wargame systems, so I like to consider myself able to comment on things like game-balance, army balance, rules complexity, and other stuff that people might be interested in.

That being said, I’ll start with saying that FoW is one of the games that has good balance. I played around 30 games so far, with my UK rifle infantry. Unlike with other systems, where you usually have 1 thing which is preferrable to “boost points into”, FoW is good, all-around game. Neither tanks, nor infantry, nor reccee teams are at big advantage compared to other models. Each unit / model has its own purpose, advantages and disadvantages. You need to make good combination of everything your army has to offer in order to be good overall. If you stick to only 1 thing, you’ll probably be very good in 1 field of war, while at big disadvantage at some other field of war. And that’s not good idea for tournaments .

As for army balance, I’d say that all “big” nations and some “small” nations are pretty much balanced out. There are some army lists that are just not competative enough for tournament play, because they can’t field “response” to everything that they can see on the table, but that doesn’t mean that you can’t play those same lists in casual play . And that mainly applies to “minor” nations (for example – Finnish tank army is as bad as Finnish infantry army is good ). I beleive that each nation, except for maybe Romanians, could be effectively played on tournament level. And every nation, with each of its army list is good for casual play. That level of equalness (where only 1 army is actually “underdog”) is not so common in wargames.

Regarding “money sink” part of this wargame, I’d say that it’s not as bad as with other games. For example, you can field good army, 1500 points strong (standard game) for some 100 pounds, through there are some armies that are a lot more expensive (USSR being the worst, with some 200-300 pounds for start). Still, even 300 pounds is less than you would spend on avarage Games Workshop army for warhammer / warhammer 40k. Not to mention that, unlike with WH / 40K, rules don’t have some big room for changing – game is based on history, so, for example, tiger tanks would always be great; there might be some small changes in rules, but nothing collosal, that makes you start from the scratch.

As for painting, miniatures are, of course, not as good as those in 28mm scale, they have loads of loads less detail, and when you look from above on your models on table, infantry models are smaller than 1 bean. That means 2 things – if you are not good at painting, it is great, because you can make good enough painting without any skill; and if you have good skill, you will still easly make your army stand out from other armies. For infantry models, I’d say that the most important part of painting, is modeling and painting your bases, because, unlike with bigger scales, your bases are actually way bigger than your models. So, if you invest some time in modeling your base, you would get good looking army. As for infantry models, base paint + single inking is usually good enough. Of course, if you are insane as I am , you can add lots of details. As for tank models, the best way would probably be painting with small air brush, because it allows you to get the best look on your models. Since air brushes can be as expansive as army itself (and even more!), you can still stick to good old brush. Your tanks would still look great.

Rules are not too much complex, althou they are far away from simple. You have a lot of specific, small, rules, and even after 30 games I still learn something new each time I play. Dice rolls are not as important as many people tend to say – I won last local tournament here in Belgrade, so I can say that with good tactics you would always increase your chances. For example – if you have tanks that are as good as opponent’s are, it’s not good idea to stand in open and try getting advantage with shooting first; because, if you miss things, you might easly end up dead. So the most important thing in game isn’t dice rolling, or strength of your models, but rather how good you are able to use terrain to your advantage, and opponent’s disadvantage.

Unlike with some of the games which I played, where terrain is there just for “cool look of the table”, terrain in FoW is “your best friend”... or “your worse enemy”. It is very important to make good use of each and every piece of terrain on the table. Don’t forget to agree with your opponent, before the game begins, which terain gives what type of protection, what blocks line of sight, etc.

Regarding the people that play this game, and this is the most important thing for me, unlike with other systems (primarly talking about WH / 40K at this moment), this system doesn’t attract some specific types, like “I must win”, “man without life”, and other titles, that, unfortunately, you can apply to many gamers of GW systems. At least that’s case here in Serbia (I don’t say that GW systems isn’t played by good people – in my ~15 years long carrer of playing GW systems, I met a lot of people, and some of them are my really good real life friends now). But I doubt that it’s much different in other countries either – first of all, game is history based, and not fantasy / SF based, which automatically cuts out lots of people that you wouldn’t like to play against (and I’m sad to say this, since I’m fan of fantasy games); next, with good balanced system, types that must win at all costs don’t take part in game. There are some other factors, like the thing that I’m 2nd youngest player in our community, with 25 years, but I won’t get much into them, because I don’t want you to drop asleep on keyboard while reading this paragraph . All in all, you end up with decent people, and you can have some really good time playing.

Also, I’m really, really not a fan of historical wargaming, yet I play this game. Because I like the way that game engine is implemented very much. I guess that speaks for itself.

I would say that this game is underrated, but I, of course, know that different people like different things. So, where I like all the aspects of wargames (modeling, painting, collecting, playing, and invensting good afternoon in a single wargame), other players might respect other values of games (fast paced systems, where you can start as soon as you buy your box, and which don’t last more than 2 hours).

Hope this review would help those that were “on the edge” with choosing to start collecting some army .

Cheers, happy gaming

Review: China:: Pictorial overview - A new spin on an old classic

citylife — Tue, 07 Jul 2009 21:00:18 +0000

by citylife

A new spin on an old tale can often provide wonder for a whole new generation of interest in a game. And so it is for China, a remake of the successful web of power that opens this game up to a new wave of gamers.

]]>

China is packaged in an unusual box. It is relatively shallow which is extremely good from a shipping point of view. Yet it makes up for the shallowness with an extremely large box otherwise. This is a similar size to your Fearsome floors box, or if you haven’t seen that, a generic monopoly set. I am fortunate I have one stack of boxes approximately this size, but don’t expect it to fit with your typical Rio Grande box.

]]>

The size of the box is required for the large board which takes up the entire box. This does, however, leave a significant space in the box which is now so big that an insert in required. Yes you have it, an oversized box for an oversized board and an insert covering two thirds of the box. Why they didn’t just fold the board twice instead of once I guess we will never know, but it makes for a unique box that may stand out on your shelf.

We are lucky though because the board is double sided, one side for 3 – 4 players and the second side for five. This is an innovative way to resize the playing field and I totally approve. There is nothing so bad as the situation in Powergrid where you need to place pieces of paper over the sections to avoid confusion for new players.

]]>

The graphics of the game generally are certainly bright, and it leaves you feeling a overwhelmed. A tinkers wagon would be put to shame with this board, as it is full of bright bold colours that can wear you out. Others have praised the board and there is no accounting for taste, but for me it is overdone. There are no pictures to speak of, except for a few sketches to indicate where to place your pieces. It is, however, extremely functional, and if you can cope with the visual assault then you will find this board easy to play on and conducive to a good gaming experience. No worries about spilling pieces or destroying the game. And as an added extra I can testify that it stands up well to coke which was spilled all over my board on the very first game. Fortunately a hand towel was handy and no permanent damage remains. So it is a robust board as well.

The playing pieces come in three types. Each player has emissaries and houses, while the black pieces are for marking the scored areas and for the advanced game. The first piece is the house, which are used most often by the player. Houses are used to gain area control in regions and to build chains of four or more houses to score bonus points. When all the house spaces in a region have been occupied the region is scored with the winner scoring a point for every house in the region and the second player a point for every house that the winner had in that region and so on. It is an innovative mechanic that encourages you to be in the region even if you can’t win, but also encourages you not to over commit to a region. Efficiency is king.

]]>

The second type of player piece is the emissary which is part of a different dimension of scoring. They are totally independent of the houses. Each player only has eight emissaries to put into up to nine regions, and they only score points when you have the most (or tied most) in adjacent regions. I was wrong to say the emissaries and houses are independent because the number of emissaries anyone can place in a region depends on the number of houses owned by the majority holder in that region. So you see there are many interactions between different elements and there is a careful competitive puzzle to manage.

]]>

The third type of piece is the fortress and scoring markers. They are black for contrast. As you can see all the pieces are solid wooden components, and are unlikely to break.

]]>

The last game component is the cards. In order to place a house or an emissary onto the board you must be able to play a card of that regions colour. The cards are simple, all they tell you is the region you may place in. As with the other components they are basic and functional but they are the same bold colours and won’t be winning any awards any time soon. Each player has three cards and can use a pair of the same card to place in any region or a single card of the region itself to play. Instead of placing, a player may instead choose to exchange a card with one of four face up cards, so there is plenty of flexibility. The cards are thin stock and I might question the long term durability for a game with so much handling, but this is not unusual for a board game and they are better than some.

]]>

There is a helpful mnemonic to remember the rules by. You may place in one region, up to two pieces using up to three cards. If the region doesn’t have any pieces in it then you may only place a single piece.

This is a game of opportunity, and because there is such a small hand limit, you cannot know what you will have in your hand next time, and so planning too far ahead is difficult. You can only do what your cards will allow you to do. Efficiency is important and the more often that you can play two pieces instead of one, the better.
The points scored in a region can change rapidly depending on how the cookies crumble, and so this can be very combative. Not just the fight for area control, but the small changes that cause large score fluctuation. For example if a region has 4 houses form one player and 4 from a second and 1 from a third then players one and two get 9 points and player 3 gets 4 points. If instead it was 4/3/1/1 then the scoring is 9/4/3/3 which is very different.

This is an incredibly quick game which you can expect to play in 20 -30 minutes once you are familiar. It balances time and depth perfectly allowing for a fulfilling experience in less than half an hour. It’s not a gorgeous game, but everything is functional and leaves nothing to question. And it is accessible, the wife loves it, her friends love it and the teenagers love it. This is a fantastic addition to any collection.

Review: Go Nuts:: Silly speed dice-rolling for kids, definitely not a party game

Blott — Tue, 07 Jul 2009 17:34:12 +0000

by Blott

In some of my past reviews I have mentioned that I have a soft spot for Games Magazine and their annual Games 100 issue that lists the 100 best games of the year. Of particular interest to me is the category of party games, because I have many opportunities to play them with my family. So, obviously, when I saw that Go Nuts was their pick for the best party game of 2008 I knew it was one I needed to seek out. It took me awhile, but eventually I tracked down a copy at a local bookstore. Since it was cheap, I knew I had to purchase it right away. But was it a really great party game? Read on...

What do you get with Go Nuts? In the box you get a rulebook, a score pad, a little pencil, 4 dog dice, and 5 squirrel dice.

How does Go Nuts work? Each player is given a dog die (which has 5 sides with a doghouse and 1 side with a dog on it) which they set off to the side for now. On a player’s turn they roll all 5 squirrel dice (which have 3 sides with a squirrel, 2 sides with an acorn, and 1 side with a car on them.)

If the player rolls any cars, those dice are lost. Each acorn is worth one point. After each roll the player can choose to save all the accumulated acorn points, or roll the dice that show squirrels and acorns to try for more acorns. If, at any time, all the dice show cars the player loses all accumulated points and the turn is over. But if a player is down to one die, and they roll an acorn on that die, they get to take all 5 dice back and keep going.

If, on any roll, a player rolls squirrels on all the remaining dice, they must call out "Go Nuts!" At that point all accumulated acorn points are lost and the player begins rolling the remaining dice as fast as possible adding up acorns aloud (and not losing dice if they show cars.) However, at the same time that the active player calls "Go Nuts," all the other players begin rolling their dog dice as fast as possible. As soon as a player rolls a dog on their die they must bark out loud. Once all the other players have barked, the active player stops rolling and scores all acorns accumulated in the Go Nuts round.

Play continues in this fashion until one player has saved 50 acorn points, and that player wins.

What does Blott think of Go Nuts? For a kids game I could see the appeal here. However, there just isn’t quite enough strategy to keep me interested. I find myself getting sick of rolling the dice after awhile with this game, which is weird for me. I do appreciate the way it keeps players watching during other players' turns, but the number of decisions seems to be so minimal. We also felt that the endgame was anti-climactic as one player could have only 45 points and if they get another turn racking up those last 5 to win is too simple. It feels like there should be a rule allowing the other players one last chance to catch-up and surpass the leader. I do think the game improves with fewer players, but it's still not anything remarkable.

Who will enjoy Go Nuts? I think Go Nuts is intended for children and parents to play with their children, and for that I imagine it would work. It could be considered a child's first step into push-your-luck games. But for almost anyone else I really don’t see the draw here, unless you enjoy games with lots of speed die-rolling. Thanks to half of the sides on the squirrel dice showing a squirrel, the odds of getting a Go Nuts round on each roll are fairly high, and sadly there is no strategy in those rounds. Gamers looking for strategy will not have fun with this game, and it’s really not one that works very well with a group of only adults. There's a few laughs, but nothing that is special to Go Nuts which couldn’t be found in other games.

Any parting comments about Go Nuts? It's hard to measure my disappointment with the fact that this was selected as the best party game by Games Magazine. There isn't a single thing in this game that makes me think of a party game. This should have been labeled a children's game, and not a party game. Also, I wonder what kind of super-lucky insanely-fast play-testers Gamewright had when playing Go Nuts. They labeled this game as a 12-minute game, but with 4-players we had to reduce the point goal to even get done in 15 minutes. All in all, I find this game to be decent fun for children and their families, but nothing special or unique for anyone to go out of their way to purchase.

Review: SEEKRIEG 5:: New Player Review

Roric — Tue, 07 Jul 2009 16:06:45 +0000

by Roric

Just wanted to post a few comments about my first game of Seekrieg 5 since it was such an awesome and unexpected experience...

Sat down by my lonesome for a solo game of SK5 last night, figured I'd run through a quick one before introducing it to other friends here. Ran a short range cruiser skirmish, Glasgow vs. Leipzig, with straight-forward setup options at around 13Kyds. Just got done reading through the rules in its entirety, only took a few hours or so to pull off (which speaks a lot to its clarity and simplicity, but we'll get to that in a bit) and now I was ready for some action.

For a little bit of background before we get to the meat and potatoes, I've always been interested in naval (and other) military history, but most miniatures and table top games I've played have been on the far side of light - A&A Naval Minis, Flames of War, etc. I'm normally geared towards games that are not too heavy, as they tend to bog down in the details even when there's a great core concept that lies beneath the weight.

I had been reading through a lot of this group's posts, along with other boards (TMP, BoardGameGeek, etc.), while waiting for the rules to arrive and the general consensus across the board was one of, "amazingly detailed but not hard to play." I'll be honest - while I had an open mind and was expecting a rule set that was straight-forward - I started to get a bit nervous after opening the package and scanning the pages as I dropped them into sheet protectors (which I definitely recommend doing immediately!). Sitting down and reading through the rules, though, was surprisingly fast. The main rule book is broken down into sections which cover all of the individual phases of the game rounds, with clear examples (which you can easily reference and try out yourself) on every item. I would read a passage on something seemingly complex-sounding like torpedo template movement phases or gunnery hit calculation and be saying to myself, "Oh, that's easy enough."

At this point, having read through all of the rules, my mental status was one of, "Well, it seems easy enough... but that's a LOT of easy stuff to remember!" I was ready to jump in feet first and see how it all fit together. I pulled a few minis out, printed the ship logs, grabbed my tape measure and markers, did all of the pre-game setup rolling... done and ready to go in about 10 minutes (took a while to find the markers, go me). With rules in hand I went through a few turns of setting the complicated bridge commands which... weren't at all... complicated... and maneuvering the ships about.

A few turns later we were in range for firing! Checking angles, measure the range, check some numbers, roll the dice... I'm done? That was too easy, I had to check my process again to make sure I hadn't missed any charts (which I hadn't). After checking for penetration, the Leipzig had managed to put a sizable dent on the rapidly approaching Glasgow. The speed at which I was able to run through the gunnery process surprised me, considering the detail and all of those varied damage effects.

Fast forward to turn 8 and both cruisers had taken multiple hits, some bouncing, some connecting hard - Leipzig was running on one screw at 11 kts and Glasgow had two raging fires and half of its damage control teams knocked out. Between deciding how to best control range with Glasgow and maneuvering to pour on more shells with Leipzig, the following thought hit me...

"Wait... this is it?"

I was, truly, past the rules and already in the Captain's shoes, so to say. No complex calculations, no fighting against the charts (which I think I used only 2-3 pages of)... just... Fun. With a capital F.

If you enjoy naval combat and want a high level of detail but are concerned about the weight of the rules, don't be. Get off the fence and definitely pick up Seekrieg 5.

Review: Sim City: The Card Game:: Review of a dead CCG: SimCity

Aarontu — Tue, 07 Jul 2009 13:21:07 +0000

by Aarontu

I picked up a couple starters and boosters for SimCity: the Card Game upon seeing it in a game store not too long after it was released (1995). The only extra sets they ever made for it were starters based on specific cities (there was one for Atlanta, Chicago, Washington DC, and New York). It shouldn't be hard to find cards cheaply online nowadays. Unlike most CCGs, you only need a couple starters to have all the cards you need to play.

As a CCG, it's sort of weird; Mayfair has managed to make a CCG devoid of most things that define CCGs. All players play from a common deck and lay cards (city blocks) to score points. Each card has a bunch of numbers on it (like value, population supplied or required, polution, and crime) along with depictions of power lines, roads, and/or rails, and a plain-looking photo of the building represented by the card. Everybody builds a single city together. You don't really get to screw anybody over and you definitely don't attack anyone.

Basically, on your turn you draw a card into your hand and play a card, gaining money equal to the "value" on the card you just played, plus any bonuses from neighboring blocks. The winner is the first person to accumulate $250. It feels like multiplayer solitaire and what you play (up until the endgame) is completely dependent on how lucky you are drawing cards. The good thing about it is that it's kind of fun to watch the city grow and develop. Kind of feels like the PC game (only slower, and YOU need to do all the math instead of the PC). Interestingly, the multiplayer aspect feels like a tacked-on afterthought.

The only part of the game that seems like it could be fun with a group is the voting bit. Whenever a player wants to rezone a block (replace an existing card) with a different type of block, players must vote on it. They can bribe other players, threaten, make alliances, or whatever. The biggest problem with this is that it seems like you'd need a group of at least 3 or 4 players for this to work. With 2 it just doesn't work at all, because one player is the "Mayor" and gets two extra votes and breaks ties. There are other cards, called "city counsil members" which will give you an extra vote or two just for getting lucky enough to draw them. The other problem with this voting bit is that there is almost no incentive to rezone anything, so I don't imagine it would even come up very often. The only time you'd really want to rezone is if you were placing one of those special long cards.

]]>(A couple of those long cards)

The long cards came one to a booster pack and are actually pretty cool (in theory). It's a super long card that takes up two blocks in the game, and can only be played as a rezone of two regular blocks. There was a bunch of weird and crazy long cards made, like Niagra Falls, the World Trade Center, the Pyramids of Egypt, the Panama Canal, even the Big Chicken! (a locally famous KFC in marietta, GA. Yes I'm serious) A lot of them don't make a whole lot of sense as long cards (I'm rezoning this office complex so I can replace it with the Pyramids?), but I guess it would make your little city... interesting?

Anyway, as far as scoring goes, there's way too much numbers to count and keep track of. Let's say, for example, that your city has an elementary school (with the text "add 1 to residentials within 5 blocks"), a well (add 1 to residentials within 2 blocks), a police station (that has coverage=7 and reads "add 2 to residentials/commercials/industrials that have police coverage." Police Coverage is calculated on an individual block basis; e.g. a block has crime=2 and is 4 blocks away from a police station with coverage=7. If Coverage - range - crime > 0, the block has "police coverage"), a swamp (subtract 1 from residentials within 3 blocks), 3 university blocks (that say "University 3"), and 7 other residential blocks. If you manage to stick a frat house (a residential block worth $5 that reads "University 2") right in the middle of it all (so that it gets all the bonuses mentioned), you will score $30! (base 5 + university bonus 9 + police coverage bonus 2 + zone bonus 13 + other bonuses/minuses 1 + 1 - 1)

Now, there aren't that many bonuses for the first phase or two of the game, but near the end of the game it can get annoying. Part of the annoyance is from having to constantly check over the text on a lot of your city blocks every time you place something, just in case it affects how much it's worth.

Another thing I don't like about the rules is the "zone bonus" you get when you connect multiple blocks of the same zone. This bonus gives a ton more than pretty much anything else in the game, and it discourages players from upgrading blocks. You can probably win the game by simply drawing the most residential blocks since the residential zone usually ends up being the biggest and gets you a lot of bonus points by the city phase. (I suppose this could easily be house-ruled to be capped at 5 or so, though)

I don't like the photos they used for the cards; most of them are pretty uninteresting and/or bland. I think this is was my first disapointment with the game, right from opening the box and seeing the cards. I think the game would look a ton better if the photos were taken from a bird's-eye view, or if they were simply illustrated from a top-down view. It would have looked more like a city during the game. And while I'm on the subject of card asthetics, the designers chose a strange color for the borders of the cards. Not black or white, like every other CCG I've ever seen, but green and purple. The actual FAQ answers the question of "WTF?" with the answer: "The colored borders have no significance to game play, card rarity, game editions, or anything else. They do make the game look pretty."
If by "pretty," they meant "garishly green and purple," then yeah, I guess so.

]]>Welcome to Green&Purpleville

Last complaint: the disasters are totally broken. Any damage done by a disaster (the total value of any blocks removed from the game) must be paid out of the Mayor player's pocket. A tornado event can demolish up to 25 city blocks, instantly making it impossible for the mayor to win the game. The fire disaster is unstoppable unless your deck is very heavy on fire departments. Most of the other disasters and events don't really affect the game much though, having effects ranging from very mild to pointless.

]]>Who doesn't want to play as this lovable ham?

The game does have some things going for it; it is sort of fun to place blocks one at a time and slowly build up the city over the course of the game. Your city needs a minimum population before you can place blocks belonging to the "Town" phase, and "City" cards cannot be played until you have a number of businesses and a power plant on the table, so the city does grow in a somewhat natural-looking fashion (first come woods, rivers, individual homes and agricultural stuff, then come businesses and industries, and lastly come all the "City" stuff like apartments, stadiums, and... the Big Chicken).

Another interesting thing it had going on was that non-residential buildings usually had a "sims required" number, and in order to place a block you had to be able to trace a path for that many sims in residential blocks to get there by either road or rail. It was kind of cool to see who worked/shopped where as you built stuff.

Oddly, I actually kind of dig this game, in a weird sort of way. I must be strangely attracted to games with strong themes and convoluted rules. Though it is sort of like the PC game (only more tedious), it's what I would consider a light city-building card game that has some strong theme and is low on confrontation, and it plays with two or three or more just as good as it plays solo. If you don't mind the math, it's really not bad as a mindless, casual, card-flopping activity that you can play with other people (sort of like Phase 10 or other mindless casual games). I'd play this over Phase 10 any day (is this praise for the game? YOU decide!).

Originally posted on F:AT.

Review: Battleground: Fantasy Warfare:: Game review by wargame fan

Dzon Vejn — Tue, 07 Jul 2009 11:04:33 +0000

by Dzon Vejn

Graphics on cards are so uniquely ugly, that I doubt that anyone can make so ugly graphics, even if they are giving their best. That is one of the main downsides of this game. I really beleive that anyone that started photoshop more than 2 times can make better graphics. Even my friend that proclaimed himself as technically-challendged would do better.

Regarding characteristics of each unit separately,I would say that cards are balanced (I played with wood elves, the starter pack that my brother bought) – each unit has some field in which it is good, and some other in which he is not so good. Big monsters showed as really a big bonus – treeman killed 2-3 units on his own (even through his point cost is high (444), he has great thoughness of 4, which means that almost all troops are going to wound him only on 1 (in this game - the lower you roll, the better), while he is going to wound almost anything on 5 or less on d6 (6 being auto-fail (there are some exceptions, but I won’t get into so much detail)), so he’ll, sooner or later, kill a lot of things (sooner or later due to the fact that his weapon skill is realtively low, so he’ll score hits mostly on 1-2). So, the armythat has big guy VS army that doesn’t have one is clearly in advantage. That is small downside to human, dwarf and high elf races, althou they have war machines that other races mostly don’t have, so I guess that should be balancing factor.

That leads us to shooting, which, even if it seems as really powerfull, isn’t anything special. Because, once you get to combat with your unit (and that happens realtively fast), the unit is immune to shooting. Also, shooting units tend to have some penalties for shooting (long range, moving,... ), and olny 4 dices to roll for hits, which means that they usually don’t do big damage. I don’t know how good would be all-shooting army, but I think that it wouldn’t be a good idea (because shooting models have penalties in combat, so once you get to them, they are easly killed).

Moral is VERY important in this game, because you roll it really, really a lot. All units have „green wounds“, „yellow wounds“, and „red wounds“. While you are in green wounds, everything is ok. Once you’re out of green wounds, you roll 1st morale test, and your characteristics start to drop. Failing morale test while out of combat isn’t so bad as it is in other games. On the other hand, if you fail morale test while in combat, you would usually get smacked. If you fail morale out of combat, ori f they don’t smack you right up, you have a lot of chances for rally. Units can rally on themself, you can rally them via orders (you have 1 order for each 500 points), and via various special cards. Ideal situation would be to get enemy unit within 1 box of „yellow wounds“, then close him in combat, and hope he’ll fail morale.

Regarding the balance between armies, I would still have to play-test it, althou, from the first look, it seems as if undead army is a bit better than other armies. They have less wounds than other armies, but they don’t have morale (which both means that you can’t rout him before combat, and while in combat, you need to kill him to the last), which is big boost, especially in combination with army specific rule, which allows you to regain wounds in exchange for orders (I already said that you have 1 order for each 500 points). Also, undeads have as core unit *which you must have 1 for each 500 points) yombies, which have thoughness 3, which means that they are very hard to kill, which is great in combination with their point cost of only 90 points (for example – cheapest high elf unit is 177 points). Yes, they are slow, having the lowest movement, but you have twice as many of them, and you are harder to kill (not to mention that you can use special card on them further boosting their thoughness, and thus survivability).

Regarding maneuvering – at the beginning of the game you give unit order ti each of your units, which is basically 1 of 3 options:
1) hold
2) advance (you can give primary target, in which case your unit will move towards that target, and you can set some point of the table as primary target, in which case your unit will move towards that point).
3) shoot (if you don’t have range, unit will move towards closest target, then shoot; you can give primary target, in which case, if you have multiple targets avaiable, you will shoot your primary target).

Each unit follows his unit order, unless you take direct control over unit (which costs 1 order point out of 3/4 you have in 1500/2000 point games). When you take control overu nit, you can EITHER move him anyway you like, disregarding unit’s order, OR change unit’s order for future turns.

You can’t choose not to move your unit (unless unit’s order is hold, or you don’t take controll over unit) if unit has order „advance“ – which means that armies are going to get to close combat really fast, which again means that they are not arrow-meat anymore.

When you get to the combat, you get to the festival of rolling dices. That festival is only just a bit better than playing yamb, because you do have those 3 relevant charactersitics – weapon skill VS enemy shield (substracting those values, you get what you need to roll on d6 to score hit, 1 is always hit, 6 is always miss), strength VS enemy thoughness (same mechanism as with weapon skill), and number of attacks (number of dices that you roll to hit). There are also some bonuses and penals, depending on the situation (archers usually have penals while in close combat, spearmen have bonuses VS cavalry and large targets, etc.), and apart from that, you can use ONE special card for whole combat. And then you have that dice rolling festival, until someone starts to flee, in which case he is probably dead (that’s why morale is very important characteristic), ori n worse case, he’ll be very wounded, so he’ll be dead soon.

Special cards, which I already mentioned several times, are gained each turn, 1 for each unspent order (orders are very important, so I think that 2 good generals wouldn’t have the situation that lots of people on this site argue about – in the late game, you have too much cards; taking good care of your troops with orders would allow you to put enemy in yellow / green health boxes early in the game, which means that you can make him flee from the front line BEFORE dice rolling festival begins). Also, when you are building your army, you can buy 1 special card for each 25 points invested. Special cards give some bonuses to you, or some penalties to enemy. There are various cards for various situations, so you need to take care of your card management – using much cards would give you advantage in that moment, but you would get cardless, so next turn, you would be in big disadvantage, so getting cardless is big penalty.

Since evey army has it’s own deck of special cards, cards are, of course, drawn random, which is another minus to the game for me.

Game isn’t as fast as I originally thought (probably due to the fact that this was our 1st game – I beleive that with more experience, it goes faster).

So all in all...
Pros:
- you don’t need miniatures, nor painting, and you have „army“ really cheaply. You can carry everything in a pocket, and you can play a game on avarage kitchen table.
- being unable to take total control of your units is good idea
- I beleive that you can finish a game in 45 min, with setting up before game and packing up after game, when you get to know rules good. On the other hand, several great board games (and this game definately isn’t in category „great“) can be played in 90 min, so I’m not sure that I would choose bettlegrounds over some other game (personal preferance – other players might have different opinion)
- solid game for 2 players which don’t have a lot of space for playing and/or don’t have a lot of free time and/or money and/or willingness to paint/collect models (I’m just going to say that my really good friend, which really isn’t good painter, painted his 200+ models goblin army in 10 days of casual painting – tabletop quality)
- I think that number of combinations, combined with number of armies gives good replay value
- you know EXACTLY what you are going to get in each pack. That means that I, for my $X, get the „same“ as you do for your $X (conditional „same“ because of the different armies). Unlike with other CCG games where you can buy 20 boosters and get nothing, while you opponents gets great cards in his 20 boosters, so you can’t play against him at all.
- the game is probably good for those that would like to play wargames, but don’t want to spend tons of money and time in models and painting.

Cons:
- graphics are SO AWFUL, that I can’t imagine getting it worse
- being unable to take full control of your units ends up in either spending few special cards and manually controlling your army, or you are going to have kits of special cards while rushing to combat. In both cases, you get to combat really fast (because the playing table is small), and when you get to it, you get to the festival of rolling dices. The idea of being unable to controll all of your troops is good, but the way in which they implemented that idea is not so good (at least for what I like – some other players may see this as totaly positive side of the game).
- Even through you need relatively few bucks, for about the same cash, you can buy avarage priced board game. Since, of course, you can’t play with yourself alone , that means that avarage „gaming crew“ of 5 people (most board game sare for 5 players), could buy 5 board games for that value (or let’s say it is 4 board games). 4-5 good board games, that gave WAY better graphics and game content, and even rules. This is general problem of all CCG games – as soon as 5+ people start buying, we are talking about some serious money boardgame-wise. Just for example – I looked at age of gods board game today, and even through rules aren’t what I like in board games, you can buy the game for about the same money as battleground starter deck and reinforcement deck. Age of gods comes with AMAZING graphics (I haven’t seen so good graphics on board game in a while), and as far as I was able to read reviews – with less uncontrolled randomness (controlled randomness is ok for me).

I would most probably buy battlegrounds at some moment (althou it is not a priority at the moment), because I don’t have a game of that type yet – game engine that is playable, 2 player game, fast paced, and doesn’t take too much space.

Also be aware that I’m great fan of wargames (I have several (which is more than a few ) armies for both warhammer and warhammer 40k, and I have big army for flames of war, etc.) so my view is baised a bit I guess. Of course, different people might like different things, and there are probably those that really don’t care about graphics (I considered myself belonging to this group, untill I saw battlegrounds ).

So much from me... wish you good gaming

Review: Notre Dame:: Notre Dame as a 2 player game

sa266 — Tue, 07 Jul 2009 09:46:22 +0000

by sa266

Notre Dame is a particular favourite of one gamer friend, so whenever he comes over it comes out. Surprisingly, between his visits it doesn't get chosen as often, despite the fact that it's a game I always enjoy - too much competition, and I think we maybe overplayed it when it first came out! However we've tried it 2 player a few times recently, and this may be a way to get it played more!

Rules - how are they different in a 2 player game?
There are no actual rules differences with 2 players. The rulebook clarifies a couple of rules with 2 - you use the 4 player board centre, flipped to the 2 player side, and 2 player boards. When passing cards, as you draw 3 and draft them with your opponent, you will get one of your own cards back.

How is the game different with 2?
The game feels very similar to the multiplayer game. The differences in strategy/feel of the game are all very subtle ones, and don't greatly affect gameplay at all.

Notre Dame cards tend to be kept more often, unless you're short of cash and/or really need one of the others. Passing it guarantees your opponent 6 points if they want them, and that's a lot to pass up. In a multiplayer game where often 2 of 4, say, will go into Notre Dame, it's much easier to pass those cards. Similarly early game the Park cards don't tend to get passed, to block your opponent from getting the park victory point bonus too early.

There is an element of blocking your opponent which also comes in in the multiplayer game (blocking your left-hand neighbour from the cards he really wants), but which is more worthwhile in the zero-sum 2 player game. For instance if your opponent is short of cubes/cash, you can make sure not to pass your cards that give him those things, which means he relies on drawing his own.

The fact that you get one of your cards back can also add to your strategy decisions. By predicting what your opponent will pick, you can sometimes pick your first card and guarantee yourself a third card that is also useful to you. It doesn't always work though!

The final difference is that the game is quicker with 2, as it's a game that takes a certain amount of time per player. I was surprised last night to find that our game had only taken just over 20 minutes.

Verdict
I'll happily pull this out with 2 players more often, especially now that we don't play it so often multiplayer.

Review: Dungeon:: A classic game that feels like an introduction to a "monty haul" campaign with a fair dose of nostalgia

EyesOfWolf — Tue, 07 Jul 2009 06:47:13 +0000

by EyesOfWolf

General Information
Number of Players: 2 - 8
Length of Game: 30 - 45 minutes
Difficulty of Game:
Strategic Depth:
Fun Factor:
Popularity at local game night:

NOTE: There are multiple versions of this game. I have never seen or played the original 1975 version. I have the 1981 version. I am told that the games are virtually identical. The only major difference I am aware of is that the 1975 game board is larger and you can fit the cards in the rooms for monsters and treasures.

Overview
You are an adventurer - either a hero, a superhero, an elf, or a wizard. And, like any good adventurer who hears about a nearby dungeon filled with monsters and littered with treasures, you decide to investigate. You will meet and kill various dangerous beasts and rob them of their treasures - or die trying. Once you have enough wealth to satisfy your desires, you must get out of the dungeon alive. The first player to do so wins the game.

Game Materials
I would rate the materials for this game of good quality. Despite the fact that the game is over 25 years old and has been played frequently throughout those years, the board and cards are still in good shape. True, the cards have some fraying at the edges, particularly at the corners, but that is to be expected for a game this old. The game board is has stayed glued to the cardboard backing and has held up well - even with the various tumbles and falls that happen when playing with young children and over the course of various moves. I find the game board itself to be very well put together: there are several pictures of monsters and treasures embedded in between the walls of the rooms that adds to the ambience of the game. The monster and treasure cards have good, if repetitive, art. By the third or fourth time you come across the goblin card with the same picture, it's hard to care about how well it is drawn. All in all, good quality that has stood a long test of time and usage.

Play Summary
Each player starts by picking a character type. The different characters have different strengths to offset each other. For example, the hero and the superhero just do well in combat. Obviously the superhero is better at it than the hero. To balance this, the superhero needs to acquire more treasure before he is able to leave the dungeon and win the game. Conversely, the elf, who is the weakest fighter, still needs as much treasure as the hero. However, she can detect secret doors more easily to compensate for the combat deficiency. Wizards are the most powerful, strategic, and, in my opinion, fun characters to play. In most cases (a witch or evil wizard being two exceptions), they do not do well in combat, but they have the advantage of being able to start the game with spells. And rather than fighting in hand to hand with a monster, they can launch spells into a room that they are standing outside of. Because of their power, wizards need to collect the most treasure to be eligible to win.

The board is divided very clearly into six levels. The levels, as well as the monster and treasure cards, are all color coded. This makes it very easy to know what level you are on. As you go lower in level, the monsters get tougher and, as a general rule, the treasures get bigger. Woe to you if you find yourself as an elf stuck somewhere on level 6!

Each turn a player rolls a die for movement. Then you move that many places in any direction you choose - turning as you wish or even back tracking in the same move if you desire to do so. If you enter a room with a monster, all of your remaining movement is lost. Any room without a RIP counter has a monster in it. If it is a new room, the monster is drawn randomly from the top of the deck. You then roll two dice to see if you can defeat the monster. Each monster card has all of the classes on it, as well as the listings for fireball and lightning bolt. Next to each class or spell is a number. You need to roll this number of higher to defeat the monster.

If you defeat the monster, you discard the monster card, draw a treasure card - as well as take any treasure that was in the room, and put a RIP counter in the room. Your turn is now over and play proceeds to the next player. If you lose, you must roll two dice and consult the monster attack table in the instructions. The results could be anything from "The Monster Missed" to "You Die". After you go through the steps described in the monster attack table, your turn is over and play proceeds to the next player.

There are a few special things that need to be considered. First of all - the wizard. The wizard has the option of stopping outside of a room and firing a spell into the room. The downside is that it uses one of his limited spells. Also, if it is a new room, he must choose the spell before he knows what the monster card is. On the upside, if he loses, nothing bad happens to him.

Some rooms could have traps - ones that either make you lose a random number of turns or ones that make you slide to the next level.

There are also chambers - large rooms on the level that each contain three monsters and NO treasure. These are often strategically placed such that you need to navigate through them to get to more rooms or back to the entrance. When you enter a chamber you draw an appropriate level monster card and fight it. If you win, you put a RIP counter in the chamber and you can move out on your next turn. A chamber becomes safe once there are three RIP counters in it.

And finally, to help you in your quest - there are several magic items that provide bonuses to your character. Some of these bonuses will help you in combat. Others enable you to see secret doors. A final card - the ESP medallion - enables you to see what the monster your are about to face is before you fight it. This is especially useful for wizards who must otherwise choose their spells blindly.

Once a player has enough treasure, they do not immediately win. Instead, they must first make their way back to the entrance chamber and leave the dungeon. If they happen to die on the way back, someone else could claim their treasure and win the game in their stead!

Play Experience
This game truly feels like an introduction to a class monty haul campaign. For those of you who are not familiar with the term, it describes a campaign where your entire purpose is to enter the dungeon, find the monsters, kill them, take treasure, get more powerful, repeat. That is the entire depth of the game. In a role playing game, that is often viewed as a negative thing. However, this is not a role playing game; it is a board game, so it works.

This game is very simple to explain to new people and for me, it has a large amount of nostalgia behind it. To be honest, without the nostalgic factor, this game does not stand up well to today's standards. That being said, I do think that it is a classic and something that you should give a try if the opportunity presents itself. It is the type of game that I think will have a nostalgic factor for anyone who plays role playing games, even if they didn't specifically grow up playing Dungeon.

This game does work well for younger players. For players who are looking for strategy, they should definitely choose the wizard. The wizard has the most strategy involved in this game. It is entirely possible to win this game just be walking to the nearest room, killing the monster, looting the room, repeat until game over. For players looking for a good strategy fix, this is not it.

Notable Praise
Nostalgia, nostalgia, nostalgia. This game has a huge amount of that going for it. As I said previously, I think that anyone out there who grew up playing role playing games will recognize the nostalgic element of this game. That is what keeps me coming back for more. I have much more strategic games to choose from, but this one, despite its age, is one I know I will never part with.

This game is also very simple and very quick. Once you explain the rules, which takes all of a few minutes, you will be ready to go and can likely finish your first game in under 45 minutes. With players who have played before, I would be surprised if games lasted over 30. In most cases, they don't. This makes this game fill in well as quick filler if waiting for others to finish up a round of something else.

Notable Gripes
One major gripe that I have about this game deals with what happens when you lose to monsters. The problem is if you are supposed to drop treasure and leave the monster in the room. The board game is not large enough to hold the monster and treasure cards, so you need to place a numbered counter both on the room and the pile of treasure/monster. This is inelegant and annoying. This is something that was apparently not the case in the 1975 version and also is not the case with The New Dungeon.

The simplicity of this game often leads my gaming group to choose The New Dungeon over this game. The boards are almost identical (with the latter one being larger so the monster and treasure cards can fit on the board), but The New Dungeon has the option to steal from other players as well as damage, getting healed, and more character classes. It adds significantly to the strategic element and is simpler to use because of the larger board. As a result, once The New Dungeon was added to the collection, this version of Dungeon was left to collect dust.

Summary
I truly believe this game is a classic and will appeal to players who want to enjoy gaming roots or who like to have a full gaming collection. I think that people who grew up as role players will get an especially big kick out of this game and highly recommend it to them if you can find it for a reasonable price. That is especially true for gamers trying to introduce their children into games. This makes for a great younger game in my opinion. For other people, particularly ones looking for something exciting or strategic, I would say to pass this one by. It does not have a lot of meat behind it, and I think anyone going into this looking for a strategic game where every choice matters will be sorely disappointed.

Review: Three For All!:: Pyramid plus Tribond equals a game with no point.

cardshark28800 — Tue, 07 Jul 2009 02:15:26 +0000

by cardshark28800

I like the idea of the Tribond puzzle, but I've never liked the implementation of the game. Rolling and moving seems so...banal these days. But when you put Tribond in a "party game" format I'll give it a look. Unfortunately, the experience is less than the sum of the parts. You'd do just as well to throw out everything but the Tribond cards. Three for All is an excuse to repurpose the Tribond name in another game.

Sort everyone out into two teams. One person takes a card and gives clues to get his teammates to say the three links on the cards. Clue-giving rules prevail: you can't say the words on the cards, or the Bond that joins them. The team has sixty seconds to finish their round.

The rules say that either team may guess at the "link" portion, which seems odd, for reasons that will be evident in a moment. After all three links are guessed, now the guessers must come up with the correct Bond. Any player who thinks he has the answer slaps the button on the "Buzzler" (the countdown timer to you and me). If he's right, he scores from 1-8 points for his team, according to a secret die roll before the rond. The scoring team takes that many marbles and fills their tray.

If the opposing team steals the round, they score that many points and take control of the next round. If they were wrong, they lose that many marbles, and the guessing team may guess, making a sixteen point swing a possibility.

The first team to fill their tray with 28 marbles wins the game. This could take anywhere from four rounds to 28, because of the roll of the die.

So what you end up having is something that looks like two games in one, but is really just one game with a preamble thrown on to make the game longer, but not any more fun. I would have preferred a new way to score points with the Tribonds; like points for however much time you have left, or for using fewer than three clues. But alas, this is not what the folks at Patch had in mind.

The presentation is nice, if a bit over the top. The marbles look neat and the visual effect of filling your tray looks clever, even if you could just peg holes on a track or write down your score. It ends up being a way to add price to the game without adding value. The same goes for the Buzzler and the die that it holds.

If you like Tribond, give this a pass. You can find more play for your gaming dollar elsewhere. If you like clue giving games, look elsewhere, because the same is true for that aspect too. I cannot think of a single reason to own this game.

Review: The Bridges of Shangri-La:: Bridges Made to the Highest Chinese Standards

VixenTorGames — Tue, 07 Jul 2009 02:10:49 +0000

by VixenTorGames

If my memory of geography serves, Shangri-La is somewhere in China. Maybe Tibet, but then, that's part of China now, thanks to the fact that the government of China is primarily composed of power-mad assholes. And when you look at the bridges available between the various mountain peaks in Shangri-La, you can see the superior Chinese construction. Because every time someone uses one of these bridges, they break. That's an even worse track record than the Army Corps of Engineers has with levees in New Orleans.

The neat thing about tonight's game (appropriately titled 'The Bridges of Shangri-La') is that it plays off this shoddy Chinese construction to create a very interesting and fun game. It's not often that art imitates life so well. Not only do we get to learn more about how pathetic a job the Chinese people did when they assembled all the bridges (apparently using wrapping paper and Elmer's glue), but we get to learn a historical lesson about ancient Kung-Fu masters.

Each player starts off with a handful of Kung-Fu masters, each with different specialized abilities. These abilities have absolutely no effect on the game whatsoever (which means that the guy who just looks at the stars all night is exactly equal to the dragon-taming bad-ass), but it does allow us to tell them apart. The dragontamer has a dragon on his counter, the rainmaker has a rain cloud, and the romantic idealist who spends all night looking at constellations has a little silk hankie (not really - it's stars). If there were more dragontamers and fewer stargazing pansies, maybe they could have beat up the Chinese invaders before the Dalai Lama had to go on permanent sabbatical.

Every turn, you can add a master in a village where you have one already, or you can train some students where you have masters, or you can send the students packing to another village. And because all of these bridges are essentially a long string of shoelaces tied together by some Chinese worker making 2 dollars a week and sleeping under his desk between his 16-hour shifts, every time someone uses one, it breaks. The students get across, and then BAM, the bridge is destroyed. Planned obsolesence keeps that impoverished Chinese assembly-line worker employed! Lucky him. Just four more months, and he'll be able to buy a roll of toilet paper.

This bridge-breaking thing is important, because once a bridge is down, it's gone, and the villages are permanently separated. So you have to time that trip really well, because it's the only one you're going to make. If you travel to a stronger town and they beat up all your students, they have to climb down the mountain and take up a career in goat-herding. That, or they have to go work in a factory where they make just enough money to buy a Big Mac, as long as they don't buy anything else all year.

This is a really clever, really tricky game. You have to time your moves carefully - make a new master when you shouldn't, and he might get kicked off the mountain before he gets a chance to train anyone. But add some students at the right time, and you might be able to ward off invading students (but not Chinese soldiers - they don't care how much Kung Fu you know. They have guns). Travel at the right time, and you could strand your opponent in a weak position. Travel at the wrong time, and you might as well just leave your students standing in the middle of the bridge when it breaks.

To be honest, I'm kind of surprised I hadn't heard a lot more about Bridges of Shangri-La before now. It seems like the kind of game that would get Reiner drones all frothy. Maybe since it's not from Reiner, it dropped under the radar, or maybe it just didn't make a big enough appearance early on. Whatever the case, this is a remarkably fun game. I really enjoyed it, and would definitely play it again.

What I would not do, however, is travel around Shangri-La without a parachute. Those Chinese-made bridges are seriously unstable.

Summary

Pros:
A few rules make a whole lot of game
Timing is critical - lots of tough decisions
Good mix of strategy and tactical positioning

Cons:
Pictures on the counters are a little bland

Review: Song of Blades and Heroes:: Song of the Splintered Lands Review

grubman — Tue, 07 Jul 2009 01:32:24 +0000

by grubman

Song of the Splintered Lands
A review by: Dave Bezio (aka grubman)

Introduction

Song of the Splintered Lands (SotSL) is the 3rd official supplement for the Song of Blades and Heroes “fast play fantasy skirmish miniature rules” from Ganesha games ( http://www.songofblades.blogspot.com/ ).

This supplement is a bit different from the first two (which mostly include new rules and expansions). SotSL is a primarily a campaign book (although there are several new rules and expansions included in those campaigns). It includes a brief campaign setting and 3 campaigns designed to play in that setting. In addition, this supplement is made in conjunction with Splintered Light Miniatures, so it has an “official” line of miniatures to accompany the supplement (a review of this miniature line is included after the main review of the SotSL review).

This supplement informs you up front that it is not a stand-alone product, and you need the SoB&H rules to use it, and it recommends the other 2 supplements as well (Song of Gold and Darkness & Song of Wind and Water). For the most part, you don’t need the other 2 supplements, BUT, some of the special abilities listed in the troop profiles are from those supplements. It’s safe to say you will want the other two supplements to get full enjoyment and use of SotSL.

My opinions in this review

I’m a huge fan of Song of Blades & Heroes (you can read my review of that game here: http://www.rpg.net/reviews/archive/13/13575.phtml ). That being the case, I took special care to separate my personal opinions from the facts. My opinions follow each section indicated by “grubby sez”, read them if you like, or ignore them if you don’t care.

The Look of the Book

This review is of the PDF copy of the book (also available in dead-tree from Lulu). The book is 40 pages long (including a 1 page advertisement) with black and white double column interior and full color cover. The print is easy on the eyes (probably a 10-12 point font). The book is profusely illustrated, and there are only 8 pages without some sort of illustration.

grubby sez: As usual, Ganesha Games delivers an attractive product that makes locating things quick and easy. Many of the illustrations are, in fact, actual photos of the Splintered Light miniatures and fit the book very well. Many of the original illustrations, obviously made specifically for this book, are really top notch and some of the best in the line so far (Including the cover that is sure to suck in anyone who likes the idea of sentient animals in a fantasy setting). A few pictures are reprints of ones we’ve already seen in past supplements…some more than once. Also, there are some ugly clip art ones jammed in for no other reason (that I can see) than to fill a little space. IMHO we could have done without these.

The Setting

The first 10 or so pages of the supplement describe the setting of the campaign, including a map. It is concise and for the most part well written and enjoyable to read. The obvious slant is toward creating a chaotic war-torn backdrop for miniature battles.

The premise of the setting is as follows:

There is a land to the south (Wyldewood) that is controlled by a nameless Druid (there has always been a Druid and the current one picks his successor from a pool of apprentices when he is ready to retire. It implies that the Druid is usually an Elf, but never specifically says. In fact, other than this causal mention, Elves aren’t really detailed further in the supplement at all.) and populated by his “children”. The Druids Children are talking, tool using, sentient animals.

There is a land to the north called the Moonglade, where King Shade of Nightfast dwells, controlling orcs, goblins, and all forms of nasty races and creatures (including the enslaved Kobolds). He worships the darkness in circular forest glades called, what else, Moonglades, and desires to take over Wyldewood by hook or crook.

In between the above two lands is Mountain Home, the home of the Dwarves, who ally themselves with the Druid of Wyldewood. Another central land is the “Dark and Bloody Ground”, an area that is highly contested and where many of the battles can take place.

King Shade wants to invade Wyldewood and create a moonglade (a place of darkness worship and power) there to lessen the Druids power. The Druid has infiltrated Moonglade and built several fortified hamlets on his borders in an attempt to push back and destroy King Shade. The Dwarves, allied with the Druid, are just sort of along for the ride (and give you the option to include different miniatures in your army).

To add to the chaos, both sides have set the seeds of rebellion in the other army’s camp. King Shade has convinced some of the carnivorous animals (such as foxes wolverines, rats, weasels and pine martins) that they should be eating their sentient peers (the rabbits, mice, squirrels, otters, hedgehogs, badgers, and moles), and the Druid (along with the help of the Dwarves) have been secretly helping the Kobold Slaves become powerful enough to mount their own rebellion against King Shade.

grubby sez: What’s not to love about this setting? I have a soft spot for talking animals, and this setting really highlights them. The setting is concise enough that you can really wrap your brain around it and make it your own. Most importantly, it is a great backdrop and excuse for a ton of varied battles. If people take their fantasy very seriously, they might find a setting with talking animals sort of silly. I’m guessing those people won’t pick up the supplement in the first place.

The Campaigns

The bulk of the book (about 20 pages) describes 3 campaigns that you can use in the setting, The Flowering and the Faithful, the Kobold Rebellion, and A dark and Bloody Ground. As far as Victory Points and running a campaign, they use the basic rules found in the core SoB&H rule book, but also offer many variances.

The Flowering & the Faithful

“The Flowering” is the ironic term used to describe the rebellion of several carnivorous animals in the Wyldewood. In this campaign the rebellion either gains serious momentum, or is crushed (at least for the time being) by destroying the rebel leaders. The campaign includes stats for the leaders of both sides, rules for fighting unequal battles (determined randomly at the beginning of the battle), rules for using “dummy markers” (chits that represent real troops and fake ones, so your opponent can’t determine the size or location of your troops until he can actually see them), and secret missions (that each side chooses before the battle for additional victory points or new victory point conditions).

grubby sez: I love the premise of this campaign, and the stats and information on the two factions and their leaders are both cool and useful. The rules for variable strength warbands really throw a random factor into the mix that will be interesting in play. I definitely plan on running this campaign asap. But…I feel an otherwise great idea is slightly marred by the inclusion and extensive use of dummy markers. Some of the missions even involve you trying to make it to the end of the table without revealing your dummy markers. I play this game because it uses miniatures! I don’t like the idea of moving around chits instead of miniature figures as much as is required in the campaign. Others may really enjoy this new aspect, however, and it does open up the possibility of several new types of scenarios.

The Kobold Revolt

The Kobold Revolt is a campaign that takes place inside Moonglade with the Kobolds revolting against King Shades forces (of goblins, bugbears, ect.). The campaign is further broken up into 3 “stages” (hit and run, hit and hold, and all out war) which are sort of mini campaigns themselves. The campaign determines the success or failure of the Kobold Revolt. Added to the main story is the interesting element of the Battlebeast, a dinosaur that the kobolds can use in the stage 3 battles (before then, they are simply trying to smuggle the beasts eggs into tactical locations).

grubby sez: Again, a good premise to base lots of battles in a new terrain (primarily swamp). The battlebeast is a cool addition, although there is no “official” model for it…yet. I personally find this campaign a little less colorful than the first. The ideas are good, but the execution is a little more drawn out than it needs to be IMHO, but it might go faster in actual play than it appears on paper. By the end of the campaign, you are fighting 500 point battles (plus victory points). When I can afford some Kobold and other Goblinoid miniatures, I’ll certainly run the Kobold Revolt campaign…but I will most likely shorten it up a bit.

A Dark and Bloody Ground

The third campaign is the most ambitious of the three, and will definitely be the most ambitious attempt of anyone who attempts to run it. The campaign consists of four battles consisting of multiple warbands, so you will be playing with about 1,500-2,000 points on each side for this campaign. The campaign involves the forces of the Druid and Dwarves and their construction of strategic hamlets in Moonglade territory. The rules for this battle contain considerable new rules involving woodland fortifications (basically, wood forts and the defenses around them).

grubby sez: The rules for the woodland fortifications seem sound. These new rules will be handy to have and use separately in other scenarios, and people itching for a seigh style campaign will really appreciate the material. I feel that with so many new rules all included in the battles of this campaign (and each with its own special rules), you will be doing a lot of reading and rereading of how things work. IMHO this campaign pushes the game rules just a little beyond the limit of the complexity level and warband size I personally feel comfortable with when playing SoB&H, but, perhaps that is the whole point of the campaign, to show that SoB&H can be played with much larger forces.

Special Rules

This supplement contains 9 new special rules contained on 2 pages. A few are specifically designed to pertain to the troop types in the campaigns, while some will continue to be useful in other SoB&H games.

grubby sez: There are some good special abilities here, despite the relatively short list. “Music” allows for the inclusion of musicians, and since so many command packs include standard bearers (which we already have rules for) and musicians, it’s only fitting that we can now use these models (and their ability is cool!). “Unique” is another one that is an important addition for further campaigns in future supplements or ones of your design. The “Battlebeast” special ability for the Kobold Battlebeast is a bit complicated for my taste (dealing with a howdah, individual riders, mounting, dismounting, drivers, ect.), but others have used the rules with great success, so I’ll have to give them a try before passing judgment.

Profiles

SoB&H is known for its large and thorough selection of army lists, and SotSL certainly doesn’t disappoint with 7 pages of troop types. The profiles are all of troops appropriate for the campaigns included in the supplement, as well as further battles in the Splintered Lands campaign setting (or any battles, really). Many of the troop types are new (most notably the Druids Children), several other ones are revisions and/or expansions of ones we’ve seen in other supplements (like the Kobolds, Dwarves, and Goblins).

grubby sez: I would have purchased this supplement for the Druids Children profiles alone (both the Faithful and the Flowering). The Kobold list is greatly expanded, and makes the Kobolds an interesting and formidable warband to run. The Dwarves are a bit more interesting than the standard Dwarves, and anyone who likes to play Dwarves will probably want to use this list instead of the list in the original SoB&H rules. Finally, the Woodlanders list contains a variety of Faun and Satyr profiles that certainly make me want to pick up those models (which are also cool looking) and run a warband of these types as well (or mix them with the Druids Children for a Narnia-like effect).

People who have been playing the game for a while will definitely see a change in the fact that troops are starting to have several more special abilities than they used to. For example, a Kobold Warrior that had Short Move and Gregarious in the original rules now has Shieldwall and Swamp Walk in addition. That’s 4 special abilities for a line troop. In fact, many of the troop types in this supplement have 3, 4, or more special abilities (a Squirrel Archer has 6 and the Battlebeast has 9). Hopefully SoB&H won’t expand TOO far and become bloated in this regard, as much of its charm and playability stem from its un-cumbersome rules.

Conclusion

Giving my all around opinion of the supplement as a whole…I really like it! As I mentioned, it is very different from the other SoB&H supplements, and probably doesn’t have as much all-purpose general use, but, its focus makes it an enjoyable addition to the SoB&H family.

Highlights are a fun and interesting setting that is a very good location to place battles and a built in excuse for having them in the first place. The setting is also an interesting location for role playing adventures when the Tales of Blades & Heroes RPG is officially released (I already have an idea for the first one I will run). The army lists and corresponding line of miniatures for the Druids Children is a huge addition to the game. Not only is it a really cool army list for people who love talking animals, but the “official” line of miniatures begins to make SoB&H a more formidable miniature wargame when it comes to recruiting new players to the fold. Finally, you may or may not use the campaign, but, even if you don’t, there is a lot of useful and interesting information there to use as inspiration for your own campaign designs.

I give it a 4 for style due to the coolness of the setting, the inspirational ideas, fun layout, and original artwork. I give it a 3 for substance, because the majority of the book (the campaigns themselves) may only be useful to a select number of people.

Bonus Review: Splintered Light Miniatures, Druids Children line

I’ve always loved the idea of talking animals. I’m not sure if this love came from cartoons, the chronicles of Narnia, fairy tales, or something else from the days of my youth. One of the first things I wanted to house rule into Basic D&D when I first started playing where “smart-animals”, a race of intelligent tool-using animals who were the result of a long dead wizards enchantments.

When I found out about Songs of the Splintered Lands I was excited because the cover had just such animals on it. When I found out that the supplement was supported by a line of miniatures from Splintered Light Miniatures ( http://www.splinteredlightminis.com/index.html )I was almost shaking with excitement. When I went to the website and saw the wonderful sculpts, I was hopelessly sold.

Then and there I ordered the entire line of the Faithful.

Of course, before my order was processed I was informed that the Rebels (the Flowering) were also ready for distribution, and was asked if I would be interested. Being the sucker I am, I spent way more money than I should have and ordered that complete line as well.

Well, pictures of miniatures don’t always tell the full tale. So what do I think of the miniatures now that I have them? Read on…

Scale

Before we go any further, I should mention that Splintered Light makes 15mm miniatures. While they are on the high end of that scale, 15mm is about ½ the size of most miniatures you are used to seeing, which are a 25-28mm.

The Druids Children line has some even smaller figures (like mice) and bigger ones (like Wolverines) so this line runs about 12-20mm. The picture below shows a size comparison with some other figures from my collection, including a playing piece from Risk 2120, a couple 20mm Battlelore figure, a 1:72 wizard from Caesar miniatures, a 25mm Starguard Dreenoi, and a 28mm plastic from EM-4 miniatures, and a GW gobo wolf-rider (converted model).

15mm figures are both easier and more challenging to paint. More challenging because they are smaller (duh!), but, easier because there is less area to cover. Personally, I’ve become addicted to painting this smaller scale, and 28mm figures seem humongous to me now…but that’s a personal preference. I think 15mm miniatures are easier to store and more resilient to damage as well.

The Product

The Splintered Light Miniatures I ordered arrived via USPS Priority Mail in a very reasonable time (3 business days). The transaction was very friendly and the miniatures were packaged well enough to resist any handling damage. There was minimal flash, and no minis with molding problems. There were several bent weapons, but they all bend easily into the correct position. Overall I was very pleased with all of that.

My Opinion

The miniatures themselves are beautiful sculpts that any miniature fan will appreciate. For 15mm, they are very detailed (without be overly so) and have a lot of personality. There are also various sculpts of each troop type, so every hare swordsman (for instance) doesn’t look the same. I probably over-ordered, as I will never be using 150+ of these miniatures at one time, but, they were just so cool I couldn’t resist.

Conclusion

What can I say but Splintered Light Miniatures (and the Druids Children line in specific) gets a big A++ from grubman. Customer service was great, friendly, and personal. Shipping was fast and safe. The product was exactly what is shown in the pictures. I have just a few of their other sculpts, but I hope (when finances permit) to expand my collection to include many more of their figures.

Side Note: It’s also worth noting that if you are running a Redwall, Narnia, or Mouse Guard RPG adventure or miniature battle, you could do worse than to check out this line as well.

Review: No Thanks!:: A Girlfriend's Perspective On: No Thanks!

cerenycus — Mon, 06 Jul 2009 23:26:46 +0000

by cerenycus

Phrase: Grandma-friendly games

Definition: Games my boyfriend's grandma would be able to pick up quickly and be able to play.

Finding games which are grandma friendly is a difficult thing to do. Before visiting, my boyfriend and I would stand at our boardgame collection and stare at them, trying to find a boardgame which is grandma friendly, but still interesting for the rest of us to play. One of the games we attempted to play with his grandma is No Thanks!

Contents

1 set of rules
33 cards numbered 3 to 35
55 playing chips

Recommended Players

This game is recommended with 3-5 players. I don't get to play it as often, because it is usually just me and my boyfriend, but this review is going to be based on a 4 player play.

Setup

Once the 33 cards are shuffled, you will count out 24 cards, and place them in a pile. The remaining 9 cards will be placed out of the game. No one is to look at the cards.

Each player will receive 11 chips. These chips are to be kept in your hands, so no one is able to tell how many chips you have. In a 3 or 4 player game, there will be chips remaining, they will be placed back in the box.

How to Play

Each player in the game is going to have 2 options.

- Take the card and put it in front of him, faceup
- or, decline it and put one chip next to the card.

On each card is going to be a number. The point of the game is to get the fewest amounts of points possible. There are 2 ways of doing this. You have the choice of passing the card by placing a chip on it, and saying "No Thanks!", or you can try to make series. How the game is going to be scored at the end of the game, is you are going to make a series of all of your cards. If you are able to make a series, you will take the lowest number in the series as your point count.

Example: You have cards 9, 10, 11, 12, and 13. Since you have a series, you will only take 9 points. If you have 9, 10, 12, and 13, you don not have 1 series, you have 2, so your points will be 9 + 12.

If a card is going to be passed, and a chip will be need to be placed on it. When a card is passed to you, which you are wanting to keep, you can take the card, and all the chips on it. If you were to have no chips left in your hand, you will have to take the card.

How to Win

At the end of the game, the player with the fewest amount of points is deemed the winner

The Good vs The Bad

If you have no more chips, it forces you to pick up a card
Always keeps you guessing if there is a number that will fit between your two cards, or if it has been taken out
Very quick, in between game
Does not require to much brain thinking
Cards are not hidden from oters, so able to know what others are collecting

Survey Says

I do enjoy playing No Thanks! It is a game I can see picking up every once in a while, and giving it a go. I'm going to give this game .

I don't find myself playing this game as often as other people do. And it's not only because I mainly play two player games. After a while, I can see this game getting kind of tedious, as you are just trying to gather up the least amount of points. I see myself playing this game more when we are trying to decide who gets to pick the next boardgame. Either the winner (or the loser in our case) gets to choose the next game.

I can see how in certain game groups it would be a great addition. Very quick to get through, and can turn kind of cuthroat after a while. Once players start to realize what cards someone is trying to get, they may start to pick it up, to cost the other player more points. What is 15 points, when someone has the number 14, and 16.

What would probably make this game is a little more interesting, is hiding the cards which are in your hands. Tat way, others would need to remember your cards, as well as focus on their own.

Review: Napoleon's Last Battles:: A Review of the Ligny Scenario

da pyrate — Mon, 06 Jul 2009 20:33:53 +0000

by da pyrate

Ligny
The Incomplete Victory

]]>
Two-player Tactical Napoleonic Wargame
Simulation of the Battle of Ligny - June 16, 1815
Designed by Jay Nelson & Kevin Zucker
Published by S.P.I. (1976)

During the 1970’s, S.P.I. was famous for its ‘quadrigame’ concept – four separate games on the same topic that could be sold individually or as a set. A couple of these quadrigames, Napoleon’s Last Battles (NLB) and Battles for the Ardennes, had the added bonus that the four games and maps could be combined to create a fifth campaign situation.

I have played NLB in its four folio formats as well as the campaign game. I think that the campaign game is truly superb and significantly better than the individual folio games and hence the title given to this review. One of the aspects to the folio games that is interesting from a game-play point of view is that each of the four games simulates a different type of battle – Ligny is a set-piece battle.

The Battle of Waterloo was fought on Sunday June 18th, 1815. Two days prior to Napoleon’s ultimate battle a significant engagement occurred between the French and Prussian forces at Ligny. Napoleon had deliberately split his force into two, sending the smaller force to the west to take Quatre Bras and keeping the larger force, hoping to engage and destroy the Prussian forces before they could combine with Wellington’s Anglo-Dutch army and gain a numerical superiority over the French. The result of the Battle of Ligny was inconclusive. The French made a successful direct assault against the centre of the Prussian army, crushing it. The two flanks of the Prussian army held firm, allowing the Prussians to withdraw from the field of battle in good order, despite having suffered substantial losses. Marshal Blucher was badly hurt when his horse fell on him. At the end of the day blucher’s Chief of Staff, von Gneisenau, distrusted Wellington and suggested to Blucher that the Prussians should withdraw eastward on their own supply line but Blucher insisted on a northward withdrawal so as to maintain contact with Wellington.

Historically the French army won at Ligny – they held the town at the end of the day but, significantly for the Allies, the French were unable to stop the Prussians from withdrawing in good order. The French objective had been to destroy the Prussians so that they could give no support to their Anglo-Dutch allies. The French should have won more decisively. The French 1st Corps was available to reinforce the battle at Ligny, but spent the day of June 16 marching back and forth between the nearby Battle of Quatre Bras and Ligny without actually entering either battle.

Components

One 8-page rulebook containing 6 pages of basic and optional rules, 1 page of scenario details for all four folio games and 1 page of designer’s notes.

The are large number of units involved at Ligny – all units start on the board. The French start with 37 counters (strength of 166). The Prussians start with 41 units on the map (strength of 139) and receive no reinforcements. The counters are double sided with the reverse side showing the same unit at a lower strength – the reverse side is only used in the campaign game. French counters are light blue while the Prussian counters are a light lime green.

The game is played on a 17” x 22” non-gloss map with a soft cream background and greens, browns, greys and blues to represent woods, crests, villages and streams respectively. The combat results table is printed on the map. The terrain effects chart is printed on the back of the rules.

]]>
Rules

The game lasts for 7 turns, each one representing an hour of real time. The game has a very standard French movement, French combat, Allied movement and Allied combat sequence of play.

Stacking is two units per hex. Roads give movement advantages. Streams, woods, crests and villages give the defender a combat bonus.

Zones of Control are rigid and once you enter an enemy ZOC the only way to leave it is through combat – advance, retreat or elimination. Once in an enemy ZOC combat is mandatory.

Artillery can fire at 2 hexes range (providing the line of sight is not blocked) and can either bombard independently of other troops or make a combined attack with other friendly units.

There are rules for Demoralization and an armies Demoralization level is measured by the number of its units that have been destroyed – the Demoralization level varies from scenario to scenario. Once Demoralized the French will automatically lose the game. The Allied armies only lose the ability to advance after combat. The Allies have a second level called Disintegration. If the Allies reach their Disintegration level then the French will automatically win the game.

There are optional rules for Combined Arms Attacks and the Imperial Guard.

The French win by Demoralizing the Prussian army (kill 55 Prussian strength points) and French losses are less than 35 strength points. If the French player fails to Demoralize the Prussian army OR loses 35 or more strength points then the Prussian player will win.

Playing the Game

I am quite happy to play Ligny and consider it the second best best of the four folio games. The game takes around 150 minutes to play – most players have to be very careful with the placement of their units during the game. Once a unit is surrounded it becomes much easier for the enemy forces to destroy it. Because the counters stack two-high and there is a lot of congestion where the fighting is heaviest, I like to play using tweezers to pick up and move the counters – my thumbs just cause massive problems. The game doesn’t have the same high excitement level as Quatres Bras (where a lot can hinge on a single die-roll). Ligny has much more tension than excitement. It is a large, grinding battle.

The French units are, on average, stronger than the Prussian units – French average is 4.5 per unit to the Prussian 3.4 per unit. This can actually be a little to the French disadvantage. Even though it allows them to get more combat factors into a small area it also means that on an Exchange result they may sometimes have to lose more strength points (units) than they should. The Prussians also have a couple of ‘hellishly’ large artillery units that can put a lot of firepower into a small area.

The game begins with the Prussian 1st and 2nd Corps in a salient stretching from Ligny westwards. The 3rd Corps and elements of the 2nd Corps are positioned a little to the north and give the Prussians a force with which they may manoeuvre.

The French have a screen of troops running west to east and are in contact distance (roughly 400 metres) from the Prussians. There is a large force of French further south. The French player, ideally, would like to envelope both Prussian flanks. The combination of rivers, villages and Prussian troops make this difficult to achieve.

This is an excellent game as both armies are strong enough to launch local attacks but neither is strong enough to gain superiority along the entire front. This battle should be a real slugging match with both players looking for the right spot and the right time to put in each punch.

(This has been previously posted under the Ligny listing, but I felt that it was just as valid here and perhaps some people will locate it more easily now.)

“Dead Men Tell No Tales – And There Be A Good Reason For This.”

Review: Incan Gold:: Get the kids involved - adding my 5 y/o son to a game

tcollett — Mon, 06 Jul 2009 19:08:43 +0000

by tcollett

I love playing board games, and I hope that my children will someday share in my passion for playing games. As with any child, there is the possiblity that they won't and I am fine with that, but I definitely want to put out opportunities so they can play.

While there are tons of wonderful games out there, many I can't play with my 5 y/o son because they are too complex for him at this time. I don't want him to grow up any faster than he is because time is flying by, but I do want him to have opportunities to play games with everyone at the table versus just something small for himself, his mom, and me.

I look for games because my son pulls up a chair next to me while the adults are playing games and looks across the board hoping and yearning for something he can contribute; a piece he can place, a card or cards he can pass out, maybe roll some dice. It is more than just playing the game; it is being part of the group. I do explain what I am doing and why but a 5 y/o only registers so much.

I had played Incan Gold a few times at the local gaming group. It is a nice light game, and I had purchased a copy but it sat on my shelf because there were other games that I personally wanted to play more. I played Incan Gold last week again at the local gaming group and realized that this was something my son could play and it is definitely a lot more fun in a large group setting.

There is something to be said when you put out the two cards (either going further into the temple or leaving) and a tent for everyone at the table and you make sure there is a place for him (my 5 y/o as well). The kid beamed with excitement because it was a new game, and he was going to get to play like everyone else.

So why is it a good game for him? Several reasons:

- It is fast and easy to play. Play 5 rounds and there are literally only two choices to make; going further in or leaving. The game usually doesn't last longer than 15 minutes.

- It plays 3 - 8 players. He got to be in a 6 player game which was huge to him. For him, it is being where everyone else is and doing what they do.

- It allows him to make his own decisions without anyone else telling him what he should do or how to do it. He makes mistakes like everyone else (sometimes leaving too early or not leaving soon enough), but he also learns that no one gets mad about it and to learn from your mistakes.

- Easy to teach and we can bring it out with almost any member of the family. Grandpa and grandma know how to play, his uncles and aunts can play, and his cousins that are around his age can play as well. Since it goes up to 8 people, that makes it even better because for him, the more people the better.

- He always has a card to play unless he leaves the temple. He always has something to do which is a big deal at that age.

- It has the wonderful little parts that kids just seem to gravitate towards (the colorful little nuggets). Having some of these that you have earned on your own versus playing the game with mom or dad and using their parts also adds some fun to the game as well.

- While there is some skill to the game, luck plays a huge part in it. For some this is a turn-off, but it puts him on the same playing field for the most part so that he can win a game or two from time to time.

This is definitely more than a kid's game though. While my 5 y/o finds it fun, so does most everyone in the family clear up through the grandparents. The larger the group, the more fun the game is in my opinion. As one person at the gaming group showed, it is fun to have someone be just a dealer while everyone else plays (and it also helps to get into the game a little bit for the kids).

While I know this game isn't for everyone with the huge luck factor, to me, it is a huge success with the family and friends. It plays fast, plays many, and includes those that sometimes are left to watching or helping versus playing. That right there makes it worth the price just to have some smiles from the little ones (and maybe some future gamers).

Review: Arkham Horror - Innsmouth Horror Expansion:: Innsmouth Horror Review (or, Watching Your Friends Pronounce "Y'ha-Nthlei")

thinwhiteduke — Mon, 06 Jul 2009 18:15:58 +0000

by thinwhiteduke

My biases first: I am a big fan of theme in games and do not mind reaching through piles of chits if the theme and game play is good enough. While I do favor confrontation, chits, bits and polished pieces of AT games, there are still a large number of Euros that I'll build my farm on or attend auctions at and be quite content at the end of my experience. I am also a role-player at heart and also a big fan of Lovecraft's Cthulhu mythos, even to the point where I've eschewed tabletop RPGs and boardgames to don costumes and get involved in some Cthulhu Live LARPs at cons. Arkham Horror is also one of my favorite games and it sees a fair amount of game play with my core group (all of whom are also Lovecraft fans who, save for one, have also been known to LARP the mythos as well).

The Overview:

I will assume that you are familiar with Arkham Horror at this point, so this review will just focus on what the expansion brings to the game. Innsmouth Horror is a "big box" expansion for Arkham Horror. The expansion adds the city of Innsmouth as a region that can be travelled to in order to continue exploring the mysteries of Arkham. Innsmouth adds a number of dangers that fit into the theme of the Lovecraft Story, "The Shadow of Innsmouth". The expansion also expands on the backgrounds of all of the existing character from the base set and the expansions, giving them more personal dangers to manage and maintain while trying to stop the Ancient One.

So far, out of all of the expansions that have come out for Arkham Horror, this one best acknowledges the previous expansions and provides components compatible for the expansions' rules and at the same time does not needlessly water down item decks with unnecessary items.

The Theme:

Arkham Horror is already steeped in theme and this expansion adds to it in a number of ways. Now "The Shadow Over Innsmouth" isn't one of my favorite Lovecraft stories, but the elements of the tale that are brought into the game work exceedingly well. Innsmouth, for the most part, feels like a city that is already corrupted by a greater evil. Some of the encounters seem a little light compared to the elements in the original story, but working the risk of being arrested into moving around town adds to the theme of oppression.

Also introduced on the Innsmouth board is the Deep Ones Rising track. There are six spaces the Deep Ones Rising side of the track and six spaces on the Feds Raid Innsmouth side of the track. Whenever a gate does not open because of an elder sign on its location or from an investigator’s ability, a token is added to the track. Also, the Innsmouth board has vortexes on it similar to the Dunwich Horror expansion. If a monster moves into a vortex, a token is added to the track. If all six tokens are added, the Ancient One immediately awakens and the final battle begins. However, during their Upkeep, any investigator in an Innsmouth neighborhood can spend 1 or more of their Clue tokens to place a clue token on the Feds Raid Innsmouth side of the track. Once the sixth token is placed, Feds raid Innsmouth and all of the Deep Ones Rising tokens are removed. They can be added again, but it at least slows down the advance.

Perhaps one of the best additions to theme, however, is the Personal Story cards that are introduced in this expansion. Each character from the base game and each of the expansions is given a Personal Story, which expands on the character's background and history and further expands on their reasons for being in Arkham. Each story is different and character specific. Besides just the flavor story, the Personal Story cards have a Pass or Fail trigger on the card and you have the chance to resolve only one of the outcomes. The Pass triggers vary from "If you have 3 or more Gate Trophies" to "You may spend X amount of Clue Tokens at X location" to "If you are Blessed". However, the Fail trigger acts as the timer, meaning you have to achieve the Pass trigger before the Fail trigger comes up. Fail triggers vary from "If the Terror Level reaches X" or "If you are knocked unconscious or driven insane" or "If there are X amount of Doom Tokens on the Ancient One". Whichever result occurs first is the one you resolve. Achieving the Pass trigger means something good happens, and depending on the character, it varies in strength and power. However, if the Fail trigger is achieved usually a penalty occurs to the character, often times brutal, but sometimes manageable, depending on the character.

The effect of the Personal Stories, however, is not just a game effect and stat boost or penalty. The stories give flavor and a bit of roleplaying background to the characters you are playing. The other effect, however, is that you find yourself more attached to the character. Sometimes you make decisions to try to pass your story instead of doing the optimal move to stop the Ancient One. This is very thematic and makes the decisions personal. You may find yourself so close to recovering your lost sister, but the Fail trigger is one hand. The other investigators are urging you to ignore the personal story and jump into a gate to close it to try to stave off the Ancient One from awakening. So, do you sacrifice your sister and all you've set up to save her for the greater good? Or do you risk it and save her, but risking the destruction of the city in the process? It's harder to jump in and sacrifice characters now. The Personal Stories help in attaching you to the process of the story and makes the characters a little more real.

Learning the Game:

This is an expansion to Arkham Horror and there are very little rule additions here. The Personal Stories are a very easy mechanic to learn (especially for those who are familiar with Android, which uses the same mechanic). The Deeps Ones Rising Track is easy to understand, but can be easily forgotten in the first couple of games.

The Components:

The expansion introduces the same quality components as in all of the Arkham Horror series. Specific components for the Ancient Ones and Deep Rising Track are included as well as expanding on a number of existing components. What that means is that besides introducing an additional board to the game, Innsmouth Horror also adds the following:
*A New Expansion Board for the city of Innsmouth
*16 New Investigators
*8 New Ancient Ones (plus the corresponding Ancient One Plot Cards)
*2 New Heralds
*42 Innsmouth Location Cards (for 8 New Locations in 3 New Neighborhoods)
*36 Arkham Location Cards (for the Original 26 Locations in the Original 9 Neighborhoods)
*36 Mythos Cards
*26 Gate Cards (though no new Otherworld Locations are introduced)
*48 Sets of Personal Stories Cards (2 for each character from the base and all expansions)
*32 New Monster Markers (5 Ancient One related markers not added to the cup, 2 Mask Monsters, 5 Markers of Monsters introduced in older sets (4 kinds), and 20 Markers for new Monsters (7 kinds)

Playing the Game:

The additions to Arkham Horror mechanic-wise are minimal and easy to manage. However, what this expansion adds is theme.

It is very amazing how much the Personal Stories have added a life to old characters that we have not touched in ages. However, the rest of the game feels the touch of Innsmouth.

I strongly suggest that to really enjoy the game that you remove most of the components of the previous expansions, including the monsters (this gets a better ratio of Aquatic monsters into the mix). One of the ongoing issues with the expansions of AH is that adding too much waters down the experience of each of the expansions, killing a lot of the theme. I've also taken out all of the Arkham Encounter cards from each of the expansions as well. We've kept the Dunwich Horror and Kingsport Horror items and spells in the decks, but have removed almost everything else from those expansions (except for characters, Ancient Ones, Injury and Madness cards and the Ancient One Plot Cards).

Once you find the mix for you (again, I strongly suggest that you consider less is better), you will find the theme and pressure of the Innsmouth experience very strong and very fulfilling.

I also suggest not reading through the Personal Stories until you have the characters in play. Then, only read the first card. Only take and read the Pass/Fail effects after you’'ve achieved one of them. This way, you don’t know if you are sacrificing a lot for a small gain, or inadvertently crippling your character's abilities by not heeding the story close enough.

Scalability:

Innsmouth Horror keeps the same scalability of the base game. While some expansions (such as Kingsport Horror) tend to favor large groups, Innsmouth fits most ranges. My wife and I have played with one investigator each and found it to be a good fit. And we have played with a total of four players with one investigator each and found no problems in the scalability. Innsmouth does not require one player spending all of his time up there as Kingsport did. The only issue that I found that Innsmouth suffers from with fewer investigators is that eventually sneak checks are required to move around in Innsmouth or else the investigator will be arrested. The problem that this poses is that with a smaller assortment of active investigators, you had better plan ahead to make sure that at least one of them has a good sneak skill. Otherwise, Innsmouth will be too brutal in the second half of the game.

Does the Wife Like It?:

The most important category. I play games without her, but she's an integral part of my core gaming group and my most frequent game partner. That being said, Arkham Horror is one of her favorite games (probably in her top three). Innsmouth Horror has revitalized our AH play more than any other expansion that has come out previously. Whenever we would sit down to play, she would usually grab one of her two favorite characters (Rita Young or Daisy Walker) and never think of playing anyone else. Now, she’s taken a new character in each game, curiously uncovering their personal stories and finding a whole new experience with otherwise forgotten and unused characters.

The Pros:

*The most thematic expansion to date.
*More location cards, making them more variable.
*Adds a lot without watering down the base games equipment cards any further.
*Personal Stories revitalizes old characters, balancing some of the "unbalanced" characters by the effects and costs of their stories.
*Consistently good components.
*New mechanics introduced are easy, flowing, seem natural and are easy to track (unlike portals in Kingsport Horror).
*New Mythos Cards only have gate bursts in Innsmouth, creating a threat and a natural reason to keep going there.

The Cons:

*Requires expansion and deck management to really get a good experience.
*More bits in an already bit heavy game.

Overall:

Innsmouth Horror is a must have expansion for a great game. I almost wish that it game with another set of Injury and Madness cards so that I could fully endorse this expansion as the first one to get instead of Dunwich Horror (really, Injury and Madness cards are all but necessary fixes in the game, but are found in just the one expansion). No other big box expansion has done as a good job of keeping a consistent theme and feel throughout. Even though we still spend most of our time on the Arkham board instead of the Innsmouth board in game, the theme and presence of Innsmouth is strongly felt. Innsmouth Horror is our group's favorite expansion and it is one that is necessary for any fan of Arkham Horror.

However, if you are looking for your first expansion for AH, Dunwich Horror has some key game fixes. If you feel that the base game is a bit broken, grab this game. But if you think it plays fine, but want more theme, grab Innsmouth Horror and make Dunwich your second grab.

Review: Steam:: A curmudgeon's rambling review of Steam

Barticus88 — Mon, 06 Jul 2009 16:17:20 +0000

by Barticus88

I am a fan of economic games. My current favorite is Power Grid. For many years my group played Rail Johnny, a game by my friend Jonathan. He originally called it Rail Baron Plus because it used the components of Rail Baron. Much in the way that Bridge uses the components of Poker, the game is nothing like Rail Baron, so it came to be known as Rail Johnny. It's about 60% Power Grid, 20% Ticket to Ride, and 20%...well what is a neutral term for this? Brummie Rails?

I won't go into the history of Brummie Rails, Age of Steam, Railroad Tycoon, 3rd Edition, Martin, John, trademarks, copyrights, lawyers, etc. You already know what you already know. If you don't know, consider yourself lucky. If you don't know and are stupid enough to care about that train wreck, go find it yourself; I am not providing a link. I am here to discuss Steam.

Alfred Hitchcock said drama is real life with the boring parts cut out. Rail Johnny has some realistic features but if it is ever to make it to market, some boring parts will need to be cut out. Martin Wallace takes an economic theme and abstracts it beyond recognition. What is flipping a tile in Brass? What is a loss cube in Automobile? Compared to that, Steam is all realism.

It's a pick up and deliver game, like Empire Builder. But unlike almost any other game, you start this game sliding backwards. In Power Grid you start with $50, and no matter how bad it gets, you are sure of making $10 per turn. In Steam you start out with no cash in hand, no income, and a locomotive that costs $1 to maintain each turn (even if you don't use it). The only way to improve that outlook is to build track and move cubes. To buy the track you need cash which you don't have. To get cash you capitalize (abstraction of selling stock or bonds), which gives you cash, and also gives you more expense (abstraction of dividends or interest), accelerating your backward slide. The first few turns are spent trying to climb into positive cashflow. If you make a mistake, you may not be able to climb out.

I don't like that part of the game. A game should not completely abandon a player early on like that. So far I have only seen it with a player who kept misunderstanding the rules. For a learning game, you can back up, or make adjustments. Unfortunately, I can see that the game is chaotic enough that plans might come crashing down. An especially brutal one was when a player Urbanized a town, leaving another player only short routes for his gray cubes. This was relatively late, but people will get in each other's way early on. Plans can go screwy.

I actually was undone by the game's brutal reputation, rather than the game's brutality. I had take the locomotive action with the intent of upping from two to four and delivering one four point cube. After building my track, I counted out what I was going to do and I was going to be $2 short. Worse, if I didn't up my loco to 4, I would only deliver one 2 point cube. I had heard about this terrible situation where you don't have enough to pay your bills and you are toast. When the rules were being read, I heard the 2:1 ratio and got it the other way. I thought $2 short cost me 4 points on the income track, but it only costs me 1 point. I was afraid of running into a brick wall, so I injured myself avoiding it, but instead I needed to hug the fluffy, fluffy wall.

But then I saw a player hit that wall for $7 and he was toast. Of course that was a learning experience.

I was expecting more of a lumpy, bumpy step function here. In Power Grid, when you are $1 short early in the game, you lose about $10, but the next several dollars of shortage don't cost you more. I like the lumpy, bumpy game for encouraging efficient play. (*sigh* as I think about analysis paralysis)

Steam is completely deterministic. There is an initial random placement of cubes, and after that there is no randomness. In theory, you can't be lucky or unlucky, because it's all there in front of you. In reality, the butterfly stirs up a big enough hurricane that there are random effects. Still, luck is the residue of design.

I prefer a game to have some late randomness, because it can bring hope to someone whose position is otherwise hopeless. Steam is not like that. It's ancestors were not like that either. Even though you had random cube draws or random cube timing, it was rare that you could put yourself in a position to get lucky. If you can't try to get lucky when you are behind or you can't try to minimize luck when you are ahead, then randomness doesn't add to the game. All in all I think the predetermined sets of cubes in Steam work well, and the ability to drop a set of cubes somewhere and start moving them is an awesome power.

Which brings me to my biggest gripe: Urbanize is too strong. It lets you place a set of cubes like City Growth and it lets you build a fourth hex like Engineer and you don't pay for that fourth hext and it gives you a city to deliver to. If the Urbanized town counted as one of your three hexes, this would still be better than City Growth, and often better than Locomotive.

I think starting the players out sliding backwards is just silly. Everyone should start with $20 like in a normal game. All the planning and building and delivering with less danger. It should be just barely possible to eke out an existence without ever taking a loan. Yeah the game isn't quite broken this way, but the game could be better.

I don't like the concept of running out of tiles. I never felt it had a place in a game like this. It looks like the tile distribution was done haphazardly. The complex tiles without towns don't have consistent backs, and there aren't as many as the rules specify. I wish the rulebook just said that the tiles are unlimited so improvise. The numbering of the tiles is a little weird too. Add a town to #41 and you get #T42. Add a town to #42 and you get #T41. Maybe they should have names. #42 is the T-spoon.

The bits of the game are all functional; except for the "language neutral" role descriptions on the board. The game is heavily in need of a summary sheet. Someone tell me what player aids to print.

With the great number of bits in this game (and the price), why doesn't it come with a dozen plastic bags?

I can see several places this game could be tweaked. I think the income/VP track dichotomy could use some more development. BTW, those two tracks should not be adjacent on the board.

A very good game, but not as good as Power Grid.

Review: Fluxx Promo Cards:: Pandora's Box - Very Fluxxy Indeed

E Decker — Mon, 06 Jul 2009 12:15:27 +0000

by E Decker

Looney Labs, the creators of the Fluxx card game, have released more than forty different promo cards over the years. One of the more interesting examples is Pandora's Box.

Pandora's Box is an action card which, when played, will put three random rule cards into play, thereby fundamentally - and unpredictably - changing the current game environment.

This effect is perfectly in tune with the spirit of Fluxx. The ever-changing rules are the most intriguing aspect of the game, and Pandora's Box enhances that mechanism very nicely.

Interestingly (and somewhat improbably), this card will be appreciated both by those players who enjoy Fluxx solely for its randomness - three new rules are a generous helping of chaos by any standards - as well as by those looking for a bit more strategy in their games. Played at the right time, Pandora's Box allows you to make a lunge for the finish line when close to achieving your goal, and also works well to foil an opponent who is close to winning. Additionally, it can help you go through the deck quickly. When a card you need to reach your goals is languishing in the discard pile, that reshuffle can't come soon enough, and cards like this can make quite a difference.

This promo card was originally released together with Pandora's Boxx, a wooden box designed to hold Fluxx decks that, through the addition of promos and custom cards, had outgrown their original containers. As of this writing, the card is also available separately at the company's Web site, looneylabs.com.

The Bottom Line
Pandora's Box is a solid addition to any Fluxx deck. Like most promos, its inclusion in a deck is by no means necessary, but it's a nice way of keeping a deck fresh. It will appeal to all players, no matter whether they enjoy the pure chaos of the game or are always on the lookout for a strategic edge. And above all, it's very, very Fluxxy.

Special thanks to BGGer TrojanDan, who, with the help of various intercontinental detours, originally sent me the card. I did indeed enjoy the "little bit of added chaos." Many thanks!

Review: Mystery On The Nile:: They've Made a Game Out of Us!

Meander — Mon, 06 Jul 2009 04:48:02 +0000

by Meander

“Oh look, Mr. Christie,” said Mrs. Stringer from the other side of the dinner table. “They’ve made a game out of us.”

“A game?” Christie looked up from his spaghetti and slurped a noodle quickly into his mouth, splattering his nose with sauce in doing so. “What kind of game?” Christie obviously had a snoot full of more than tomato sauce.

“Why, a boardgame, of course.”
“A boardgame? Like Chess, you mean.”
“Yes, like Chess, only different.”
“Different, how?”
“It has cards.”

Mr. Christie soaked in the information that Mrs. Stringer had given him. It was apparent that he was having problems with his mental digestion. “If it has cards,” he stated, “then it must be a card game.” He took a sip of wine.

“No, Mr. Christie. It’s definitely a boardgame, but with cards.”
“Humph.”

“Hello Christie, Mrs. Stringer. How’s the dinner? Have you heard about the game?” Mr. Marple pulled sat down and poured himself a generous portion of wine.

“I was just telling Mr. Christie about it. Isn’t it wonderful?”

“Not so wonderful, I expect.” Mr. Marpel gave his opinion. “Did you see all the cards?”

“Sounds like a stupid game already.” Christie mumbled. “What’s on the silly cards, anyway?”

“Why, Christie,” Marpel seemed agitated. “They’re clues, of course.”

“Clues? What clues?” Mrs. Watson chimed in from nearby. “May I join you?”

“Please do, dear. It’s awful being the only woman here with these two.”

“You were saying about clues? I should know clues. After all, my husband is the Mr. Watson of…”

Marpel waved his hand as if to wave away the rest of what she was going to say. “Yes, yes…we all know who your husband is. You’ve gotten many miles from his name, to be sure.”

Mrs. Watson huffed. “And of course, you being a Marpel hasn’t gotten you anywhere, I suppose.”

“Of course it has. The same as the rest of you. Don’t be ridiculous. I simply don’t go bandying about my aunt’s name just for the attention.”

“Attention! Attention!” Mrs. Stringer said. “I love attention!” She smiled at her own joke.

“What about the bloody clues?” Shouted Christie! “Someone said something about the clues! Where are the clues!”

“Oh hush, you lush.” Said Mrs. Watson. “Oh…that rhymed!” She and Mrs. Stringer both giggled. “More champagne dear?” More giggles.

Marpel sighed in exasperation. “The cards are clues, you see. You do see don’t you? There are many, many clues and the players match them up, you see.”

“Why do we need so many clues? And look,” Mrs. Watson said. “There are fingerprints and footprints and spots.” She paused, thoughtful. “What are spots, I wonder? And how do you make footprints on a ship on the water?”

“Spots are undoubtedly blood spots!” Christie spoke rather loudly.

“Blood, surely.” Said Marpel. “But possibly mud or food or other identifiable evidence. Criminals always leave something behind.”

“How very clever!” Mrs. Stringer seemed genuinely surprised. “You sound just a bit like my husband on one of his silly train mysteries.”

“Not so clever.” Said Christie. “Boring, really.” He was in his cups, now. “Even old Watson doesn’t need that many clues. Hades! Even my own wife doesn’t need that many clues! Har har har!” With the last ‘har’ Mr. Christie fell splat on the floor, unconscious from liquor.

The three others leaned over to look at him, none making any effort to assist. “Well,” said Mrs. Watson. “At least we know he didn’t do it!”

They all laughed until they were quite sore-cheeked.

“Dear me,” said Mrs. Stringer. “Why do you think they need so many clues. And why are we only allowed in the dining room, the bar, the pool and deck? What if I want to go dancing? Or use the powder room?”

“Where exactly do you think the pool is located?” asked Mrs. Watson. “I don’t remember a pool on the steamer last time I was here. I think I would like a swim. Perhaps that’s how we leave footprints: by walking from the pool with wet feet.”

“There’s no pool on this paddle steamer.” Marpel said. “And furthermore, it looks as if we are all suspects in this game. Outrageous!”

“No pool? Well, I declare!” declared Mrs. Watson.

“I don’t think I want to play this game.” Mrs. Stringer said.

“And from the looks of it,” said Mr. Marpel, “neither will anyone else.”

Review: Race for the Galaxy: Rebel vs Imperium:: 50 Games of RvI in 6 days.

Jimmer — Mon, 06 Jul 2009 03:47:16 +0000

by Jimmer

A friend was kind enough to pick up a copy of RvI for me from the Origins convention, returning to Seattle on last Tuesday evening. Since then, all of my Race friends have looked me up for some games during the day/night - every day.

This review is from a standpoint of ...a lot of... games pre-RvI. With the first and now the second expansion, you have to relearn the 'real' value of each card in a situation.

New Explore power: you get to merge your explore with your hand, then discard from the pool of cards. It's flexible, best used with a large explore range. A shortcut for explaining/resolving it - explore becomes draw X, discard Y. (Where Y is X minus the-number-of-cards-you-should-keep-from-a-normal-explore.) It does increase the slow-play factor for new players and existing players who spend more time studying cards.

Takeover: I've seen it happen in 4 games so far. It needs several elements for it to work:
1. The person drawing it, needs the military in play to make it work.
2. There needs to be the correct kind of victim - if you can steal rebel worlds from an imperium tableau, there needs to be someone with both of those cards, as well as a weaker military than you.
3. Stealing a planet has to be better than whatever else you would settle from your hand. Generally, if you can steal a planet, it's a weak planet from a weak military, while you have a fairly good military.

It was used twice to good effect - once to stop the end of a game, the second time to switch leader on most-brown+blue planets. The other two times was just to be able to say the player has done it.

New goals: "Most Explore powers" gets a lot of interest, especially with all of the 'smuggling' type planets with the new explore power. "First to 3 Uplift cards" is tough - getting enough uplift worlds is difficult. 3 Gene worlds, sure. 3 Uplift, much harder. It does give you a reason to choose Uplift worlds, before you find the Uplift Code sixer. "First to 8 cards in play" is often shared in multi-player, but really drives 2-player games to an even more frantic pace. "Most Rebel Military planets" and "First to have 4 goods" are sometimes a bit tough.

New starting planets, new start method: Universally welcomed, the new start method of "choice of 2 starting planets", combined with the ability to look at the starting hand/goals...it eases some of the pure-randomness of a start, mellowing out some of the harshness of the previous start method. It gives a much faster start in the beginning - one 2-player game started with 2 develops and 2 settles - a player ending with 5 cards in play on turn 1. The Imperium Warlord has demonstrated a lot of power in games - multiple sixers give points for Imperium cards, and the number of Rebel cards increased. It's worth 2 VP and has an explore - preferred to New Sparta, certainly.

Adds another player: Sadly, the game days and game nights I attended did not reach 6 players at a time. I can only imagine a crazier version of 5.

MVP cards of the set:
In the first expansion, Improved Logistics was often hoped for, along with the power of the Terraforming Guild sixer. The second expansion features a lot of quality power.

Galactic Advertisers: 3-cost development, granting an extra trade bonus as well as a card draw during consume. In a 2-player game, it grants a couple extra cards during your consume. In a multiplayer game, it grants an extra card nearly every turn...generally someone's always consuming. It also stacks with the trade guild & New Economy sixers, which were already pretty good. (It also improves the calling-trade-hoping-for-someone-else-to-Settle strategy - you'll get a card regardless.)

Pan Galactic Research: 6-cost development, 4VP. Played in the first half of a game, I believe that player always won. In 2-player games, starting with that card in one's hand frequently started the game with an explore/develop. And when I say frequently, I mean ALWAYS.

Galactic Exchange: 6-cost development, basically the bigger brother of Diversified Economy. The more colors you have in play, the more it's worth, as well as having a forgiving (and good) consume power. Get each of the colors in play, 10 VP. That's 4 planets, and you're generally getting consume-produce play in the meantime.

Some other cards get an extra boost, for duplicating effects. The Prospecting Guild sixer can help a SETI strategy, as well as Mining Guild (often doing more for bonus points than Mining Guild). SETI was boosted a fair amount, just by the amount of additional explore powers and the Most Explore bonus tile. Galactic Bankers provides a boost to the lovely develop strategy of Galactic Federation...a little slow to start, but a machine, also chipping in points for Interstellar Bank and Investment credits that were often also a factor in GFed strategies. Imperium Lords and Imperium Seat share so much of a bonus due to Imperium cards, I remember discarding Terraforming Guild, getting more from an Imperium card....and not just having that happen once.

Favorites that don't break the game:
Galactic Salon - a free VP during consume, can be doubled. In a develop-heavy strategy, you can leech a little on a produce-consumer, without calling Settle (which typically accelerates the produce-consumer). Towards the end of one game, with Salon and Galactic Trendsetters (as my only consume powers), I was able to Consume x2 several windfalls, as neither of us was willing to commit to ending the game.

Gambling World - I think in the previous 400 or so games, it was useful in one game, needed for its consume in a tight economy. The new one is excellent - ante a card, reveal its cost/defense in cards, keep one if any of them had exceeded the ante's cost, in addition to keeping the ante. Depending on the stage of the game, you can show a 1-cost you don't plan on using for an extra card, somewhat reliably. In late games, show a Consumer Markets for a decent shot at a random 6 (a mid-range explore).

In short, I've really enjoyed the past week. A fair mix of multiplayer and 2-player games showed that Rebel vs. Imperium will be an excellent long-term value for Race players.

Review: Santiago:: A Girlfriend's Perspective on: Santiago

cerenycus — Mon, 06 Jul 2009 02:04:48 +0000

by cerenycus

Santiago was not always on the top of my list of playing board games. Mainly, I think, it's because it is not a 2 player game, and the only person I really play board games with is my boyfriend. The last couple weekends, we have had another couple come over to play games, and it was my turn to choose the game. I figured, meh, we haven't played this game in a while, might as well bring it out.

Contents

150 bank notes of play money
110 yield markers (22 of each colour)
45 plantations
15 blue canals
5 proposal canals
1 spring
1 game board
3 palm trees
1 canal overseer

Recommended Players

This game is a 3-5 player game. My most recent play was with 4 people, and this is what the review is mainly going to be based on.

Setup

The game board is going to be placed in the center of the table. Depending on what leve of difficulty you are wanting to play, depends on where you will place the spring. If you are wanting to have a easy game, the spring will go towards the center of the board. If you are wanting a medium game, it will go along the edge of the board. Difficult will have the spring on the corner of the board.

The blue canals will be placed on the side of the board. If this is a 3-4 player game, you will put 11 canals. For a 5 player game, you only use 9.

You will then shuffle all the plantation tiles face down. On a 3-4 player game, you will stack 4 piles of 11 tiles. The left over tile will be placed back in the box. If you have a 5 player game, you will make 5 piles of 9.

Each player is going to choose what colour they want to be, and take the 22 markers and the proposal canal of that colour. Each player will also take a blue canal as well. Each player is going to start with 10 dollars.

It is noted that players should keep the money hidden from other players' view. I haven't played this way, but I can see how this would probably be a good thing.

The last thing you will need to do before you can begin is to randomly choose who the canal overseer is going to be.

How to Play

There are 7 different phases per round in the game.

Turning over plantation tiles and bidding on them

The canal overseer will turn over 1 plantation from each pile. Players will then bid on which one they are wanting.

With the bidding, you are only able to bid once, and you are not bidding on a certain plantation. You are simply bidding on who gets to choose first. Bidding always starts with the current overseer, and goes in clockwise order. It is possible to have several people bid 0 (or pass), however, the remaining bids are only able to have 1 person bid it. The bidding is done openly, so there is no chance on bidding the same amount. Plahyers are nt able to change their bid once they plae their bid.

Changing the Canal Overseer

A new overseer is immediately put into place. The person who bid the lowest is the new overseer. If several people have chosen to pass, the person who passed first, is now the new overseer.

Taking and placing plantation tiles

Once the bidding has been complete, the person who has bid the highest is able to choose which plantation tile they would like to choose, and place it on the board.

There will be planter markers on the tile. If there are 2 planter markers on the tile, you will place 2 markers on top of the tile. If a tile has 1 planter marker on it, you will place 1 marker on top of it.

If a player has chosen to pass, you are going to choose your tile, and place 1 less marker on top of it. If you chose a tile with 2 planters on it, you will place 1 marker. If you chose a tile with 1 marker on it, you will not place any.

When placing your tiles, yo uare going to want to make sure you place your tile pile plantations that are similar.

Trying to bribe the overseer

Each player now needs to try and get the overseer to place the water canal where it would best suit their plantations. There are some rules that need to be looked at when placing the water on the board. The water has to be somehow connected to the spring, whether it is beside the spring, or beside an existing canal.

To bribe the overseer, it will start with the player to the left of the overseer. They will place their coloured canal where they want the water to go, and put money along with it, in order to entice the overseer to build your canal. Each player is going to take turns doing this. A player also has the opportunity to pass (give up their action), place another, or give more money to an existing one, to entice the overseer even more.

When it gets to the overseers turn, they have the option to choose a canal to build, or pay $1 more in order to build one of their choosing.

Extra irrigation

Each player at the beginning of the game, was given 1 free water canal. If a player so chooses, starting with the player to the left of the overseer, is able to place their canal for free. Once they have placed their canal, they are not able to place another free canal, and each player is not allowed to place one for the remaining round. The canal still has to connect to the spring in someway, whether it is directly beside the spring, or beside another canal.

Drying

If a field has not received water this round, it will start to dry up. If a field has 1 to 2 markers on it, you will remove 1. Example: If 1 field has 2, it will now have 1. If a field has 1, it will now have 0.

If a field has no markers on it, you will flip the tile over, and it is now empty land. No other tile is able to be placed on it. In the future if a canal is built beside it, it does not come back to life.

If this is the last round, any tile that does not have irrigation will immediately dry up, even is markers would remain.

Collecting Income

At the end of the round, each player will receive $3.

How to Win

The game will end as soon as all piles of plantations have depleted. The player at the end of the game with the most money will win.

The Good vs The Bad

Lots of interactions with other players with bidding
Very little luck factor
People are able to get a massive amount of points focusing on one thing

Survey Says

I would give this game . It is definitely not a game I would want to play all the time. I am more of a fan of a well rounded game, not just try to get as much of one land as you possibly can.

When the game ended with the 4 of us, another player as I just focused our gathering on one particular tile, while the other 2 worked on everything. It was no surprise when the people who focused on one ended up with the most points. I think there was about 3 points difference between the two of us.

I would definitely not recommend this game to newcomers. Players would get too confused about the concept of the game, and would easily get frustrated. This is more of a intermidate to higher level game.

I could see how soe players may take advantage of the different fields by purposly trying to block off other players, but that may lead to more hurt feelings than anything.

I will definitely be playing more of Santiago in the future. More than we have done in the past, but it probably won't be brought out everytime we have a boardgaming night.

Review: Goblin:: Review of Goblin

bielie — Sun, 05 Jul 2009 21:19:25 +0000

by bielie

Ok, so I am a cheapskate. After I blew my whole gaming budget for a year on Acricola I decided that the way forward was to build my own games, as in Print and Play. Since I am a fantasy freak I looked at fantasy themed PnP games. I already have the Karim Chakroun PnP version of Magic Realm. Gonlin seemed to be a good try.

The components: Fairly basic. The scan of the original print version game board at the official website is poor quality, but nothing Photoshop can't fix. You need to crop the big original image into six separate board segments, the photo shop the fold valleys out (the clone tool works for this), do the same with the vertical cut down the middle. Next you need to increase the contrast substantially. (Unless you want a washed out print you can hardly read) Increasing the contrast really brings out the colours and black, and reveals a rather nice watercolor artwork that prints very nicely. Print on six A4 sheets, stick to board, cut at the correct places, and voila. Someone has already remastered the chits, but one has to change the colour af the C Morale Goblins, since they are the same as the B-Morale Goblins. I made them a bit lighter.

The rules are rather straight forward, it is a typical hex-and-chit game. Each unit has and archery, melee and armour class value and a morale class.

As someone before me noted, battle can be a bit stale, with many battles ending without a result. Units are only lost if they fail a morale check and run for safety. Do they die from their wounds when they run or do they die before running? I still have to figure that out.

Game play: At the start of the game it seems to be a bit one sided: Goblins raided villages protected by only handfulls of militia, and there seemed to be little one can do about it. As the game developed I got sucked into the strategy and suspense of the thing. The goblins are supreme guerrilla fighters. They attack a village, and because they move first they invariably succeed in taking the loot. The feudals send an army to respond, but arrive only after the town has been taken, and then has to attack at the disadvantage of attacking into a town hex with a penalty of 2 on a die roll. The chance of the goblins surviving the attack is fair, and if they do, instead of engaging the feudals in the next round, they just move on to the next village. A problem for the goblins is that they have to send a unit back to the caves with the loot, and this gives the feudals a change to chase them down and get the loot back.

Strategy
Goblins: Stay on the move. You can cover a lot of ground in one move. If the humans engage you, just fight that one round and move off to your next bag of loot. Avoid big buildup of armies and big battles, and above all, avoid staying in one place long enough for the feudals to fence you in. Hit, grab and run. Stay away from the keep, you need attack at a +3 penalty. It is better to take the city from the north (If you have to)

Feudals: Never abandon a town. Even just one militia unit may delay the goblins a bit. You fight an elusive enemy, so you have to be everywhere at once. Do everything possible to fence the goblins in to prevent them from moving on. If they fail morale and can't run they are wiped out. If you concentrate you army in one hex when you battle, they will just run off the next round - to a new target town. (Remember battles often end with no result.) If you drop units all around a goblin army they will attack the weakest link to try to break out. If they do - tough luck, but if they don't - you wipe them out. Obviously you need a few commanders to do this.

When reinforcements arrive consider keeping the mounted units apart from the foot soldiers, and use them to round up the goblin units carrying loot back to the caves. They have a great speed advantage in open country and if they stick to the roads they can cover half the map in one go.

Conclusion
Pro's: A fun project for a rainy afternoon. Probably not worth spending a lot of money on, but hey, this is only 7 printed colour pages and four empty cornflakes boxes. And it it quick to learn and fun to play. Nothing hard or deep about this.
What could be better? : Battle can be a bit stale. I would definitely suggest revising the rules so that sides lose units even if the result is a standoff. This is not trench warfare after all.
The only real fantasy element is that fact that the guerrillas are goblins and not barbarians, Picts or pirates, or what have you. A bit of magic and enchantment would be in order. I would have included goblin shamans and feudal sorcerers who could blast enemies with ordnance or beguile them to get lost in the mists or something. What about conjuring up goblin sirens to call them to their doom?

As it is, it is not real fantasy. Just medieval loot, pillage and rape with the goblins slapped on as an afterthought.

Review: A Castle for All Seasons:: A Castle for All Seasons - Italian review - Recensione in italiano

Chromaline — Sun, 05 Jul 2009 09:38:22 +0000

by Chromaline

Dal caldo dell'estate al freddo dell'inverno

Al momento di iniziare una recensione, dopo naturalmente aver giocato almeno un paio di volte al gioco in questione, di solito evitiamo espressamente di leggere le impressioni di altri, giusto per evitare di farci condizionare dalle opinioni altrui. Nel caso di A Castle for All Seasons (CFAS) la situazione è andata diversamente: ci siamo procurati una copia del gioco proprio dopo aver letto una recensione. Una recensione che parte in modo quasi cattivo, in cui tutto secondo il recensore non è altro che qualcosa di già visto, di non originale, di deludente. Solo dopo un paio di paragrafi si capisce che l'impressione non è in realtà così negativa, anzi, si sostiene addirittura che il gioco sia in realtà ben concepito e gradevole. Insomma cos'è questo CFAS? Vale la pena di provarlo?

Grafica da primato

Non potevamo intitolare meglio la valutazione della grafica. Ancor meglio della già decantata estetica di Pilastri della Terra, visto che poi l'art director è lo stesso. Una mappa splendida, che da sola vale la spesa del gioco nel suo insieme: una mappa double face che si sviluppa verticalmente illustrando un castello in estate e in inverno. La dotazione di gioco prevede una serie di sovrapposizioni in cartone illustranti porte, torri, pozzi, case e tutta una serie di strutture da costruire presenti all'interno della cinta fortificata. Le carte sono bellissime. La scatola lo è altrettanto, con una struttura interna tridimensionale anch'essa illustrata. I componenti in legno rientrano pienamente nella tradizione tedesca, quindi anch'essi molto gradevoli. Insomma cosa si vuole di più? E' vero, siamo fan appassionati di Michael Menzel, ma se qualcuno ci convincerà che essere graficamente originali significhi cambiare di continuo l'art director, allora vuol dire che qualcosa non quadra, almeno nelle nostre certezze.

Meccanismi noti rielaborati

In altra sede avevamo sostenuto che esistono due categorie di progettisti: i geni dell'invenzione e i professionisti della sintesi. I coniugi Brand fanno parte della seconda categoria e ad essa appartengono a tutto diritto. Il meccanismo di CFAS è conosciuto, visto che la struttura di Puerto Rico (o di Citadels, o di Mission: Red Planet, o di Galactic Emperor...) ha fatto scuola e viene implementata in modo molto funzionale, creando quel pathos che determina la vera interazione fra giocatori durante il corso della partita. La scelta dei personaggi si basa su capacità che garantiscono benefici, ma anche priorità di azione, visto che - come in buona parte degli altri giochi che implementano questa caratteristica strutturale - la sequenza operativa è rigida.
La possibilità di compiere azioni è vincolata all'utilizzo di risorse: alcune specialità permettono di acquisire quattro elementi fondamentali per la costruzione delle strutture edilizie (pietra, sabbia, legno e mattoni) più una serie di lingotti d'argento in sostituzione di materiali mancanti, altre specialità ne permettono l'utilizzo, creando con ciò un sistema articolato e funzionale finalizzato alla raccolta di punti vittoria.
L'acquisto delle costruzioni avviene sempre con un minimo di tre risorse, che devono portare a un punteggio esatto. Si scopre così dopo un paio di turni che è essenziale disporre sempre di almeno due risorse di valore pari e dispari (sabbia o pietra, che valgono rispettivamente 1 e 5 talleri, e legno o mattoni, che costano 2 o 4 talleri ciascuno). Tale situazione consente di ottenere, con tre risorse, sempre i valori pari richiesti dalle varie costruzioni. Tale meccanismo è originale e richiede pianificazioni abbastanza accurate durante lo svolgimento del gioco.
Il gioco termina alla fine del dodicesimo turno, se si gioca in 2 o 4, alla fine del quindicesimo se si gioca in tre. Vince naturalmenbte il costruttore che ha raccolto maggiori commesse durante il periodo, commesse che si riassumono nei classici punti vittoria.

Il freddo dell'inverno

Si è detto che CFAS prevede una versione del gioco in ambiente invernale. Questo permette di utilizzare una serie di carte che consentono esplorazioni strategiche diverse, rendendo il gioco un po' differente dallo svolgimento di base. Peste, carestia, freddo intenso, sono alcuni degli elementi negativi che possono comparire durante i mesi di freddo, ma anche donzelle in cerca di un rifugio, magazzini di provviste pieni possono rappresentare eventi fortunati. E' vero che forse l'utilizzo di un mazzo più corposo e regole aggiuntive più approfondite avrebbe dato un valore aggiunto di ben altro peso, ma ci accontentiamo.

Per concludere...

Che dire dunque di CFAS? Nascondere che sia un gioco che ci è piaciuto sarebbe una bugia. Non gli daremmo un 9 per i continui ritorni a sistemi conosciuti, ma tra grafica, ambientazione, velocità di gioco (dai 50 ai 60 minuti) e meccanismi oliati e ben congegnati, un posto fra i migliori giochi provati negli ultimi mesi glielo daremmo senza alcun timore.
Che ricordi Pilastri della Terra perché si tratta di un gioco di costruzione ben venga, ma in realtà è un'altra cosa. L'idea dei ruoli riporta a Puerto Rico, o ad altri giochi più o meno frequentati, ma la rielaborazione è accurata e originale. Le risorse ricordano per certi versi Stone Age, ma solo per la forma fisica dei componenti in legno, dato che l'uso delle stesse e il sistema di approvvigionamento sono lontani anni luce dal gioco di Tummelhofer. CFAS è un gioco da provare, che vale tutti i soldi che costa e che ci sentiamo di raccomandare.

Review: Dungeonlords:: Dungeon Lords short review after one play of the prototype

tech7 — Sat, 04 Jul 2009 22:10:59 +0000

by tech7

Hi,
three weeks ago, I got a chance to play the prototype of this game, since I was very impressed with it, I decided to write this review.

Two disclaimers, I'm a Vlaada Chvâtil fanboy and english isn't my native language. If you can live with that and want information about the game, continue reading.

The goal:

If you know the pc game Dungeon Keeper you already know that, you are an evil dungeonmaster who wants to build an underground dungeon, you are hiring monsters, planting traps and other fun stuff. Sadly the heroes of the land are not very happy about that and therefore try to destroy your precious dungeon. So, you must build a dungeon that is deadly enough to keep the heroes from destroying your home.

The game:

The game is played over two years (approx 1,5-2,5 hours). In each year you play three seasons and in winter a group of heroes enters your dungeon in order to destroy it. After two years, the player with the best dungeon (most victory points) win the game.

A season:
In each season you choose secretly 3 of your action cards. The possible actions are
-gain food
-mine gold (you need imps and empty corridors for that)
-mine new corridors (you need imps for that)
-create imps (workers)
-become less evil
-hire monsters (costs gold, food and/or spaces on the evil track) (the available monsters change each round)
-develop traps
-build a room (you upgrade a corridor two a room with a special function) (the available rooms change each round)

Each of your action cards represents one of these actions. Now, when everybody has chosen his three cards, each player, beginning with the start player, reveals his first card and places one of his player pawns on the icon for the appropriate action, after that the same procedure with the second and third. Each action can be done three time, this means if all 4 players choose the same action during one season, the fourth gets nothing (he gets a little payback, but I don't remember what it was, since it never happened in our game). However, usually the third spot is the best, so don't want to be the first one to place his pawns. For example the food action.
The first player will get 1 food for 1 money
The second player will get 2 food for 1 money
The third player will get 2 food and one money, but he becomes more evil (There is a track to represent that)
Now all actions will be executed, after that players can also use remaining imps if they have a room where they can do something.

Each player will get a hero, the players which are the most evil will get the stronger heroes. If you are extremely evil you will also get a paladin.

Furthermore of the three chosen actions, the second and third will stay on you player board and won't be available for you in the next season.

Now after three seasons you will have three heroes (and sometimes a paladin). Now the heroes enter the first space of your dungeon, you can now use your monsters and your traps, how many depends on the room. If you do enough damage to kill the entire hero party you are save (or you have an appropriate trap). Otherwise, they will destroy the corridor in their location and move on (up to four times). Furthermore each round there is a spell card, if the heroes have a magician in there party and he has enough mana, he automatically casts it The other heroes types are warrior (soaks up the damage), thief (prevents traps), cleric (heals damage) and the paladin (he has all 4 types). I don't remember the exact sequence of the fight, but you should now have an idea.
Each slain hero is worth victory points, and a paladin is especially good (but hard to defeat). Furthermore, you will get VP's for special rooms, undestroyed corridors, and titles. There are several titles handed out after the game, for example master of evil, master of monster, etc.

The second year works the same, but you will see stronger heroes.

There are some other details like events and you have to pay taxes, wages for your monsters and so on. But I can't remember them all at the moment.

I hope that this short review helps, feel free to ask question in this thread.

My opinion of the game.

It's great, I can't really compare it to another game since it tries to (and accomplishes) a lot. It has euro mechanics, but also a good amount of randomness and a strong theme. I think that if you like Vlaadas other designs, you will most likely also like this game. For me it's a preorder

Review: Colosseum:: Almost one year in, I still like it

jacob_j_p — Sat, 04 Jul 2009 19:24:34 +0000

by jacob_j_p

Colosseum is a game I bought at last years Gencon. I wanted to write a review after a year of playing.

In Colosseum you are trying to build up your colosseum so that it can play the biggest, best show. The game is played in 5 turns which is broken up into five phases.

The first phase is building, you spend money to add to your colosseum, or buy a bigger show. You can usually only do one build/turn in this phase, but can acquire another build later in the game.

The second phase is bidding on the resources you need to fulfill the requirements of your show. My gaming group had a hard time gettingtthis phase right, becuase it is a little confusing, but there are several threads here that help to understand the mechanics of this phase. Once we figured it out, it is a lot easier than we were making it.

The third phase is trading, you will need to trade tiles with other players, especially in later rounds to have what you need to put on your show.

The 4th phase is where you roll dice to move nobles around the board and score your show. Getting the nobles onto a medal spot give you a medal which are very useful (one of the ways to get another build is to turn in two medals). Also, getting nobles into your colosseum adds to your score for the turn. You gain gold based on how much you scored for the turn, and place your score marker there. Your score is not cumulative, but whatever your best score is/has been. On occasion, someone will score less than they did the previous round, their score does not go down, they simply get less money based on their score for that turn.

The last phase is a clean-up phase, where the highest scorer for the turn gets a bonus for the rest of the game. All players have to throw away one tile that they used in the show for the turn (gladiators die, show elements break). Finally, the lowest scorer gets to steal a tile from the highest. The winner of the game is the player who has the best single turn score

The final phase, and the auction and trading are what really drive the strategies of this game. You need to plan ahead some, but still give yourself options if the tiles you need are being used by another player, or do not show up. Also, you can not win turns 1 through 4, and then win the game. You lose too many tiles to be able to compete at the end. On the other hand, it is hard to win the game if you have not won a round or two to get those permanent bonuses for coming in first. So it's a difficult balancing act of when to score big, and when to hold back.

Overall this is a fun auction game that has a lot of strategy and some luck. The components and board all look great, as is usual for a Days of Wonder product. Some drawbacks, this game can be a bit overwhelming for new players because there are so many options, and they do not know how to progress in the game. I also think this game does not play well with less than the 5 maximum players. With fewer players some of the players will get better positioning in the auctions, and fewer tiles get into play limiting what shows will be able to score well.

With all that said, Colosseum is my first choice for an auction game if I have 5 players.

Review: Vikings:: Vikings - Italian review - Recensione in italiano

Chromaline — Sat, 04 Jul 2009 16:37:51 +0000

by Chromaline

A un passo dal Ragnarök

La cosa più difficile e, diremmo, più improbabile nel mondo delle creazioni ludiche è quella di riuscire a rendere il meccanismo di gioco il più vicino possibile alla realtà. Lo dimostrano gli esempi più estremi di wargames, là dove la simulazione dell'evento rischia in certi casi di sostituirsi al piacere stesso del gioco. Lo stesso vale però anche per il contrario: quando la giustificazione dell'ambientazione appare forzata, ben vengano un paio d'ore di piacere, anche se ciò determina un'inevitabile diminuzione della valutazione complessiva del prodotto.
Affrontando un gioco apparso ormai un paio d'anni fa nel catalogo della Hans im Glück, ci siamo imbattuti per l'ennesima volta in questo problema: si tratta di Wikinger di Michael Kiesling, autore noto, vero punto di riferimento nel panorama dei giochi da tavolo (Raja, Java e Australia sono esempi che parlano da sé); un bel gioco, niente da dire, ma con un'astrattezza che potrebbe infastidire chi speri di trovare nel prodotto un'ispirazione storica di qualche profondità.

Bande di predoni

In Wikinger il giocatore impersonifica il leader di una banda di predoni vichinghi. Il fine, com'è logico, è quello di scoprire isole e tratti di mare posti oltre gli orizzonti dei fiordi natii, tentando di impiantarvi delle colonie. Le isole scoperte vengono popolate e in queste vengono inviati specialisti dalle caratteristiche particolari: guerrieri, orafi, esploratori, pescatori e nobili, ognuno dei quali porta alla tribù dei vantaggi. Naturalmente ciò non è così facile, soprattutto quando intervengono disturbi esterni. Vince chi fa più punti, accumulabili a seconda del numero di abitanti collocati sulle isole, al numero e alle dimensioni delle stesse e alla quantità di monete raccolte.

Grafica gradevole, meccaniche strane

Il piano di gioco di Wikinger è organizzato su un tabellone principale e su una serie di strutture individuali (patrie), una per giocatore. Il piano al centro del tavolo permette di compiere le operazioni di scoperta/acquisto, le strutture individuali indicano invece il grado di evoluzione delle scoperte geografiche.
Il piano principale è organizzato intorno a una grande ruota rotante dotata di una numerazione progressiva da 0 a 11, intorno alla quale trovano posto altrettanti counter in cartone e segnalini in legno di vichinghi stilizzati. Accanto alla ruota, in sei posizioni affiancate, vengono collocate altrettante pile di counter che andranno, turno dopo turno, a riempire gli spazi intorno alla ruota.
La grafica è molto gradevole, il verde del tabellone offre un ottimo contrasto con l'azzurro dei counter; la disposizione dei vichinghi colorati intorno alla ruota - al di là dell'evocazione della tavola rotonda arturiana - ricorda la forma degli accampamenti fortificati in Danimarca, lasciando una buona impressione complessiva, che aumenta con lo sviluppo delle strutture individuali.
Queste, come si è detto, sono elementi a forma di L rovesciata che permettono di collocare i counter di scoperta creando estensioni laterali formate da isole e tratti di mare. E qui comincia l'astrazione.

Acquisti o scoperte?

Certo, imbarcarsi in imprese marinaresche implica spese ragguardevoli, soprattutto se queste si estendono geograficamente verso lidi lontani. Il fatto che specialisti di maggiore esperienza o specializzazione vengano addestrati (cosa che indubbiamente costa) e spediti insieme alle truppe di conquista, anche questo ci sta bene. Che tuttavia, per uno strano gioco del destino, lo stesso meccanismo lo si debba utilizzare per ricevere visite da incursori che creano solo dei problemi, questo è più difficile da digerire. Certo, i raid rappresentano un incognita, un po' come investire su un biglietto sfortunato della lotteria, ma sarebbe stato forse il caso di gestire gli eventi casuali in modo diverso.
Nel corso di ogni turno vengono piazzati a caso counter e vichinghi diversi nei 12 spazi liberi. La sequenza di collocamento è strettamente legata alle specializzazioni: il traghettatore (grigio) è il primo dei gruppi che compare per l'acquisto; seguono i soldati (neri) e così via. Una volta terminata una serie di specialisti si resetta la ruota e si riparte con valore zero dal colore successivo. Ciò non toglie che non si possa acquistare fin dall'inizio dei vichinghi dalle caratteristiche più interessanti (come l'orafo o il pescatore), ma questo costerebbe caro e può essere vantaggioso solo molto in là nella partita o nel caso in cui ci sia necessità di affrontare eventi particolari.

Raid ortogonali

A proposito di eventi particolari: gli ultimi "acquisti" della serie, poco prima di concludere il turno (sono sei i turni in una partita di Wikinger), sono - come si è detto - le navi di incursori che imperversano sulle nuove colonie. Anche queste hanno un colore diverso, che indica fino a dove il raid si estende territorialmente.
Qui sono necessarie due parole per spiegare com'è organizzata la mappa del giocatore: la L rovesciata riporta sulla sua parte verticale le eventuali navi degli incursori e la sequenza degli specialisti. In occasione dell'acquisto, oltre al vichingo colorato, si prende il counter posto davanti ad esso e lo si colloca a fianco dello specialista relativo sulla propria "patria", creando con ciò una serie di linee orizzontali formate da isole e tratti di mare. Su queste trovano posto naturalmente i segnalini degli specialisti. Il conteggio dei punti, che avviene in turni predefiniti e alla fine della partita, tiene conto dei vari vichinghi in vita, moltiplicando o meno il numero delle monete previste come ricompensa. Nel caso in cui siano presenti navi pirata nella prima linea, queste minacceranno tutte le isole che si trovano sotto la loro verticale fino al colore presente sulla vela, contrastati solo dalla presenza dei soldati presenti nella prima linea, uccidendo invece gli specialisti non protetti. Insomma un sistema ad assi cartesiani che è molto più difficile da spiegare che non giocarci.

Un gioco da avere

Che dire dunque di Wikinger? Wikinger non è un capolavoro, ma lo consiglieremmo senz'altro per l'originalità del sistema, per la grafica (curata, tra l'altro, da un maestro della grafica come Michael Menzel, illustratore di Stone Age, per capirci) per l'ambientazione, da sempre affascinante. Si tratta di un sistema abbastanza astratto, che tuttavia si esaurisce in un'ora scarsa di gioco, creando interazioni abbastanza interessanti fra i giocatori. Non si tratta di scontri, ma di cambiamenti strategici in vista degli sviluppi della partita. Questa, per quanto abbiamo provato, è sempre abbastanza diversa dalla precedente.
Si tratta dunque di un gioco da "seconda serata", insomma, che vale il prezzo che costa e che - al collezionista - non dovrebbe mancare nella propria ludoteca.

Review: Long Shot:: And coming up along the outside - Long Shot!

KineticKill — Sat, 04 Jul 2009 16:34:14 +0000

by KineticKill

After months of waiting for expansions to arrive for several of the best games from the last year or so (Pandemic: On the Brink, Kingsburg - To Forge a Realm, Race for the Galaxy: Rebel vs Imperium) I was once again disappointed to find they still weren’t here (this doesn’t bode well for the Ghost Stories White Moon Expansion and Battlestar Galactica: Pegasus Expansion due out this fall). Fortunately Z-Man has come through once again with a new game that’s fast, fun, and furious just in time for the Fourth of July weekend: Long Shot.

]]>

Overview:
Long Shot is a light horse racing game for 3-8 players. Players have the opportunity to buy and/or bet on the 10 different horses during the course of the race. They will also play Long Shot cards throughout the race to raise money, affect the movement of horses on the track, or steal cards from other players. You can teach the game in about five minutes and it plays in about an hour.

]]>

Components:
Z-Man has provided excellent quality components for the game. Inside the box you’ll find: a plastic insert that securely holds the components with very little room to spare, a heavy board depicting the track with some nice artwork, 10 plastic horse miniatures, stickers for the miniatures, 2 special dice, 78 heavy cardboard tokens printed on both sides (and a ziplock bag to hold them), 10 cards depicting the horses in the race and their abilities, 104 Long Shot cards, paper money, and an 8 page color rule book.

The cards are all full sized on heavy stock with the popular linen finish recent games have been using. The tokens consist of 10 sets of 7 tokens (one set for each of the 10 horses) and are used to mark your bets, along with 8 reroll tokens (one for each player). The dice are good quality hard plastic. The movement die is a d6 with the faces 0,1,1,1,1,3. The horse die is a d10 with horses 1-10 for its faces.

The horse miniatures are sturdy identical pieces in three colors (black, brown, and grey). You have to carefully apply two stickers to each horse: one to its base and another on its saddle. The stickers give each horse a unique color and a number (from 1-10). Z-Man has included two full sets of stickers in case of any problems/as future replacements. The base stickers seem to work well. The saddle stickers on several of my horses had unfolded between the time I prepped the game and actually played it, they easily folded back down and after 24 hours only one horse was still having this problem.

My only real complaints with the components are minor. The plastic insert well that holds the cards is deeper than the finger holes on its side, so getting the last few cards out of the well can be an issue. Also the rather plain paper money included in the game is enough for the betting part of the game but not for the final payouts (which can be fairly large). The inclusion of some $100 bills (only $5, $10 & $20 are included) would have easily fixed this. Like all paper money games, I advise getting a good set of poker chips and using those for all your games.

]]>

Theme:
This game drips with theme. There’s just something about a horse track that seems to draw people in. The miniatures and the betting soon had our players rooting for their horses (as well as playing cards to help them and hurt their rivals). Near the end of our first race we were all cheering at the tightly packed group of lead horses battling just short of the finish line, only to see number nine shooting up from last to win it out of nowhere. The card humor, game mechanics, and player interaction are dead on and the game is a blast to play.

]]>

Setup:
Pick one player as banker. Each player gets $25, a reroll token, and three Long Shot cards to start. Put the ten horses into the starting gate, roll off to see which player’s first, and they’re off!

]]>

Game Play:
Each turn a player follows a simple sequence:

First if you own any horses, you see if any of their special abilities apply. If so, those abilities take effect.

Next, you roll the two dice. If you want to use your one reroll (for the entire game) you may turn in your reroll token and roll one of the two dice again. The horse shown on the horse die is then moved forward the number of spaces shown on the movement die. If you own any horses, you check to see if the horse shown on the horse die appears on any of their movement bars. If so, then your horse(s) with the matching number on their movement bar will also move the number of spaces shown on the movement die. NOTE: Horses you own only get this extra movement on your turn.

If a zero is rolled on the movement die, you may steal a card at random from the owner of the horse shown on the horse die (if any) otherwise you take a card from the draw pile if the horse shown is unowned. If you own the horse, you get nothing! No horses move when a zero is rolled.

Next, you take one (and only one) of the following actions:
- Play a Long Shot card and follow the instructions on the card.
- Buy an unowned horse from the bank (and take its card to show you own it now).
- Place a $5 bet on any horse (mark this bet with one of the cardboard tokens if you don’t own the horse, or put the money under your horse’s card if you do). You may add $5 to an existing bet. NOTE: You may not place a bet on a horse in the No Betting section of the track.
- Discard exactly two Long Shot cards (ignoring their effects) and collect $5.
- Pass

Finally, you end your turn by drawing a Long Shot card and passing the dice to the next player.

]]>

Winning:
When the first horse crosses the finish line, it is placed in the Winner’s circle in the blue ribbon position. The second horse over goes into the Place position (red ribbon), and the third into the Show position (white ribbon). When the third horse crosses the finish line the game immediately ends. If more than one horse crosses the line on a turn, the horse rolled on the horse die crosses the line first, then any horses owned by the rolling player cross in whatever order the rolling player wishes. If a horse that has already finished is rolled on a turn, reroll the horse die.

The player owning the winning horse (if any) gets a $100 purse. The player owning the Placing horse (if any) gets a $75 purse, and the owner of the Showing horse (if any) gets a $50 purse.

Players then resolve their bets one by one as follows: all losing bets go to the bank. For each bet on one of the top three horses, you give the bet to the banker. They then consult the odds on that horse’s card for the position they finished in and are then paid the amount of the bet multiplied by that number (so a $20 bet on a 9-1 winning horse will pay $180).

At game end, players total their winnings with their remaining cash on hand. Whoever has the most money then wins (unfortunately there are no official tie breakers, as we had a tie on our first race for the winner. We went with the player owning the winning horse for that game).

]]>

High Points:
This game is a lot of fun to play. The theme and player rivalry is great. The fact that you can make money by betting on other people’s horses makes for some interesting alliances during the race. A flurry of movement cards played near the end of the race can really rev up the excitement (Wow, your two horses are right at the finish line. Too bad the track’s muddy and they have to move back two spaces. Insert evil grin here).

]]>

Low Points:
Downtime can occur, and is greater with more players. The good news is turns are short and there are some cards you can play out of turn to keep you in the game. Some players may not like the wild luck swings possible.

]]>

Final Impressions:
I really enjoyed this game. Its got a good mix of things to hold your interest and is short enough not to wear out its welcome. I think it will soon hold a similar place in our play rotation as Around the World in 80 Days, a frequently played light game that’s easy to learn, fun to play, handles up to eight, and enjoyed deeply.

Review: Sector 41:: Quick review of a nice puzzle game

Matt Drown — Sat, 04 Jul 2009 16:20:59 +0000

by Matt Drown

I playtested this last year at one of the local game conventions and liked it enough that when it showed up for pre-order I ordered it.

I finally got a chance to play it earlier this week in a 4 player game.

The game sets up a random play board with 81 tiles (9x9 grid) face down. Each player starts on an edge and explores the play area from there. They can move scout ships out to explore and harvest victory points from the board. Movement is not linear, as each tile can cause a chain reaction of movement somewhere else. Of course while you are trying to collect VP's, your opponent is doing the same, and contact with another players scout ship results in the attacker sending the defender back to the edge of the board. The board can mutate slowly due to the ability to shift columns of tiles from your playing edge (folding space in the rules). The combination of random tile placement, and shifting board, creates a nice puzzle of movement on each turn for players to try to collect victory points on the board.

Each tile has a different impact on how you can move around the board. They can cause you to move around an extra tile, or multiple tiles, or allow you to transport to another section of the board. So the goal is to figure out how to get your scout ship from your edge to a victory point (located on planet tiles), and then back to your edge (and mothership). This creates some rather interesting bouncing around (think richocet robots) to get to tiles, and this is the puzzle.

In the meantime, there is a "guardian" token that moves around and exposes un-exposed tiles to speed up the game play. And later removes tiles from play if the game hasn't ended fast enough. This mechanic works well in the game and is timed well, so that it doesn't feel like you have an artificial ending (in our game we finished before the guardian started destroying tiles).

The game play is fast enough in a 4 player game that even with 4 new players, there was little down time. You plot your movement ideas while others playing, and turns are short. Even with all this plotting, the analysis paralysis wasn't bad at all. There is interaction/contention for the victory points on the board, and this creates some interesting possibilities.

Our 4 players, all new, took two hours, though we have a habit of being slow on our first games. It will easily be down to 90 minutes on our next game.

In summation, the game will hit the table again. Everyone playing liked it and wanted to try again. The changing board keeps the tactics changing each game, and the complexity level is low enough that it explains very quickly (rules are a double sided 8.5/11 small font piece of paper). Check it out, you'll like it.

Review: Blood Bowl: Living RuleBook:: Blood Bowl PC Review

Jasta — Sat, 04 Jul 2009 08:33:07 +0000

by Jasta

Intro

Ok so this isn't a boardgame review as such, but it's a review of a computer simulation of a boardgame which I've seen on the Geek before. Apologies if anyone finds this inappropriate.

I played the 2nd edition of Blood Bowl on the tabletop a LONG time ago and don't really have the time to get a team together anymore let alone find people to play the game with. My Blood Bowl fix has mainly come from playing FUMBBL, the other online Blood Bowl game. I enjoyed it quite a lot (and the competition was fierce) but living in an Australian timezone and finding games with acceptable opposition was tough - plus sometimes I like playing three games in a row or pausing a game for an hour in the middle. Neither of which is all that likely with random human opponents.

So when I heard there was a proper port of the game to PC I was pretty excited.

Overview

The game is currently available for digital download at http://www.bloodbowl-game.com

IMO it's a very reasonable price at USD$49.99 and at only 1.5Gb it's not too bad on your download cap either (if you live in a stone age country that still has them like I do).

The game includes a fairly faithful replica of the Blood Bowl Living Rulebook version 5 as well as a live action version of the game that uses an RTS style control system that can be paused at any time. Both versions support single matches, comptetitions and cups and a campaign system against either AI or online, LAN or hotseat opponents.

The Good

The game looks and sounds great. The models mostly look nice - they've even got all the mutations modelled with a wide range of animations and the stadiums are brilliant. I can't really find any flaw in the eye-candy department allthough apparantly you do need a reasonable system to run it. The audio is nothing to write home about and the commentary is cheesey and pretty repetitive. Strangely enough though I haven't grown bored of it enough to switch it off yet.

The game feels like Blood Bowl. Some people have been complaining on forums that the random number generator is screwy or that the computer cheats or that the game is too hard. I haven't found this. All my old strategies work, I pull off ridiculously risky plays about as often as I get completely hosed on a simple 2+ roll which is to say rarely. The game is still all about maximising your odds and minimising risks and I really cannot tell any difference with the way the game plays and the way the tabletop game or FUMBBL plays.

Off the pitch the game is pretty good too. Managing your team, checking stats, upgrading players and buying new ones is all pretty simple. The game also keeps track of loads of fun stats like the best rusher, most violent player, best passing team etc. for any particular campaign or cup.

The extra touches they've added to the 'Blitz' version (which can still be either turn based or real time) are really nice IMO. In the campaign you can buy randomly generated 'star' players in the off season (allthough 90% of them have pretty weird skill sets.) You can buy new helmets and pads etc. for your star players which look fantastic and give a small chance of a stat upgrade for each game. Nice to have a little bit of extra padding for your best players without it being overpowered. There's also a kind of gimmicky 'training' function that provides a similar bonus at the risk of losing the player for the match. All of these things are completely optional so if you want to play vanilla LRB5 that's fine.

The Not So Good

The AI. This might be the biggest issue for some people. I'd probably rate the AI (on hard mode) as equal to someone who's played the game maybe 10-12 times. It does its best to protect the ball carrier, forms cages, tries risky plays at the end of a half and does its best to stomp your players into the mud. Unfortunately it still makes some stupid decisions, tries dumb moves first and is far too conservative. If you're a Blood Bowl veteran you will concede the occasional touchdown but you should still win every game barring a string of horrific injury rolls.

The good news is that even if you're a veteran it will still throw some very curly problems for you to solve, and I always thought of Blood Bowl as a very well themed puzzle game. Yes I win every game but it's still requires a good mental workout. The computer definitely plays fast passing teams better than running teams but I wouldn't be surprised if a patch comes out that beefs up the AI. Having said all this if you're a Blood Bowl beginner or intermediate I cannot think of a better way to brush up on your skills.

Multiplayer is a bit of a mixed bag. If you want to play an organised game or cup with friends you are more than catered for whether it's in the same room or over the net. If you want to play against total strangers you might have more difficulty. There is no easy way to hook up with quality opponents and joining a random league looks like an excercise in frustration.

I won't comment too much on the real time game as it doesn't really interest me. I had a bit of a bash at it and to be honest it's not quite as awful as I thought it was. It's still a chaotic mess and telling your players apart is nearly impossible (it can be difficult enough in the turn based game for some teams) but to be fair the short time I played it was still kind of fun. The dynamics of the game change a lot as there are no turnovers so you get to see plays that would be nearly impossible in the turn based game (like a Troll taking 4 attempts to pick up a ball but then running the length of the field flattening everyone in his path for a touchdown.)

The Rotten

Yes there is pretty hardcore copy protection and there have been some bugs reported. I haven't seen any and I don't have issues with Securom but your mileage may vary. Patches have been pretty frequent and hopefully will continue to fix up any lingering problems.

No Dark Elves, High Elves or Undead! This sucks as Dark Elves are my favourite team but I guess they needed something to put in an expansion pack. There aren't Amazons or Norse or any of the other more obscure teams either but Goblins did make it into the mix.

There are some things missing from the full tabletop game as well. Goblins don't have bomb throwers, each team can only get one named star player so there's no Morgn'thorg or Hakflem Scuttlespit and journeyman don't work quite the same way. The biggest thing missing in my opinion is weather effects which means the kick off table is less interesting.

So Should I Buy It?

If you've got an organised group of friends who want to start a cup or league but don't have the time to paint miniatures or get together in one place then this is a must buy IMO. It's got everything you need plus the eye-candy to boot.

If you're looking to join a worldwide league and pit your team against the best the internet has to offer, you're much better off sticking with FUMBBL. Cyanide's game just isn't robust enough to deal with the griefers and crybabies you'll find online.

Finally if you just plain like playing Blood Bowl, then seriously consider it. If you're a halfway decent player the AI as it stands isn't going to be a huge challenge but you'll still have fun and there's something to be said for being able to have a game whenever you have a spare hour lying around - especially if you've never played the game before.

Review: Space Alert:: Giant Hamster Ball of Chaos

VixenTorGames — Sat, 04 Jul 2009 06:45:05 +0000

by VixenTorGames

Imagine you and four friends are in a giant hamster ball. Now imagine that you have all been eating Snickers and drinking Red Bull for the last 48 hours. Now imagine that the hamster ball is careening down the Alps, bouncing off trees and skiers and dogs with whiskey barrels on their collars. Almost done - just one more thing - now imagine that you have to control this insane spherical avalanche of chaos, and that's Space Alert.

Since you probably need more than that to call this a game review, I'll discuss a little of how this game works. The theory is that you're all manning an explorer craft in space, and while you're out there, stuff comes flying at you like crazy. And you have to shoot cannons, fire rockets, order robots, charge reactors, power shields, and just in case you're not too busy already, you also have to hit the mouse every now and then to keep the screensaver from coming on (I am not making this up).

As if that wasn't enough crap going on, you're on a serious time limit. The timer is accomplished with a CD, and each 10-minute recording will spout off now and then to tell you that there are bad guys coming in, or that you get more cards, or that you need to lie down and put a cool rag on your forehead after you play three or four times (OK, now that part I made up).

Every game is basically split into two segments. The first part is where you plan what you're going to do. You don't actually have to resolve anything, you just put out cards. The problem is that while you're putting down cards that do stuff like move, use the elevator, or fire yourself into space, the clock is ticking. And every so often, the recording will announce a new threat, one that could quite possibly blow you directly to Hell (unless, of course, you have made other arrangements, like praying a lot and avoiding strong drink - but either way, you're dead).

The chaos that ensues while the soundtrack is playing is amazing. It's unlike anything I've ever played. It might actually make you wish you were doing something a little less stressful, like driving the wrong way in traffic while you check your voice mail and light a cigarette with your kids screaming in the back seat because frankly, you're going the wrong way and you're probably about to kill them (and may I add that if you smoke in the car while your kids are in the back seat, you are probably the same kind of dirtbag asscrack who wears his seatbelt while he lets his children bounce around like super balls in a paint mixer).

After ten minutes, the soundtrack ends, and then you see how you actually did. A very useful turn tracker walks you through every step, and you use the board to keep track of how well you managed to shoot down the space octopus, battle the slime, and deactivate the nuclear device, all while trying to remember if you turned off the iron.

What generally happens is that you probably get through the first three or four turns pretty well, and maybe even manage to get another third of the way through the game before everyone starts turning up cards and going, 'why am I looking out the window right now instead of launching rockets, and how come you fired the cannon when we haven't had anything on that side of the ship for five minutes?' It sort of unravels at the end, with people shooting at targets that aren't there, activating robots willy-nilly, and mostly just hoping that the last few threats aren't big enough to blow your doors off.

However, if everyone stays sharp, and someone plans really, really well, you can come through alive. It's not impossible to win the game, just really hard. This is a completely cooperative game, but sometimes it doesn't feel like it, especially when your cohorts play the wrong cards, or fail to pay attention, or just completely don't get how to play and wind up using up all the energy to charge the shields on the wrong side of the ship so that you don't have any power left to shoot the kamikaze fighter that ends up crashing into you like a wrecking ball full of high explosives.

In fact, to give yourself the best chance of success, you'll want to play several games with the same group. After a while, everyone will start to understand the various actions and how things work, and hopefully figure out how to work together as a team. If you've ever played a cooperative game and been totally irritated by that one mouthy know-it-all who tells everyone what they ought to do on their turns, this game should be the cure. That guy might still try to dominate, but now you can make him the captain, and if you all die, you can blame it all on him.

One final note here - I hated this game the first time I played. I mean, I was so irritated and confused that I actually said, 'I don't care if I ever play this again.' But we tried it again, and then one more time, and I started to see how this could actually be a really fun game. Then I tried it solo, and it was a completely different game, and it was still fun. Heck, at this point, I want to make it a regular mainstay with my family, because I think it would be a blast once we get it down.

Of course, knowing my kids, they'll probably drive the hamster ball into a ski lodge and blame it all on each other, but what the hell. We'll bond.

Summary

Pros:
The CD could have been a total gimmick, but turns out to be a critical game component
Cooperative game that really forces teamwork
You're really proud of yourselves when you win
Hilarious rulebook is funny and informative at the same time

Cons:
Utter chaos
Should never be played with people who don't get it
Painful learning curve may stop people from learning the game

Review: FITS:: The First Game I Enjoy Solo?

feydjm — Sat, 04 Jul 2009 05:33:14 +0000

by feydjm

I've seen many games over the years proclaim that they support solo play. To date none of them convinced me to actually play them solo. Until tonight.

For those who have avoided learning about this latest Knizia SDJ nominee, I think you should avoid it no longer. FITS is a game from Ravensburger for 1-4 players. Pentomino (although some are only 3 and 4 block pieces) style pieces are slid vertically down the provided ramps in an attempt to achieve the most points. Unlike Tetris, the pieces cannot be moved horizontally to fill in gaps.

There are 4 different boards that come with the game and you score points differently on each board. There is one universal scoring rule: If a gray dot on the board is exposed at the end of the round, it's worth -1 point. On the first board the goal is the simplest: Complete the most rows, each one being worth a point. The second board provides some bonus positive point spaces that are worth points if you don't cover them up. Board 3 has positive and negative bonus points, and then the 4th board forces you to try to leave sets of circles uncovered.

Whoever has the most points at the end wins.

This is not a deep strategy game, it's all about doing the best you can with the next card that flips up. This is a critical point as to why I enjoy this game. Every game ends with the feeling that you could do better and hence desire to play again, and again, and again.

While opening the game today, I just started flipping cards and playing the first board. I think I played through the 1st board 5 or 6 times before I stopped. My scores ranged from -5 to 6. The key here is that I was enjoying this by myself. I find this a really fun game and I'm encouraged by the solo playability. I think it lends itself to solo play more than other games I've played.

I think anyone that enjoys puzzle games will really like this game and it appears to be widely available now, so enjoy!

Review: Die Säulen Der Erde: Duell der Baumeister:: Small review of Pillar's nice little brother

Ponton — Fri, 03 Jul 2009 23:23:10 +0000

by Ponton

Theme

This is a 2-player only game in the world of Ken Follet's "Pillars of the Earth". Bishop Waleran and Prior Philip compete with each other who will be the first to finish their building - Waleran is building his castle, Philip is building the cathedral of Kingsbridge.

Flow of Play

Each player has its own set of resources that need to be gathered and upgraded before they can be built in the player's building (red = Waleran builds his castle, blue = Philip builds the cathedral). You've got 12 rounds at most to complete your building. In each of the 12 rounds 9 cards are laid out in a 3x3 pattern. The start player (Waleran, this won't change unless Philip gets a special card) takes any one row or column or one of the two diagonals and places markers on those cards. The other player does the same, but needs to cross the first players line. Thus, there will be always one card that both players want to take. They fight for it by flipping numbered chits in the air (this is the silly part of the game). You can flip more if you threw the lower total and so on.(*) Winner loses all chits thrown, loser all but one. Loser doesn't get the card, obviously. Then proceed with executing the cards and start a new round.

What do the cards show? They allow you to take resources, to upgrade them or produce money. Yes, money. You'll need it for upgrading resources, buying them on some cards, and most importantly, you need money to build upgraded resources in your building. The buildings are, btw, split in three sections and you only ever are allowed to add resources to one such section (but you may chose another one next round and come back to another later). If you are the first to complete a section, you get a bonus that your opponent doesn't (even if he completes this section later).

If you manage to complete your building, you win immediately. If the 12 rounds are over and nobody has completed his or her building, the player who has completed the most sections wins. If tied, moset spent resources break the tie. If again tied, most left-over money wins. If still tied, Philip wins as Waleran always makes the first move in any one session.

My Opinion

I like the Tic Tac Toe like claiming of action cards and the forced battle for one of them (such that one player gets 3 the other gets 2 actions). I really dislike the flipping of the chits to resolve battles. It's a funny part, but at the same time silly and somehow reminds me of Carcassonne Catapult. Geez, dear game designers, please do NOT take Catapult as standard. Puh-leeeeeze.

However, the game itself is good, plays in about half an hour and absolutely fits for 2 players. It really feels like a battle between two rivals and you can see your building grow higher than your opponent's. Anyway, as with every euro, there is little theme in the end - the mechanics are, as always, clearly in the center of the game. I do not have a problem with this. The game experience counts and I had a good one. However, if you think Pillars have very little theme (and have a problem with this!), you'll find this game to have even less. The cards are named with characters from the book, but honestly, who cares in a euro game? I didn't bother looking at the illustrations.

I give this game 7/10 points. It's good and way lighter than its old brother, but plays way faster and leaves a decent experience. I'd say try before you buy. Ken Follet or Pillars fans, on the other hand, will find this is a must-buy, anyway.

Edit: Typos.
Edit2: Added paragraph below.

(*) Why do you flip chits in this game?
Well, each chit is showing two numbers that sum up to 5 on both sides (0/5, 1/4, 2/3). The flipping of these chits is a sort of randomizer for the value you get.

Review: Dominion: Intrigue:: An Expansion Always Does Expand Things...Right?

MichaelB — Fri, 03 Jul 2009 22:45:05 +0000

by MichaelB

A review of the long waited stuff is always a task to compose....

Well. To my surprise my friend had already gotten his pre-ordered Intrique and of course I was eager to try it out. I had read the spoiler before but not made any significant notes of not-so-obvious cards. I wanted to keep this expansion as unexplored as possible before the real thing = the first play sessions.

And several games we played (three player games) and ensured that all the new cards where in the mix atleast once.

1) Components...or art in this case:

Pretty much what you can expect. However I actually liked the cartoonish approach of some cards (like Harem). It gave some new fresh not-so-serious (Phil Foglio style of MtG circa 1994-95) touch to other mainstream "medieval" stuff you have seen hundreds of times. No complains. No ultra great either.

2) The essence...how the cards actually hold the candle.

In short paragraphs and hopping sentences:

+ I liked the funky approach which meant that usual routes of "silver-silver-silver-and then the game actually starts" does not work as often as before. The new cards and combinations made players think and usually thinking was worth time spent.

+ It does perfectly its job. It expands the base game. I actually would not recommend to play Intrique-only setup after initial familization process...the reasons:

1) Practically all Intrique cards are more complicated than their comparable versions of base game - this actually dismisses the base Dominion's greatest asset = fast and simple play and can turn the the play experience into a relative brainburning struggle where the fun factor can be lost.

2) You just need simpler and more straight cards from the base set. If all are funky...then the funky factor gets inflated.

+ There were several ultra cool cards which instantly were hits:

Ironworks: You just want this into your deck unless the card mix is very obscure.

Bridge: Screams for abuse. But it needs work...you do it well and it can pay double back.

Masquerada: Ultra fun card but has "black market" label on it : After all is more annoying than rewarding. However the card switching between the players is original concept. Props for that.

Swindler: Not exceptional by default but is the most fun of Attack cards as it usually at least does mess things up. I liked the card. However I would have hoped it had been a bit better.

...of course there were a lot of strong cards like Steward, Trading Post....absolutely great Mining Village...but these missed some fun, "work around factor" and originality of something more fancy like Bridge...

+ I really liked the cards which gave minor VP attached (Harem, the Great Hall etc). Not terribly original but functional and clear.

+/- I am not fan of cards which had multiple choices (like Pawn I already hate a lot). I agree that they give room for tactical paths/opportunities but I seriously think that it only slows the gaming process instead of giving enough back in quality.

- I did not like extra randomness some cards offer (Wishing Well, Tribute etc). Too situational. Just too random. Of course the other cards can give you means to get a ticket to pass that random obstacle but more than often it seemed too workaholic task compared to fun playing there could have been instead.
(the analogy is like playing Puerto Rico game with strong Forest House strategy....you can be a strong/winner-by-ease but you probably miss a half of the fun as your moves need to be optimized whole time for the strategy)

- After all those interesting (and again generally good) cards...when the dust has settled the outcome is revealed: There was no revolutionary stuff. It was after all same action-card-vp-discount-attack chain and optimizing it. No new card/action/ type (a'la permament). No altering of game state/turn order/base rules.

- Attack cards were interesting but generally a bit too weak. This was actually the biggest disappointment. The base Dominion for example included very fine Bureucrat and I somehow expected that expansions give more similar indirect attack cards...it actually does but with weaker effects...

I have fluctuated with my opinion of Dominion (my geekrating history goes smt like - first five games = '8', five games more = '7', three games more = '6'...then after five-ten more games a revelation and back to '8' where Dominion has stayed for two dozen+ games.

This expansion is fine and thought (almost overthought as many cards were quite wordy) job. It expands the base game and if you enjoy Dominion there certainly is no reason be without Intrique.

May be Intrique was a slight disappointment for me ('7' compared to base Dominion's '8')..I think...but yet still I am going to buy it next week. The rating for this after-all fine expansion is more probable to rise to '8' than stay its current '7'.

A good well-thought effort. May be too much what we actually expected with no revolutionary ideas but still...an interesting set of funky and gameplay altering cards.

I really look for setting up some Throne Room combos with the juiciest Intrique cards...

.mikko

Review: Battlestar Galactica:: A taxonomy of the metagame.

thepackrat — Fri, 03 Jul 2009 21:27:58 +0000

by thepackrat

We've just run into a spot of conflict over the appropriate way to play Battlestar Galactica, and I thought it would be an interesting starting point for a discussion. I'm going to leave aside the question of sympathisers simply because I've recently played a variant without them which seemed to improve the game.

Level 0. No Meta-game.

In the most basic form of the game, all Human players would always play optimally. They'd try to win all skill checks possibly with a safety margin to avoid the Destiny Deck and they'd be completely surprised when a Cylon managed to insert some additional bad cards.

In the same sense, the Cylons would simply seek to cause as many skill checks to fail as possible. If they fell under suspicion, they would simply reveal themselves, possibly taking a supercrisis and start hammering the human players as hard as possible from the safety of their own ship.

Of course, there aren't enough skill cards available to participate in every skill check so in level 0 we'd probably have to include simply not participating in skill checks which didn't seem important enough, or didn't seem to need any help to pass or fail.

Level 1. The Cylons are tricksy.

Everyone knows toasters can't be trusted. Even the ones who don't know they are really toasters underneath. Plus, they look like us!

In order to cause maximum damage, a Cylon has to remain undetected. This would be difficult if they went the wrong way in every skill check. To be more ambiguous they'd play positively sometimes, perhaps most of the time, to demonstrate good faith, and then only sabotage a few critical checks.

With any larger number of players, it can be almost as important for the Cylons to signal their identities to one another as it is to conceal them from the other players. Thus begins the delicate dance of one or two players in their own personal metagame.

In this level, the humans are still always good, they always act wholly for the good of the ship, but may choose to sit out unimportant skill checks, or decide they aren't needed.

Level 2. Are the humans so helpless?

Previously the humans were assumed to be helpless pawns, trying desperately to battle against a faceless enemy, unable to strike back except to struggle grimly onwards towards their final destination. This probably satisfies some constraints of theme, but surely the plucky little humans we came to know so well in the series are capable of just a teeny bit of deception?

During the game, some characters draw multiple loyalty cards or have other special powers that give them limited additional actions. The use or non-use of those, or especially have more loyalty cards can subtly (or unsubtly) skew the Cylon probabilities of these players, in the eyes of both Cylon and Human players.

At level 2, the humans are free to take advantage of this ambiguity, to step up to the place of possible other Cylon for a time to lure the Cylons they know exist into becoming reliant on their assistance, in passively letting themselves be brigged to help a comrade establish their bona fides and so forth. Of course, the other players have to be willing to accept the extra ambiguity simply because the stated goal of the game is to stop the Cylon menace at any cost, not to consider some wider moral purpose, or how history might unfavourably view necessary collaboration.

Conclusion and Discussion

So, to all the avid BSG players out there, which level of metagame feels right to you? Which is a game you'd rather play and why?

Notes and variant idea.

Fundamentally, the opportunity to participate or not in a skill check can be misused, particularly by players who insist noone bar them participates in a skill check. This can be used as a free investigation card to effectively force people to either reveal the card they put into a skill check or to permit one player to control its outcome.

One interesting variant that fixes this would be to force everyone with cards to contribute at least one to every skill check. In this resulting noise, there would be far more ambiguity and interesting choices about how badly one could afford to damage a skill check. This variant would require some reworking so that people had more opportunity to collect cards either during their turns, or during their off turns.

Review: Hogwarts: House Cup Challenge:: I have yet to finish a full game

LetsGetTrivial — Fri, 03 Jul 2009 16:40:10 +0000

by LetsGetTrivial

Plays:
-- Solo play to 100 points (x1)
-- 2-player to 300 points (x1)
-- 3-player to 300 points (x1)

As the plays above indicate, this is a long game. So long, in fact, that we have yet to finish a full game to 500 points. This is unfortunate for a game of such potential and probably the best of the Harry Potter games so far. In fact, it is difficult to describe the game to someone (especially a Harry Potter fan) without it sounding interesting and fun. "You run around gaining skills and having adventures".

What works well?
Seeding the board with cards is the one thing I really liked about the game. Playing cards on spaces is the central mechanic of the game, but is less thematic than seeing what adventures are happening around the school/castle and going to check them out.

What is lacking?
The cards. If you are on the space with a card and can fulfill the requirements, you get rewards. If you cannot fill the requirements of the card, you are punished. So the cards themselves lack interesting decisions. If you can defeat the card, then you play it on yourself to get the reward. If you cannot beat the card, you hold onto it until you can. There is very little incentive to play a card on another person as this will delay him/her only slightly. Further, there is NO benefit whatsoever of player a VP card anywhere but on yourself. As such, I worry the game reduces to who draws the most VP cards.

Because of these issues, I would have liked to see each card have a choice between earning skills or earning VP. This could also help speed up the game, which is the real problem. There is just not enough gameplay here for the length of time the game takes (2+ hours).

Other random thoughts
The board is big. You just won't believe how vastly, hugely, mind-bogglingly big it is.

The cards are difficult to read at a distance, which is especially a problem with the big board. Icons would have worked well to make the cards easily seen at a greater distance.

I like the artwork on the board even though it strikes me as too busy at times. I also like the movie stills even though I usually like the HP art instead of movie tie-ins. Speaking of artwork, I didn't have any problem with the text on the board, but my S/O thought all the C's looked like G's.

I was disappointed there are not more characters (Fred, George, Ginny, Dean Thomas, Angelina, etc.) for variety. Heck I wouldn't even mind if that stats repeated.

Runaway leader problem as the leader gets ability tokens at every 25 VP mark. Room of Requirement is not enough to off set this advantage.

Playing a card directly on an opponent is (mostly) a bad idea. Instead it is much better to play a difficult card that BLOCKS an opponent so they have to waste a turn for the encounter.

The board is not always clear about adjacency. In the castle there is an opening to indicate pathways between rooms in the castle and exits. Outside the caste, there are no such openings.

Final thought
The game is long. A full game is supposed to go to 500 points. It was often obvious who was going to win after 100 points, but we played on till 300 points anyway and called it a day. A possible reason the game is so long us that there are too few points in the deck. Here are my counts:
Year 1: 215 VP (20 cards)
Year 2: 105 VP (12 cards)
Year 3: 120 VP (10 cards)
Year 4: 85 VP (9 cards)
Year 5: 80 VP (6 cards)
Total: 605 VP (57 cards), approx 10 VP per card
As the game progresses some of the cards will be reshuffled so the above counts could vary by game. That said, there appears to be fewer cards in the deck with points as the game progresses and they are more difficult to get. This makes the game drag on as there are few decisions to make each turn and no long-term strategy.

Review: Tales of the Arabian Nights:: A Non-Bullet Point Review for Tales of the Arabian Nights

Superhawk2300 — Fri, 03 Jul 2009 16:06:02 +0000

by Superhawk2300

A Non-Bullet Point Review for Tales of the Arabian Nights

This review is written paragraph style, which is fitting for the game it is reviewing. I have highlighted key words to help the reader find the areas of interest. I hope the writing style of this review lends some insight as to my preferences, as without understanding the person writing the review it can be hard to judge the content of the review as they apply to the reader. Anyways, on with the review.

The first thing I noticed when I was handed my copy of my newest adopted child was that he was a heavy one! Weighing in at 8 pounds this is probably the most physically heavy game in my closet. It comes in the 'not quite as popular as the 11.5 x 11.5 standard game box' and is 14.5 inches x 10.5 inches and is 3 inches thick. The box itself is beautiful; nice design and a glossy sticker for the main image. And it is a heavy duty box the most sturdy box of any game I own, hands down. That is where part of the weight comes from I think. The scotch tape will be disappointed if it thinks it is going to be applied to this game holding container.

I won’t do an inventory of the game components as that is listed in the game description on the web, just about everywhere. Removing the components from the box the first thing I noticed is the cardboard punch-outs for characters and hence the lack of molded plastic figures. There is some player interaction in the game and keeping track of who is where is semi-important so I can see why they opted to go this route. All the cardboard is thick stock, the text is clear, and the pieces punched out nicely. The game board measures roughly 28 x 21 inches and is a single entity. It also is a very sturdy quality. The screening / printing on all the cardboard components is textured and very high quality. The cards are 2.25 x 3.5 inches and are of a fair / average stock thickness. The quality screening is again evident here. My favorite card stock is the stock used by Flying Frog and these are much lighter than that but still fine. The cardboard character playing pieces have plastic stands that hold the cardboard very securely. The rulebook is printed in the highest fashion with glossy, heavy print. Upon opening it the printing smell immediately took me back to my teen youth and the smell I noticed when opening a D&D module for the first time. Ahhhh, how sweet it is. The Reaction Matrices player aid is printed on heavier stock but I think it will get some wear fairly quickly and could have been on even heavier stock. The Book at Tales is the ring-bound and of the same quality as the rule book. I think it should hold up pretty well. I think the chapter indexes in the front of the book could have been printed in a separate book for ease of use, but it isn’t that big of a deal. The individual player aids are heavy cardboard as well and has all of the info needed to remind one of the game turn and other data. All of the components fit back in the box after they are punched and the insert seems to serve a purpose and helps hold the stuff in place, so it lives on.

Game setup was a bit lengthy. The status cards need to be sorted as do the skill chits, and there are lots of these and it took both of us sometime. I recommend keeping them in alphabetical order when packing them up. Thankfully the player piece setup / board setup is a snap.

I am not going into game mechanics / turn order as there are already two reviews that cover this specifically and they do a fine job of it. I will comment on game play in general however and the things we noticed about it. First, plenty happens to your character that you have no control over. If you are looking for a strategic web to unravel do not look here. Second, there is little character / player interaction, but there is some. Since the game is story driven the small amount of interaction there is can change the game significantly. Between the two previous points the game can feel more like it is playing itself. I would have preferred some more control; even maybe just some more input in the same general way. After a while it seemed fairly procedural and this made the feeling that I was 'riding' and not 'driving' even more pronounced. The length of the game did not help the feeling either. Most of the game I had the required points to 'win' (a term I use very loosely) but I was prevented from executing the win for quite some time due to circumstances beyond my control. In the meantime I maxed out both scoring tracks and this seemed a little off to me.

So what would have helped? Some encounters to have more interaction in them. Most encounters are a 'choose and suffer’ type. Yes if you have some skills that are pertinent you can use them but that only alters the result of the encounter in its entirety. And if you do not have a skill that pertains to the encounter it is 'too bad, so sad' this is what happens to you. Don’t like it, tough. Should not have drawn that card and picked that keyword. So it goes something like this: 1. Get an encounter one of a few ways, 2. check for skills (do you have either of these skills? 'no' is my usual answer so the default action applies to me) and 3. apply result. If you do have a skill you have the choice to use it or not, but I cannot see for the life of me why one would not use a skill when they finally get a chance to actually alter the line of what will happen to them.

Another thing that would help here is to have encounters that last more than one choice once-in-awhile. Some encounters spawn additional encounters but that is not the same thing. The way things are a battle of 20,000 troops hinges on your multiple choice answer, of which you may only have 2, or even only 1 of the options available to you.

I would suggest more than two players in this game as well. When there is the opportunity for player interaction, it does no good if the only other player is all the way across the map and there is no way to get to them. More players will make interaction more possible and more likely if it is possible. When my wife and I play again two-player style we will either each play with two characters or I will rig a ghost player somehow (which will be pretty easy from the looks of it). I do not think I would like the game with more than 5 or more players and 3 may be the sweet spot.

Also if there were more affects that influenced the game, even ones that cannot be directly controlled, the game would seem more 'exciting'. More crazy combos with matrix checks would be better for variety but would admittedly slow things down a bit. Even in our first play we had two repeat encounters. Thankfully the die roll mitigated a duplicate result.

So my overall review probably sounds pretty negative. Indeed there are some things that this game does that are different than most game experiences. If you are the type of gamer who plays to win and has strong feelings about how games work this may not be the game for you. Despite the overall feeling of my review I actually liked the game quite a bit. Expectations were key here. I went in knowing winning was not important to the game and I would not be in control of a lot of things. The game stresses it is a story telling game and encourages players to drop the drive to win and not to break the game down into its base mechanic, but instead to take the time to savor the game. One problem with that is that the paragraphs you read to each other are pretty short and each encounter is not connected to any other one. This is remedied by adding to the text with vocal talents and elaborations, as well as ribbing and enjoying previous results and affects that happen to each other throughout the game. Like the game Funny Friends, reliving the game and the way it weaves your characters life after the fact is just as much fun as playing while you play it. For example my character got married and then later in the game he was turned into a beast. When I returned home to my wife we spawned a child that was 'as ugly as an elderly camel'. Mechanic-wise, the ugly child result had nothing to do with the fact I was a beast, (only the marriage card determined the child result) but the combination of the two worked so well together it seemed a story really was being woven for my character.

So I enjoyed my play and look forward to playing again. TotAN is refreshing and different, but it will take the right crowd to have a good time with it. I will not be bringing this game to my regular game events but instead I will hand-pick people that I will play it with and we will eat some humus, drink some wine and enjoy each others company as we converse about how the game results fits for each of us.

Review: Dixit:: A game unlike any other

HavocIsHere — Fri, 03 Jul 2009 12:29:14 +0000

by HavocIsHere

I was first interested in the game because of the box illustration.
Inside I found a game so simple to explain that, unlike in my other reviews, I am going to explain the rules .
A player has a few cards in hand; when it is his turn, he selects a card, gives a hint about the illustration, then puts it face down in front of him. The others pick a card from their hand, put them down on the table, the face down cards are shuffled then revealed. Each player secretly vote for the card he thinks the first player was alluding to. The catch is that the first player gets no point if all or neither among the others vote for his card; others get point by correctly guessing and by confusing others to vote for their own card.
That's about it.

Bits

One of the defining factor is the quality and the nature of the cards; they look like Henri Rousseau's or Folon's artwork, have the same strange, dreamlike, evocative quality.
The box inside is a keeper; it is used to track scores, along with nice bunneeples, and in a style coherent with the cards illustrations.

]]>
BGG photo by Laszlo Molnar

Rules

Well as you guessed from my description, the rules are extremely short; one page for the rules, and a second page with examples and some advice on playing.
The french rules are translated in no less than 7 languages: english, german, italian, dutch, spanish, italian, polish and portuguese.
The game component are totally language independant
From what I can judge, the translations are adequate.

Theme

The theme of the game is onirism and symbolism. If you dislike that kind of poetry, this will clearly be a turn off.
Some groups won't feel the theme at all. I would understand if someone would argue there is no theme. I would also understand also why one could argue that the game is nothing but the theme, so let's move to the next point.

The game

This is not a game to be played competitively. This is a kind of party game, but do not expect big bursts of laughs.
Also, do not expect it to work with all players and within all groups.
The only comparison I can find is with Once Upon a Time, because the success of the game will depend on all the players really wanting to enjoy it. Some introverts won't enjoy it at all.
People afraid to sound silly will sound silly, ruining the enjoyment of everybody around the table.

Conclusion

If only for the theme and the wonderful cards, I am happy to own this game. When it works as intended, it is really a nice experience. Its originality alone makes it a worthy addition to a gamer's collection.

But this won't replace Time's Up as a party game, and its heavy reliance on groupthink will make it fall flat more than once.
However, a completely new idea for a game is not something a true geek can ignore, so give it at least a try.

Review: Diamant:: A lightweight game, perfect for larger groups

thepackrat — Fri, 03 Jul 2009 08:29:59 +0000

by thepackrat

Diamant is a lightweight game that combines bluffing and push your luck elements with great components, a short playing time, and support for large groups.

The basic theme of the game is the exploration of caves and mines to find treasure before any of the deadly hazards come down. Since this is a family game, the deadly hazards merely scare the players away rather than kill them.

The components are quite nifty. Each player receives a little cardboard chest for their their safe treasures and a Indy-meeple in the matching colour. The explored mine is made up of a succession of drawn cards containing either an amount of treasure or one of five hazards (snakes, poison gas, explosions, scorpions or rockfalls). Finally, the goal of the game is to collect as much value as possible of the shiny shiny gems!

]]>

During the game players participate in 5 separate expeditions. For each step in the expedition a new card is flipped from the shuffled pile and placed on the path. If it is a treasure card, the treasure is divided evenly among the exploring players with any remainder left on the card. This treasure is not yet safe so it is only put next to the player's treasure chests.

If the new card is a hazard card is it left on the path. After each card draw is finished, the players decide whether they would like to press on with the expedition or flee like profiteering cowards! Players indicated they will proceed by secretly putting the Indymeeple in their closed fist or flee with an empty fist. All players reveal simultaneously.

All fleeing players get to put all their collected treasure into their chests. They also receive an equal share of all the leftover treasure left along the track, leaving any remainder there. With larger numbers of players these remainders can soon add up to a tidy amount.

An expedition ends either when all players have run away or when the second hazard card of any type is turned up. All the remaining explorers run screaming and lose all the unsecured treasure next to their chests and remaining on the track. One of the two matching hazard cards that came up is discarded into the box, making it less likely to reoccur, then all the path cards are reshuffled for the next expedition.

]]>

There's not a lot of deep strategy in the game, because most of the choices revolve around trying to work out when other players will run away. It can be incredibly profitable (but risky!) to be the only explorer left for a treasure card or two, but similarly being the first to run away and pick up 7 or 9 gems worth of leftovers in addition to 5 or 6 in split treasure is a pretty good result too. Of course, if those remainders are split too many ways, things get messy.

We found typical winning scores to be in the high 20s for 6 players, and lows 30s for 5. This was borne out as typical by us coming somewhat close to running out of gems. I should look into getting a second copy or finding some replacements in another denomination sometime.

If you're ever looking for a fast game that supports lots of folks and is easily accessible to non-gamers, Diamant is perfect. There's the potential for a little downtime for escaped players each round but they chose to leave, and are probably winning anyway!

Diamant has been re-released as Incan Gold which has one additional rule/component and generally less nice components. Unfortunately the original Diamant is out of print so you'll have to either pick up one of the two Incan Gold editions or try to look for it secondhand.

Review: Fairy Tale:: What's Your Game? 2008 Version - Component review

Jumpseat — Fri, 03 Jul 2009 07:46:41 +0000

by Jumpseat

Just received the What's Your Game? 2008 version of Fairy Tale and as the design was the main reason I selected it over other versions, I thought I'd give a quick rundown of the quality of the components.

First up I really like the design on this version. The symbols are much more thematic and beautiful in my humble opinion, offsetting the artwork really well. The symbols work perfectly well during the game, though in reality there are many there that are superflous once you learn the rules. The backs of the cards, which play their part in the game are particularly well designed, featuring the box image in a clever way.

]]>

The print quality is actually quite low, not poor, but it is a lower than average grade screen print, where you can clearly see the dot pattern. The cards feel quite nice and though they are relatively thin are of a fair to good quality with a fresh satin finish.

The box is about 10x15 cm and certainly does the job. It doesnt hold the fold up rules booklet particularly neatly, and the gluejob on the outer artwork looks like it may peel over time, but overall its a neat little package for the price.

Overall, I'd say the production quality is fair to good. Not quite as high quality as I imagined it might be considered the obvious effort that went into the redesign, but still I'd conclude it is a worthwhile and successful refacing of the game.

Review: Runebound Second Edition:: Kill monsters, take their treasure, and then buy swords and armor? Yes please.

gren doogan — Fri, 03 Jul 2009 04:38:34 +0000

by gren doogan

Runebound designers: Darrell Hardy and Martin Wallace

Background:

(Sits back in his armchair with a pipe) Scootch round for a longwinded background, children! Scootch closer!!

When I moved to Toronto about 3 years ago, I had begun to get back into board games, but hadn't bought any of my own yet. My good pal had bought Settlers and a couple of expansions, and he also grabbed Puerto Rico, which both blew me away with their sheer genius. I had a lot of free time when I first got to the "big smoke" and I found this great little hobby store that had a WALL OF GAMES! I was tantalized by this beautiful wall, and I returned again and again to gaze at it in wonder. A board-game-addicted employee eventually told me about a magical land called "BoardGameGeek", and my addiction took hold.

I looked long and hard at the beautiful wall, oh yes children, long and hard. Many nights I combed the vast database of BGG to find my first purchase. I'm a sucker for fantasy adventure, so I was looking for a map, possibly fancy components, and some form of monster slaughtering, and thusly... I found Runebound.

The Game

You learn Runebound very quickly. You move with the move dice onto hexes with various terrain types. You know, the classics: plains, hills, forest, mountains, swamps, and towns. The chance of getting a terrain type is based on how hard the terrain is to cross, which I think is damn clever. No counting move points here!

Next, if you're on an adventure jewel (4 color-coded levels of difficulty) you draw the appropriate card until you fight something.
If you win... you take the dead thing's gold and cheer like a maniac, of course! If you lose, you don't die, but you crawl back, ashamed, to the nearest town to recuperate. Sometimes we play that you DO die and you have to choose another character. It changes gameplay a little (but that's another story...).

If you didn't choose to slaughter something, because you lack courage, or sweet gear, or you are wounded, you head off to town to draw sweet sweet market cards with snazzy pics of weapons, allies (yes you get to have your own party!) and artifacts that will help you slaughter things better!

Explore, kill, treasure. A worthy tripod of fun. (Not including the market stage, which kind of makes it a quadpod, but that is just weird.)

Eventually you are powerful enough to take on the main baddies of the game, the dragons (of course! What the heck else would you want it to be?!?) and if you kill three dragons, you take their dragonrunes and win, or you find the BIG BAD DRAGON LEADER, kill him, and win.

My Thoughts

Positive stuff: I've been playing Runebound for about 3 years now, and for my girlfriend and I, it never gets boring. My experience is limited to a LOT of 1-player games, a good number of 2-player games, and a handful of 3-player games, and I have enjoyed all of them thoroughly. The mechanics are clever and simple, the components are excellent, the art on the cards is great, and the writing is classic fantasy goodness. If you like the genre, and you used to play DnD back in the day, Runebound is a great way to have a RPG adventure in a board game way.

As well, as you may have noticed from the Runebound page, it is positively overflowing with expansions, and all of the ones I've bought so far add to game, and make it more and more interesting. They have adventure cards to simply broaden your adventures, market cards to broaden your market stack, and fully new game variants. I love that you can get an entirely new version of Runebound in a little card-sized box. That is classy.

Finally, if you're looking to get back into painting mini's, as I was, it has mini's of all of the player characters! Sweet! Dry-brushing here we come!

Negative Stuff: You can sometimes be a little overwhelmed towards the end of the game when you have a ton of cards giving you a myriad of abilities that you may or may not forget to use. I begin to find myself relieved when I can finally discard something. (*Aside* I've found this with a few FFG games, I love them, but sometimes I think they wish their players were computers.)(Look at Android... that thing looks terrifying.)

As well, I wish, and I'm sorry to the map designer, that they got Jesper Ejsing who painted the character cards to paint the board. I know! I'm horrible! I'm so sorry! I just find the board a bit dry. Oh it gets the job done children, but it's not a FANTASY board. It reads like a military hex and counter board.

The more players you get to play with you, the more downtime you have. I like that each player has their own little party blundering around the map on their own, but it can make for some long waits.

Finally, I wish there was more to do in the towns. I know that this would make for even longer down times, but I remember being in the towns was ALWAYS the funnest part of DnD. Maybe a "Town Adventure Deck" would be a cool expansion that you could integrate into your market deck, or have it as an alternative to drawing gear.

Final Thoughts

Runebound is a solid 8 game, in my humble opinion. It's not incredibly brilliant, but it's clever, and pretty, and it scratches the adventure itch nicely. Like I said: Explore, kill, treasure (and sometimes market). Ahhhhh.

Here's some pictures of my Runebound stuff, in a SHAMELESS attempt to get more thumbs:

]]>
My dog Dolly plays Runebound!!! It's in my personal gallery because the incredibly short-sighted and obviously uncivilized geekmods rejected it. A pox on all of you!

]]>
I love the sneaky guys.

]]>
And for the ladies...

Thanks for reading!

Review: Power Grid:: Choose Your Own Adventure review of Power Grid

ragingoptimist — Fri, 03 Jul 2009 03:40:02 +0000

by ragingoptimist

You're walking down the streets of Springfield when you see Mr. Burns and Smithers walk up to you with a copy of Power Grid. Removing from your mind the confusion of how and why you are in a cartoon world inhabited by yellow people, you hear Mr. Burns ask "What is 14 + 20 - 6 + 12 + 9 - 3?"
A) Threeve? My math skills are slightly better than a really smart dog but not quite as good as an average first grader. Go to #1.
B) Clearly 46. Go to #3.
C) Give me a minute... 49, 48, 47, 46! Go to #2.

#1 "Release the hounds!" you hear Mr. Burns bellow. Before being mauled, you know in your heart that you were never meant to play Power Grid. While very well designed, it isn't for everyone. Now about those hounds...

#2 "Do you enjoy games that are math intensive?"
A) Math is the opposite of fun. Go to #1.
B) Not my first choice, but math is OK. Go to #3.
C) Math is my true love, while board games are only my mistress. Go to #4.

#3 "Do you mind tight economic games that require meticulous resource management and excellent long term planning?"
A) I'm allergic to the word economic and I don't know what meticulous means. Go to #1.
B) Uh, sounds alright. Go to #5.
C) Those words sound like poetry to my ears. Go to #6.

#4 "Out of my way!" Mr. Burns rudely pushes past you, having decided that you don't have what it takes to compete with him in building a power plant empire. You wonder if you would have had good time with this game, and decide to try playing it later with Principal Skinner. You might like it, but be prepared for a relatively dry but excellently designed 2 hour game. Its mechanics are nearly perfect, but the theme is not for everyone.

#5 "Would you spend 30-50 bucks for a good board game with solid components?"
A) That's too many dollars for too few electros. Go to #1.
B) I'm not certain this game is worth it. Go to #4.
C) If it's as good as its BGG ranking is, it would be a steal at twice the price. Go to #6.

#6 "Excellent!" says Mr Burns as he presses his finger tips together. "We shall play this "Power Grid." After I destroy you at this incredibly fun game, we shall endeavor to make the life of Friedemann Friese miserable. Green hair! The audacity!" You have a surprisingly enjoyable time, despite the fact that Mr. Burns outbids you with real money during every auction phase and has modified the game board to deliver electric shocks whenever you try to block him in. As for Friedemann, he was never the same...

Review: Wasabi!:: Wasabi! A Review for Gamers and Non Gamers

Jasta — Fri, 03 Jul 2009 03:13:06 +0000

by Jasta

Intro

I live in a house with my two best friends; one is a gamer the other isn't. As we all like doing things together my game collection is gathering a little too much dust for my liking. So begins my quest to convert my non-gaming friend to the wonderful world of boardgames. Seeing that my friend likes sushi and all things Japanese, Wasabi! seemed like the perfect starting point, so I convinced her and another non-gaming friend to play.

Overview

Wasabi! is quite obviously a game about making sushi - in fact the way I pitched it was that it was like Scrabble - only with sushi instead of letters. This was a concept that my non-gamer friends could easily understand.

Each player gets a selection of recipes and ingredients which are then placed on a central board to form recipes horizontally or vertically. Recipes have different lengths and longer recipes are worth more points. If you manage to complete a recipe in the order shown on the recipe card you get extra points for making sushi 'with style' and get to place a number of green wasabi cubes in a cute Japanese dish for extra points.

Completing a recipe also gives you a special action card which lets you move ingredients, place extra ingredients, stack them on top of each other or block off squares on the board.

Contents & Theme

Like every other Z-Man game I've experienced, the quality of the components and attention to detail are superb. Thick card counters, sturdy board and wonderfully designed and laid out rules. The 'menu' screens are probably the only weak point as they don't hold the recipe cards very well and the recipe information on the back serves no real purpose.

The whole game oozes theme from every angle. The artwork is vibrant and colourful and the little wasabi cubes and the Japanese dishes to hold them are a nice touch. The game has so much theme that I couldn't possibly play it without real sushi so I ended up making my own (with many comments about which ones were completed 'with style' and which looked like someone had thrown raw fish at a muddy snowball) If I was to nitpick I'd say some of the ingredient counters are hard to tell apart at a glance when the board gets full - rice and maki especially could have been differentiated better.

Gameplay

The game is extremely easy to teach and learn, and everyone got the basic idea after one turn. We played two games, neither of which went for more than 45 minutes although there is some setup time getting all the counters in the right place. There is a reasonable amount of strategy early on as you try and setup the biggest recipe you can while there is still room on the board. Do you go for a tricky 5 ingredient roll straight away or make a quick 2 or 3 length nigiri in order to pick up a special card in case things don't go to plan.

As the board fills up things get a lot harder, you have to be a lot more flexible in your strategy and eventually everyone ends up racing to get the last few points from the free space available. There are some opportunities to complete multiple recipes at the same time with clever use of the cards and ingredients and keeping track of the whole board is critical.

Conclusion

Wasabi! got a mixed response from our group. The non-gamers really enjoyed it. The game is chaotic and light hearted and while a game like Puerto Rico might punish you for playing each turn as it comes in Wasabi! it is almost encouraged. It’s not that there isn’t strategy; it just doesn’t pay to get too tied down to one in particular.

In comparison my gamer friend and I weren’t so sold. Too often, thinking a few turns ahead would prove fruitless as our plans were foiled not by guile or cunning but by bad luck - and unfortunately once you get a bad set of recipes or ingredients it can be difficult to get back in the game. Playing offensively is also tricky, maybe it’s the theme but it was hard to deliberately block or obstruct a player without it feeling like a pure act of bastardry rather than a sound tactical play. Maybe playing it with a group of hardcore gamers would be better but then I think we’d probably be playing something else instead.

In the end Wasabi! was a great game for introducing people to the world of boardgames beyond Monopoly and Trivial Pursuit. While those of us with a wider experience of the genre were left wanting a bit more tuna in our tekkamaki we still had fun and hopefully we managed to convince our non-gamer friends to give something a little more complicated a try.

Roast dinner and Agricola is next on the menu!

Review: Race for the Galaxy:: Choose Your Own Adventure review of Race for the Galaxy

ragingoptimist — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 23:41:07 +0000

by ragingoptimist

You're enjoying your week at Space Camp when Buzz Aldrin walks up to you holding a copy of Race for the Galaxy. "Do you want to play a card game with me?" he asks.
A) Would I ever! Go to #2.
B) Sorry, Buzz, but I have an irrational hatred of card games and/or anything related to space. It doesn't matter how awesome it is, I don't care about it if I have to shuffle or deal with anything not strictly terrestrial. Go to #1.

#1 Buzz Aldrin shakes his head in disbelief and walks away. Sorry, but RFTG is not for you. Maybe the game has too high of an entry fee to learn how to play. Maybe its mechanics don't appeal to you. Maybe you have bad taste in games (oh snap!).

#2 "Are you willing to learn a fairly complicated game with its own symbolic language?"
A) If a game isn't easy to learn and incredibly fun on its very first play, I don't want to play it. Go to #1.
B) I really don't like complicated games as much, but I'm willing to give it a try for Buzz. Go to #3.
C) A steep learning curve is a small price for an awesome game. Go to #4.

#3 "How important is a high level of player interaction for you?"
A) What's the point of a game if I can't directly mess with my opponent? Games like Puerto Rico feel like multiplayer solitaire to me. Go to #1.
B) I really like highly interactive games, but I can tolerate games with less direct interaction. Go to #4.
C) Indirect interaction is fine by me. Games like Puerto Rico have plenty of interaction in them. Go to #6.

#4 "Is 25 to 35 bucks too much for a nice deck of cards and a few bits of cardboard?"
A) I will NEVER spend that much on a card game. My frugality is only matched by my obstinance. Go to #1.
B) I'm still not sold. Go to #5.
C) I'd gladly pay triple that if this is a game worth playing dozens to hundreds of times. Go to #6.

#5 Buzz chats with you for a few minutes and then walks away, stating that he has "important astronaut business" to attend to. RFTG may be a great game for you, but you also might not like it. Try playing it with an experienced player and plan on at least your first couple of games to be learning games. This is a very deep and wonderful game, but some gamers just don't get into as much.

#6 Buzz smiles, shakes your hand, begins referring to you as "good buddy," and invites you to hang out with him on the International Space Station. While there you play RFTG with him and your other NASA friends, having a blast with its subtle strategy, immense replayability, and varied gameplay. You discover alien life while on the space station and become incredibly famous.

Review: Hamburgum:: A Girlfriend's Perspective on: Hamburgum

cerenycus — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 23:15:27 +0000

by cerenycus

Most of the games we own are all purchases my boyfriend has purchased, whether it was prior or after our relationship started. He had always told me in order for me to be a true "board game geek" I would need to purchase a game, and teach it to him, instead of the other way around. Hamburgum was my first game.

Contents

45 units of goods
49 units of building material
30 donation tokens
35 buildings
32 copper coins
15 silver coins
19 gold coins
6 churchs
3 orange ships
90 citizen tokens (1 for each colour)
75 round disks
25 ships
5 octagonal game makrers for the rondel
5 round game markers for the scoring track
1 rulebook
5 summary rules placards
1 almanac with historical information

Recommended Players

This game allows for 2-5 players. I have only experienced this game as a 2 player game, and this is what the review is mainly going to be one.

Setup

Each player is going to choose a colour they want to play, and take all the associated pieces with it (the ships, the octagonal marker, the round marker, the citizens, and the round markers). You will also start off with some goods (1 of each good: beer, cloth, and sugar) and building materials (1 brick, and 1 timber). 1 of each players ships will be placed in the berth, which is markered at the bottom of the board with the number 3.

One the top left hand side of the board, there will be a location to place the 6 churches. The wooden churchs will be placed here. At the bottom left side of the board will be the goods tracker. 1 of each goods will be placed along the corresponding track on space 0.

There are 30 donation tokens (5 for each church). These tokes will be placed at the bottom of the board, with the 5 prestige points on top of each grouping.

The building tokens are placed on the right side of the board. For the officials tokens, you will take out the numbered tokens, and place them out of the game, as they are only used in the advanced games.

The way this games decides who is going to be first player is whoever was last to step into a church will go first. The first player will have their round marker placed on the scoring track at number 1. The remaining player in clockwise order will increase their points by 1. If blue is first player, they would place their marker at 1, if red was to the left, they would place their marker at 2, and green was next, would place it at 3, and so on.

How to Play

The first round of the game, a player is able to place their octagonal token on whichever space in the rondel they choose for free. In future rounds a player is able to move their rondel in clockwise order 1-3 spaces. If a player chooses to move their marker an additional space, they will need to lower their prestige points by 1 on the tracker. If they wish to move 2 additional spaces, they will lower their points by 2.

Their are 7 different actions able to be chosen on the rondel.

Cloth
Guildhall
Beer
Trade
Dockyard
Sugar
Church

Cloth, Beer, and Sugar

If a token were placed on the beer, cloth, or sugar part of the rondel, you are able to take 1 good of the action you land on, plus one extra for every production building you have in possession.

Example:

If you were to have 2 Brewer's and you were to place your token on the beer portion of the rondel, you would be able to take 1 beer + 2 additional because of the brewer's, making it a total of 3 beer goods.

Trade

There are 2 different trade actions on the rondel you are able to choose from. Each trade portion does the same thing. You have 2 options when you land on the trade portion.

- Sell goods
- Purchase building materials

Sell Goods

A player is able to sell their goods by using their ships in the berth. Each ship is able to sell one type of good (all cloth, all beer, or all sugar). The number of goods a ship is able to carry depends on the number to which the ship is on in the berth. If you were on a berth with a number 3, you are able to sell up to 3 of one good.

The price of each good is determined by the goods tracker at the bottom left side of the board. If a player wants to sell more goods than the ships are able to carry, they are able to sell each additional good at $30 per cube.

Purchase Building Materials

The player also has the options on the trade turn to purchase building materials. In order to make donations to the church, you need to have building materials. Some donations will require a different amount of building materials. You are able to purchase timber, brick and a bell in this portion.

The price of the materials is based on how many materials you are wanting to buy. On the left hand side of the board, ou will see a chart labeled "Depot". In the Depot, it will tell you the number of resources you are able to buy for a certain price. You can buy as many resouces as you like, as long as you have the money for it.

One stipulation is on this rule. Each player is only allowed to have up to 1 bell in his possession. This is to make sure 1 person does not purchase all in one go.

Dockyard

This is where you are able to pay 1 timber, and place a new boat in the berth. The capacity of each berth, depends on how many players are on the board. If there are 3 players, the maximum number of boats in each berth is 3. If you go to place a boat, and the berth is already full, you will move all boats to the next berth, and place your boat in the berth.

Church

When you land on the Church, you are able to make donations to the church. Each time you land on the church, you are only able to make donations to 1 church. If you wish to make a donation to the next church, you will once again need to land on this action.

The donations you are going to make to the church are located at the bottom right hand side of the board. The first donation will be 1 brick, second donation is 1 brick and 1 timber. You can make as many donations as you like, but remember, you can only make donations to one church at a time.

Once you make a donation to the church, you are able to take a donation tile. The first donation tile you are going to receive is 5 prestige points. After a player has taken this toke, you are able to choose from the remaining ones. There will be a donation marker for 1 x the number of donations you currently have (scored or unscored), 2 x the number of ships you have in the harbor, 4 or 5 x the number of matching buildings in any church district, and 3 or 4 times the number of people in a particular district.

You can choose to score your donation tokens (take the points) at any time. However, you are only able to have 1 type of donation at any time. If you were to choose another donation token of the same kind you already have, you have to choose to score 1. By scoring the token, you will calculate the number of points you would receive, move your points up on the track, and flip your token over.

When you choose which church you are first going to donate to, you will place one of your round disks on the board where the church is located. Where your church is located allows you to purchase different buildings in the guildhall faze (which we'll talk about next).

One a church has all their donations (and there is no more donations left) you will take a church from the church tracker, and place your round marker in its place. If you were to complete the first church, you will receive 8 points. Complete the second church, you will receive 7 points, and so on.

Now it doesn't matter how many donations you have personally made to the church. If you were to make all the donations, but one, and a different player comes around and makes the final donation, they receive all the points from the church track.

Guildhall

This action allows you to purchase buildings in the different districts. You are only able to purchase a building adjacent to a church you have made a donation to. If you have not made a donation yet to the church, you are not able to purchase a building. Once a player has made the fifh donation to a church, you are able to ignore the adjency rules.

Different Buildings

Production Buildings (Brewer, Sugar Refiner, and Cloth Maker)

By purchasing one of these buildings, it allows you to take an additional cube when you land on the corresponding markers. But, by purchasing on of these buildings, you will make the value go down 1 in the goods market.

Merchant (3x)

A player receives $100 from the bank

Captain (3x)

One of the "Flying dutchmen" ships gets placed in the berth. No one gets the benefit out of it, but it may push others out of the berth.

Officials

Councilman (3x)

Receive $10 for every citizen in all church districts.

Vicar (3x)

Receive $10 for all donations made to all churches.

Lord Mayor (1x)

Receive $60 for each completed church in all districts.

How to Win

The Game will end once all donations have been made to the churches, and all churches are built. The player with the most points at the end of the game wins.

The Good vs The Bad

No luck, just strategy
Cannot plan on focusing on one portion, game needs to be well rounded
When playing as a 2 player game, it mainly goes back and forth
Not alot of interaction between players, working seperate games

Survey Says

I quite enjoyed playing Hamburgum. There is absolutely no luck in this game, which is probably why I end up losing all the times I've played it. One thing for sure I have learned s, it doesn't matter how many goods you have, how much money you make, it all depends on how many prestige points you have at the end of the game. The only way to get these points is by making donations to the church.

On the other hand, in order to make donations to the church, you need to have resources to do so. In order to have the resources you need to have money. In order to have money you have to have goods. And in order to have goods, you need to land on the spaces.

This game is very well made in this way. You want to make sure that every action you make counts. If you are going to land in the trade section, you want to make sure you are able to sell more than one type of good, or you just wasted your action.

I, personally, have taken the option to spend a point to move additional space on the board. My boyfriend has not done so, and I end up losing the game by 1 or 2 points (usually how many extra spaces I have gone). If you are going to take this option, you will want to make sure you do so for a good reason, or it may end up costing you the game.

I'm going to give Hamburgum . I really enjoy the fact that there is no luck. It is a thinking game, that makes you plan out your whole moves. I would probably not recommend this game to the new gamers, as this may be very confusing to start out with, and they may have a dislike for it, and never play it again.

For those players who are really looking for a game that uses complete strategy, this is it. I would definitely give this a try.

I was very pleased with this purchase I have made, and though we haven't been able to play this game as much as we would like, it is a good game, and we are always learning new things, each time we play it.

edit: July 3 - spelling error

Review: Torres:: {Lite Review} Torres... A game with many levels

SteveD. — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 18:26:23 +0000

by SteveD.

.
Background

]]>

Oliver at the Arlington Heights game group decided to pull this out last week and I sat down to play my first game of Torres. I'm always up for trying the SDJ games and this looked like this was my type of game.

I'm a fan of games the move rather quickly, give me many options, and offer some "take THAT!".

As usual in my Lite Reviews, I'm not going to dive deeply into how to play the game. There are lots of great reviews here on the Geek already. If you want to learn about how to play, please read this: http://www.boardgamegeek.com/filepage/6116

Go ahead, I'll wait for you to come back.
Ok, ready to move on?

I also want to take a second to thank the Geeks that have posted the images I'll use in this review. With out their hard work in uploading them, this review would be rather colorless.

Components
All top notch quality.

]]>

The first thing you notice when you open the box are the tower pieces:
]]>

These were gray in Oliver's box but other than that they seemed about the same. There were sturdy and fit together nicely. They held the Ka-nig-its nicely and fit perfectly on the board:

]]>

The board is also designed very nicely. The squares fit the towers well, the colors are pleasant, and the score track is easy to use.

The cards are of a good stock and a good size:
]]>

A minor complaint is that as newbies we had to use cheat sheets to understand the cards. I understand that they are language independent. I also see that there are a few different printings out there. But if you are going to have nice big cards, there is pleanty of room to say what they do. Once we played the full game, the images were intuitive enough, but putting an explanation on them would have been nice.

The ka-nig-its and king supermegameeple are also nicely done.

]]>

They fin in the towers, and big, thick and easy to handle.

NOT SHOWN:
As added component we had 7 action point markers (Oliver used glass pebbles). These came in very handy as the game went on. We used these to count how many points were used by a player and then passed them along at the end of our turn.

Rules
The rules of game were explained to me so I can't really comment on the rule book. however the teaching of the game was very easy. Everyone understood how the game was played in only a few minutes. Everything is straight forward and logical. It is very elegant... can't say enough about it.

Playability

Torres is a game with many levels.

As some reviewers have noted, the Analysis Paralysis could be HUGE in this game. It is an abstract with almost perfect information (only the cards are hidden and provide any luck). I could see some people spending a good deal of time working out to plan an optimal play.

On the other hand, it can also be played as a lighter tile placement / area control game. Sure, some thinking and planning would be needed but players could make legal moves quickly and the game would be just as much fun.

Then there is the middle ground. Some looking ahead to see how a tower is likely to play out, where the king will be, and where your ka-nig-its will need to be. To me this is the most fulfilling level. Torres works beautifully here.

Overall Fun Factor

I mentioned that there is some thinking needed in the game. Ture, it is not just Jenga with a board and meeples. But it is a really fun area control game... with 3D areas to go after.

As I said, this can be played looking ahead a few moves and planning an attack to get the best placement. Also, there are plenty of TAKE THAT moves in the game. There is nothing too devastating, but it can be played aggressively and some interaction is there for the fighting over.

Bottom Line

I had a blast playing. I got to think, play and confront... all in a nice tight package. I would not hesitate to play this again in the near future.

Review: The Birthday Game:: {Lite Review} The Birthday Game - A party game for a birthday party

SteveD. — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 17:22:05 +0000

by SteveD.

]]>

Background

I received this game as a gift. My friend Lynette knows I'm in to games. Suffice it to say Lynette is not a BGG so she happily unloaded it on me. Right around the holidays. Right after her birthday.

I'm sure it was a re-gift, but I figured that since I might play it before she ever did I happily accepted the gift. Well, it sat on my shelf from December to June gathering dust. Then my father's birthday came along. It was a rainy day so going in the pool was not an option. Nothing is more fun that staring at family across the kitchen table so I pulled it off the shelf and took it over to his house to be played.

Components

]]>

About the average fair for a party game. There is a sand hour glass, some pawns, a pad of paper and a really over sized game board. All of good quality, no complaints.

Additionally there is a box with challenge cards. I'd say they are about the same quality of the cards in Apples to Apples. Again, no complaints.

Rules

The rules are really easy. Roll the dice, move your mice... err pawn around the board. The catch is that you have to answer a question/challenge listed on one of the cards before you are allowed to move. Landing on certain spaces allows you to move again, and once you reach the end of the track on the board you get to ask the birthday VIP some personal questions.

The rules are well explained and they were easy to read. No questions came up during game play that caused us any troubles.

Playability

This is an easy game to play. The game is played in teams as many party games are. In their turn, each team picks a question/challenge card and then must satisfy the requirements on the card. The large variety of question and challenge types makes sure that everyone can be involved. The challenges range from drawing, to humming, to miming... the typical party game stuff. The questions range from easy to impossible... then again so do some of the challenges. If nothing else, it has given me yet another source for suggestions to use at Improv.

Over all fun factor

The fun part of this game that is a bit different from other party games I've played is that the birthday person is treated as a VIP. When on the normal track of the game, some of the question cards require the VIP to pick an answer and write it down. Then the team being challenged has to guess what the VIP picked as their answer. If it is the birthday person's team, the VIP is not allowed to answer... that would be just silly.

The end game is a series of 15 questions that are all about the birthday person. Teams take turns drawing cards and trying to match the VIP's answers. The most right answers wins the game. Asking and answering the questions was a lot of fun and I got to learn a lot about my dad. Things I might have never known. Very cool

We all had a good time playing. I know when I first got to his house my dad was not in a great mood, The number of this b-day was getting to him I think. However, after a few turns of playing this his mood markedly changed. He had fun humming tunes, guessing trivia, and generally being the center of attention.

I know the rest of us had fun playing too. The challenge cards varied widely in their difficulty, but even with the luck of the draw seeming unbalanced we all really enjoyed the game.

Bottom Line

If you have a group of people that are happy playing party games, and you have a birthday to celebrate this is worth pulling out. I'm not going to play this more a couple of times every 5 years, but I'm happy to have received it as a re-gift!

Review: Ogre Castle:: Ogre Castle - dice, cards and ganging up!

crunk_posby — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 16:56:51 +0000

by crunk_posby

About me:

I enjoy games where I feel like my choices have an impact on the game, but also have a bit of a chance element to them. Games that are extreme on either end of this spectrum will be less enjoyable for me.

Overview:

I am part of a local boardgame meetup and the designer came to demo this game for us. We played it twice in a row to get an idea of how it played, all playing the same roles twice.

The basic idea is that one player is an Ogre, who has gems stored in treasure rooms throughout his castle. The other three players are greedy knights who break into his castle to steal the gems and escape back to their manors.

I will say right up front that this game feels and plays like Fluxx and Munchkin. Both of these are games that are popular in many circles, and even though I own them, I usually do not bring them out unless others ask for them.

Aesthetics:

I was impressed with the components of this game. The gameboard (the coolest component in this game) is made of cloth, and the maze on it is varied (which allows for some strategy with the cards, especially the secret passageway card.) The cards are excellent quality, and there’s a nice pouch to store the gems, dice and chips in. All of these components fit nicely into a cool plastic tube. The least impressive component were the player figures, which were folded pieces of thick cardstock placed in colored stands. A plus, though, is that each character looks unique, and overall they worked well for the game.

Theme:

I like games with a fantasy theme, and I liked the idea of an Ogre trying to defend his castle from ransacking knights intent on robbing him of his gems. That said, this could easily be themed as anything (mice collecting cheese, aliens collecting resources, archeologists robbing a tomb, etc.) or nothing, it could probably play as an abstract game, too. So the theme and gameplay aren’t tightly woven, but the Magic Scroll cards do help make the battles more lively and thematic.

Gameplay:

There are three knights, each with 4 gems that match his color (red, blue and yellow) and an Ogre. The Ogre player takes the gems and puts them in treasure rooms located throughout the map. Each player receives 3 Magic Scroll cards and the Ogre takes the first turn.

On a player’s turn, they roll one die and must move that many spaces if able. If the Ogre enters a knight’s space, or a knight enters the Ogre’s space, they must end movement and battle. (A knight blocks another knight from moving onto or through that space, but they may never occupy the same space and may never battle.) If a knight enters a space with a gem matching their color, they must end movement and pick up the gem (put it in their home space). If a player ends their movement in an empty room, they draw a card from the Magic Scroll deck.

When battling, the knights roll 2 dice, and the Ogre rolls 3 dice. The higher roll wins (re-roll ties). Magic Scroll cards can affect the battle by adding permanent armor markers (add plus 1 to the die roll for each armor marker), temporary modifiers, destroying the other player’s armor, etc. If the Ogre wins, he takes a gem from the knight’s home base and puts it in his throne room (this is the only way that the Ogre can collect gems to win the game!) If the knight wins, he may take one of his gems back from the throne room (if there were no gems matching that knight’s color in the throne room, he gets nothing for that battle!) Finally, the player who initiated the battle rolls the movement die and moves away.

A knight wins the game when he has collected all four gems of his color and returns home. The Ogre wins when he has collected six gems of any color and returns to his throne room.

Fun:

When I read the rules, I was a little skeptical about the roll and move aspect of the game. However, it felt like the right choice when playing the game. Having to spend all of your movement points added some tension and strategy to how you moved around the maze. Most of the time, the knights were trying to find a way to stay way from the Ogre, while the Ogre was moving in on the player closest to winning (sometimes with a little help from his “friends!”)

The first game we played, we thought the Ogre was overpowered because he stomped all over us. The second game we played, it seemed impossible for the Ogre to win because he was running all over trying to stop all 3 players who were very close to winning (at one point we all had our 4 gems and were making our way back to our home!)

The game has lots of swings in it. For example, when one player is close to winning, the other knights will work with the Ogre to ruin that player’s chances. When the Ogre is winning, the knights work together to beat down the Ogre. The next turn, when someone else is winning, they gang up on that person. The cards also add a lot of variation and unpredictability. There are cards that add dice to your attack roll, make another player lose their turn, exchange hands with someone else, switch the location of two players, gems, or transport yourself to another space, negate other cards in play, and many more (mostly battle modifiers or cards that get rid of stuff).

Overall, I think the game was fun, but it’s not the sort of game that I would play a lot. As stated above, I like some chance element, but I want my choices to impact the game. In this game, it is very difficult to strategize. It’s too easy to be close to victory and have other players ruin it for you. In our second game, one of the knights won because we had all used our cards so much in stopping each other from winning that we just ran out. (Note: we had to use our cards, or else someone would have won earlier! So it wasn’t just a matter of saving them for the right time, it was the right time…over and over again until we ran out.)

Who might like it?

People who like: “take that” games, roll and move games, shifting alliances and ganging up, beer and pretzels games, self-published/small press games, games with a lot of luck (both cards and dice!) and games with a fantasy theme. People who love the randomness of Fluxx and the shifting alliances of Munchkin will find a lot of enjoyment in this game. Also there are booster packs that can be used to expand or customize the Magic Scroll deck.

Who might not like it?

People who mostly enjoy Eurogames like Puerto Rico and Agricola will not find similar gameplay here. People who don’t like the randomness of cards and dice will be frustrated with these mechanics. People who don’t like to be ganged up on or don’t like “take that” games will not enjoy it.

My group?

The particular players in the Meetup Group that I played with seemed generally mixed on the game. One player really liked it (he compared it to Fluxx, which he likes a lot), two other players didn’t seem to be huge fans (Agricola players), and I was in the middle. It felt right for the setting we were in (drinking in a bar), and I always enjoy trying new games, but it wasn’t a game that I could see myself playing a lot. However, some of the other members of the Meetup were playing Fluxx right next to us and I have a feeling it would have been very well received by them.

Similar games:

Fluxx, Munchkin, Give me the Brain, Zombies.

Review: Fjords:: Carcassonne's eastern cousin

thepackrat — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 16:51:23 +0000

by thepackrat

Fjords is a quick-playing lightweight game for two. It comes in a tiny box, can typically be found really cheaply and plays fast enough that a 'game' is actually three complete rounds of the game. The game is relatively light but is actually an odd mix of ideas from Carcassonne and Go, tile placement for advantage and area influence and control.

The game is themed with Viking explorers trying to establish farms along the newly discovered meadows lying between fjords and mountains in some Nordic land. Sometimes the tiles will come out right and you'll actually see a coast with fjords appearing before your eyes.

The game's components are nice hexagonal cardboard tiles containing a mixture of mountains, meadows and water. Each hexagon side can contain either two different halves or be just one thing. The game also comes with little wooden farm houses and discs used to mark planted fields in the later part of each round.

]]>

The rounds start with three set tiles in the middle containing a mix of water, meadow and mountains. In the first half of each round, players alternately draw and place tiles. The tile supply is random and face down. One quirk of the game is to require each placed tile to match on two sides, so each new tile has to nestle into the concave gap between two existing tiles.

This is a much stronger matching requirement than Carcassonne's square tiles and can lead to cases where a tile cannot be placed at all. In this case the tile is laid aside face up next to the board and another face down tile is drawn. Players are free (but not forced) to use any of the face up tiles instead of drawing a new tile.

For each tile placed, the player can choose to place one of their four farmhouse tokens on the meadow part of the tile (if there is one). Placement of these farms is critically important to the second phase.

]]>

Once the last face-down tile has been placed (or found not to fit), the first phase ends. Players are not forced to use face-up tiles. The player who did not place the last tile begins the second phase.

In the second phase, players claim territory by taking alternate turns to play wooden discs representing cultivated fields on the map. Fields can be placed on any empty tile's meadow which is adjacent to a meadow already claimed by the player with a farm or a field. Adjacency doesn't cross water or mountains, the meadowland has to be contiguous.

The empty tile requirement opens up the opportunity to block the other player as well as many disc-line dashes to be the first to claim an open territory.

The final score for each player is the number of field discs placed . The loser begins the following round and the winner is the player with the higher total score after three rounds.

]]>

Strategy

The placement of houses is critical as they're the starting point to all your field expansions. The placement interacts strongly with the terrain tiles. It's dangerous to place a house where your opponent can create choke points so that they can completely block your expansion, similarly it's great to create a peninsula that you can fill with fields without competition. Often players will hold back one of their houses that they can try to drop into an uncontested space late in the game.

It's possible to reduce the chances of a hostile entry into a region by keeping your personal areas fenced off with mountains or creating corners with water and mountains that never match any of the tiles in the game.

It's also interesting to note that houses do not count for scoring. Placing a house in an uncontested region will cost you a point for the field you can no longer place there. Despite this, it can still be useful to intimidate another player, though you're more likely just to reassure them that you cannot threaten them elsewhere.

Finally, often the first field placement can be critical as it forces the other player to react to your placements and gets to to any blocking spaces first. It's possible to aggressively work with the unplaceable tiles to either prevent them being placed or choosing your tile placements to allow them placed in order to manipulate who places their field first. Of course, if you've done a good job of the terrain and the houses, this really doesn't matter.

Conclusions

Fjords is a great fast-playing lightweight 2-player game that actually has a little depth to the decisions. The 30-minute playing time on the box is about right and it's easily and cheaply available. There's no reason not to go out and pick up a copy right now!

Review: Candamir: The First Settlers:: The Saga of Lief the Nearly Settled of Catan

caradoc — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 15:40:17 +0000

by caradoc

]]>

On one sunny day in down town The Village there was Lief, talking to Steve and Bill about his plans to become one of the great Settlers of Catan.

]]>

"I’m going to do it." Said Lief, "I’m going to become one of the great settlers of Catan. If I manufacture chests and window covers and swords, the great men of The Village will give me seeds, and lambs, and Candamir said he’ll probably help me build a place of my own!"

Steve shook his head incredulously and Bill made that whistling noise he always made when he had heard something he knew he couldn’t un-hear.

"You silly pill," said Steve, "You can’t possibly succeed, you barely have the intelligence to chew before you swallow."

"I will," replied Lief, in a fierce whisper, "I have heard that there is lumber in the forest, far to the East."

"Lumber in the forest eh, you great vegetable, you don’t need to trek far to the East to find the bloody stuff, the forest starts just out of town." Steve shook his head and spat. Folding his arms he gave Lief a hard look.

"I heard tell, in the tavern, that there is Ore in the mountains to the West" Lief went on heedless of his friends scorn.

"Ore in the mountains," breathed Bill with a smile, "I’ll be."

]]>

"Yes," Lief cried, "I have it on good authority, and I plan to find it." He spun quickly around, he decided that his first goal was get some lumber from the spot where he had heard there was lumber to be had - a good two-day walk into the forest. Packing the few possessions of value that he knew he would need on his trip (a large urn of potion that had magic properties, a pile of lumber he already had, some animal pelts he had found out in the plains and a jar of honey) he set off immediately.

]]>

A day passed with Lief venturing ever deeper into the forest in search of the place where he heard he could get lumber. He passed tree upon tree, climbed over dead branches and through thickets. He looked ahead, a bear! To the left there was a snake and to the right was Candamir, a famous settler, who wanted to challenge Lief in a trial of strength, because he was mainly bored. Behind him, the way he had come, Lief sensed there were some hidden herbs, if only he had studied Herbology in settler school.

Lief was beset on all sides, he wanted to head East, toward the place in the forest he could get some wood, but that way was blocked by a bear! To either side there were troubles too - a snake, and of course his old foe Candamir, who happened to be out looking for people to wrestle rather than do any actual work.

"Grr" growled the bear, and Lief nearly dropped his urn of potion.

"sss" hissed the snake, and Lief’s teeth chattered in fright at the terrible leglessness of it.

"Come over here and let’s have a wrestle" jeered Candamir, "in a completely manly and platonic way of course." Candamir added hurriedly. "I’ll give you some wood for a wrestle Lief." He taunted again, and then was silent, confused by his own allusions and secretly concerned he was falling for the manly Lief. Lief felt a little nervous.

It was an impossible choice, snake, bear, Candamir or go back the way he had come. Lief licked his lips, "I don’t want you to get angry Candamir, but I’m going to tackle the snake."

Candamir looked more confused, "do you... I mean..." but before the rugged settler could finish Lief bounded across toward the legless reptile, quaffing great mouthfuls of the magic potion as he did.

"I can out-agility you." Lief cried. "It’s a dance off!" The snake hissed, writhed on the ground a bit and then cocked an eye at Lief to see his response.

"That’s no worm!" Lief yelled, his voice shrill in his ears. He felt the potion take him and the swirl of the dance consume his legs. Lief did the worm - his body leaping and rolling and writhing. He did the Robot, even though robots weren’t invented (this temporal impossibility confused the snake completely). Lief reversed a cart and then even did the U-Turn: the snake was baffled. To finish the snake off Lief moon-walked across the forest floor. The snake, being a legless creature, had enough trouble with normal walking, but seeing a man walk forwards yet move backwards blew its little mind. There was no doubt that Lief was the victor...

And so began the saga of Lief the Nearly Settled of Catan.

]]>

Candamir is an adventure game, a part of the Catan Adventures series, and designed by Klaus Teuber. Players control characters, who travel the mapboard collecting resources, items, experience and having adventures. The resources can be used to create things for the other villagers, and thus earn points, experience will make you better at your skills, as will items, and adventures will usually provide you with items, experience or resources.

Candamir is a light game, that is quite fun to play. There is no grand strategy to make here, though tactical choices will help. There is luck, in the movement cards you draw (which will tell you what you encounter and sometimes influence the direction you travel in), and also in the dice you will roll when facing challenges. Luck also exists in the encounter tokens scattered over the board, although generally you will know what you are heading for.

The one draw back I feel for this game is that it is a little long, something typical for games in this genre. Candamir is easily modified though, by choosing to play to fewer points (say 8).

This is a solid and enjoyable game, it lacks the epic theme that many adventure games contain, and yet is accessible to gamers who prefer more designer style games. It straddles a very curious border.

My opinion is that, in the end, when played in the right spirit - one of light-hearted fun - played quickly, or with a modification to the points needed to win, Candamir is a fun and amusing game. It is not as great as some other games from the Catan stable, like Elasund or Starfarers, but it is an enjoyable adventure I can see my wife and I playing and enjoying on occasion for a while to come.

Review: Scrabble:: A classic, but can this game be salvaged?

kendahlj — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 13:29:21 +0000

by kendahlj

Scrabble is a game that my mom wants to play every time she comes to visit. She grew up playing the game and still enjoys it. I, on the other hand, have moved on to bigger and better games. But I oblige her, since she is always keen to learn a new game and I can get some of my unplayed games to the table when she visits.

This visit, we played a game. I fell behind quickly when she used all 7 letters on her first turn and due to poor tile drawing (I had all 1 point letters for the first five turns), I never caught up. Hardly two words were exchanged between us the entire game and I felt a bit unsatisfied as we packed up the game. Scrabble is no longer fun for me.

The game is simple - pick letter tiles and play words on a board. I won't go into further details on the rules, as there are plenty of other reviews that cover that and I think by now, everyone knows how to play.

There are certain problems that hurt this game for me:

1) Vocabulary - as a journalist and avid reader I think I know a lot of words. But they aren't weird words. In order to do really well in this game (or to play competitively) you need to know some of those more obscure words. You really need to know all the two-letter words especially.

2) Time - playing against someone who takes forever to play a word can be excruciating.

3) Luck of the draw - if you've ever drawn a handful of vowels you know how frustrating this can be. And if you exchange them, you score zero points and when playing against someone evenly matched, that's often a tough penalty to come back from. Furthermore, if you draw the majority of the high scoring letters and the Ss, you will usually win.

So can this game be fixed? Here's a couple of things I suggest that might improve game play:

1) A cheat sheet - print out a copy of all the two-letter words and give it to the players. This would even the playing field immensely.

2) Use of a Scrabble dictionary - the challenge rule which lets you challenge your opponent's word is pretty good. I enjoy putting a false word down and then holding my breath to see if my mom is going to challenge me. She usually does and once in awhile I luck out and it actually is a word. But in a sense, that also hurts the game. I should never be rewarded for guessing a word. So I suggest allowing the use of a dictionary X number of times per game. If you have some decent letters but can't find a word, toss in a dictionary token and grab the dictionary and see if you can find a word. We've actually used this variant and it's enjoyable, if you don't use it every time.

3) Timer -- adding a three-minute timer is a must. My mom hates it but she will take forever without it.

4) Drawing open tiles - I've never tried this but I think there might be something to it. Have a sideboard with several (10 maybe) tiles face up. After you've played your tiles, you don't pick randomly from the bag, you pick from the face up tiles. This would change the game drastically, but it would ensure you would never be stuck with all vowels or no vowels. It might also introduce additional elements of strategy, as you could plan ahead more than one turn knowing what tiles were available to you after you'd played. I think you would have to ditch the exchange your tiles for new tiles rule (unless these were picked from the bag).

5) Exchanging tiles on the board - I played a house rule with someone once who allowed you to take the blank if you had that tile. This wasn't great but interesting. Maybe also allow exchanging any tile on the board, as long as it was still a valid word.

Overall, Scrabble is just too dull for me these days. It needs some modernizing. It needs to be spiced up. It's still a classic. But it's aged. I think playing the game is a decent mind challenge, like a crossword puzzle. But I never liked those either. Spice the game up with some variants and while I'd still rather play Railroad Tycoon, I could at least stomach this one a little better...

Review: Thud:: Should you believe the rulebook? A review and strategy notes.

thepackrat — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 13:03:58 +0000

by thepackrat

Thud is a strategy game from in Terry Pratchett's book of the same name. This actual implementation is based on a family of Nordic asymmetric games and is probably related to the ancient Fox & Geese and Siege games. In many of these games, and in Thud, players take turns to play each side and the final score is a combination of both. A winning player has to be good at playing both the strong and the weaker side.

The game comes with 32 stoneish Dwarf figures that are set up around the periphery of the board and 8 large Trolls that start in the middle around an immovable rock.

]]>

There's a distinct feeling of claustrophobia for the Troll player, surrounded by the hordes of Dwarves. This is heightened by the wonderful stoneish pieces provide with the game which are fun to handle and look great.

]]>

The huge difference in numbers are balanced by the relative strengths. Trolls move only slowly 1 square in any direction but capture any adjacent Dwarves at the end of their movement. Dwarves can move any numbers of spaces in a straight line, but cannot capture Trolls directly.

Both Trolls and Dwarves have special moves, something like the moves in Cannon where lines of multiple Dwarves or Trolls combine to move further. In the case of Trolls, a line of Trolls can shove the Troll on the end up to from 0 to N spaces forward in a straight line provided he captures at least one Dwarf from the end space. A line of n Dwarves can fling the Dwarf at the end of the line up to n spaces provided he (or she?) lands on the square containing a Troll. A flung Dwarf smacking into a troll like this is the only way for a Troll to be captured. One note is that even 2 pieces in a row can fling or shove.

The game proceeds with each player moving in turn until both agree that no more captures can be made. This usually means that a too-small and ineffective number of dwarves are fleeing around the board trying to avoid capture.

The final score for each round is 1 point for each Dwarf left on the board, and 4 points for every Troll (so both have a maximum value of 32). After one round, players swap sides and play again.

The rulebook, while written in a typically (for Pratchett) whimsical style notes that at the start of the game, and for novice players, the slow lumbering trolls will seem completely overpowered. This can only be countered by the Dwarves being willing to sacrifice a few Dwarves into the path of oncoming trolls in order to keep their group alive long enough for it to become powerful.

These are all completely true, and yet beg to be ignored as players try strategies to create small nimble groups from other games. You can learn a lot about how the pieces work together doing this, but it's difficult not to let the Troll player slowly roll over and crush the Dwarves.

Strategies and special moves.

The Dwarves flinging is easy to set up since Dwarves move so fast, but it's difficult to set it up so that Trolls can't just move out of the way. In contrast, the Trolls can shove each other next to several Dwarves and capture a bunch at once.

]]>

This means that isolated Dwarves might get in a couple of lucky captures, but they're generally vastly underpowered. What they need to do is get into a group as quickly as possible. These groups typically have to be 3x3 so that they can attack trolls at a useful distance and more importantly, can capture any troll that manages to capture the front row. (with the two Dwarves behind doing a mini-fling). A small group of Dwarves looks something like this

]]>]]>

Once any group like this starts forming, the Trolls will come charging towards it. This is where the noble Dwarf sacrifice comes in. It's always a good tradeoff to lose a single 1-point Dwarf rather than 3 or 4, and it's a great trade to lose one Dwarf to capture a 4-point Troll. A typical sacrifice might have a Dwarf move forward of the group where he will stop the shoved troll (and be captured), then the Dwarf player can capture the troll in turn from a Dwarf-fling from the main group.

]]>

These sorts of sacrificial moves can let the nascent Dwarf group become large enough that it can go on the attack. Being caught against an edge of the board can be very dangerous because there's no way to bring more Dwarves in at the back of the group to increase flinging range without coming too close to the advancing Trolls.

One enough Dwarves get together, they're practically invulnerable, and the game sees a sudden reverse as the seething mass of Dwarves can start to move after the now-fleeing Trolls. The rock in the centre can provide a brief place to hide, but the Dwarves can soon flow around it and continue on. One a group this big has formed, the Trolls have basically lost, and the Dwarves get to mop up.

]]>]]>

Conclusion

This is a great little abstract game with delightfully non-abstract pieces and a Theme that can be easily appreciated by Pratchett fans. I can highly recommend playing it to get a feel for how the pieces work and figuring out the different levels of strategy required.

Review: Dominion: Intrigue:: Review of Dominion and Intrigue: viewed through the lens of videogame design

kithkill — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 09:26:37 +0000

by kithkill

There have been a number of reviews of Dominion - both positive and negative, given the game's curious polarisation of the community. I'd like to add a review of my own, having only gotten into the game recently, looking at both the original box and the newly released expansion: "Dominion: Intrigue". I'd like to take a slightly different tack, though, comparing it to a subject I'm a bit more knowledgable about - videogames.

I think many people would agree that European-style boardgames are enjoying a surge of popularity at the moment - and as more people are exposed to these kinds of games, I suspect that games like Dominion will continue to do well. The comparison I intend to draw is between the views of hardcore videogamers and boardgame enthusiasts, and where both differ from the influx of a new, "mainstream" audience. If you accept the comparison, the question this review will then ask is: "Is a popular game automatically a good game?

WHAT DO WE MEAN BY HARDCORE?
----------------------------

This is a tricky one to answer - most people have an idea of what "hardcore" means to them, but it's a relative term a lot of the time. "I'm not hardcore, you should see that guy", etc.

My own personal opinion is that a significant number of the most popular boardgames currently in circulation are hardcore. That is, they aren't simple. They're complicated, they have a lot of rules, and you can't just jump in and expect success. There are still videogames that fit this pattern (EVE Online, anyone?), but the economics of the industry have forced videogame designers to pander to a mainstream audience - big budget titles have to draw in more sales than just the hardcore gamers if they want to turn a profit, which is why you won't find any big-budget blockbusters that don't make it as easy and as quick as possible for a new player to get into the game and start feeling like a kick-ass ninja.

Boardgames haven't had the evolution of the tutorial sequence, they don't have skirmish modes where you can practice against AI - they just throw you in and expect you to swim.

Now, this isn't inherently a bad thing. For the right kind of person, learning a new game system is half the fun of experiencing a new game. But for a mass-market audience, who tend to view failure or lack of understanding as a negative experience, rather than a natural part of the learning experience, that kind of introduction to a game can be a huge turn-off. And that leads to less sales, and less popularity outside of the "hardcore" (for want of a better term) community.

I played Agricola for the first time a few weeks ago. It's a fantastic game, and it's an excellent fit for our little gaming group. But I went into that game understanding (and being explicitly informed by my friends) that the best way to play it is to write off your entire first game as a learning experience - you can't really grasp what the game is, how it works and the flow from start to finish until you've played it through at least once. And they were absolutely right (next time, though... Oooooh, they're so gonna get it!). I'm a smart game, and I make a living out of understanding game theory and game systems - but that still can't make me magically understand a game and all its complexities from looking at the box and skim-reading the rules. Games are meant to be experienced.

Videogames are a rapidly evolving medium, and they've gone through this stage. It's been a long while since the old days of Quake, where jumping into your first deathmatch server was a confusing, disorienting affair. Even if you'd played the single-player game, there were elements at play in the public arena that you wouldn't be prepared for - rocket jumping, strafe jumping, the sheer level of skill to be found online, mouse-look. These things would never have been explained to you beforehand, and your first game would be guaranteed to be punishing as hell. Compare that with more modern games: Tutorials, even for the multiplayer modes. Tighter control systems (bugs notwithstanding). Skill-matching (hugely important). Everything that can be done to make your first experience of the game as enjoyable as possible is done.

SO, DOMINION...
---------------

Dominion has a number of things going for it in terms of making your first experience with it a fun one:

GAME LENGTH: Dominion is a quick game to play. A lot of people don't like this, and that's fair enough. But like videogame players, most of the audience are adults. We have jobs, lives, responsibilities - our gaming time is precious to us. A new game that takes half an hour to play, as opposed to 2+ hours, gives us a few good things:

Opportunity - You can play this game more often, in time slots where you couldn't fit a full-on 2+ hours game. For example, I'm currently playing Dominion every lunchtime at work.

Less "wasted" time - It's not perhaps the best wording, but if you say that your first game will always be a learning experience, then having it take half an hour to figure it out as opposed to a whole evening is a big win.

Layered learning - With Dominion, I can play my first game, learn a load of stuff, then play my second game straight away and put what I've learnt into practice. Agricola, by comparison, took an entire evening, and it will be some time before I can put what I learnt in that first game to use.

Easier to infect others - the game length makes it an easier job to get others to try it. Like us, they're adults, and are much more likely to have a go at something that takes half an hour than something you have to organise an entire evening around. Assuming the game is good (and of the 8 people I've tried to infect so far, 2 have bought it and 3 intend to buy it), you end up with more people to play against, which means you play it more, which means you inevitably end up delving deeper into the strategies of the game. More fun - more potential customers.

This, too, is something present in videogames. There are a number of games that take a LONG time to play (Civilisation, Heroes of Might and Magic, MMOs), but by far and away the most popular ones (except, perhaps, one specific, mould-breaking MMO that I'm sure most of us are at least aware of) are those that can be played in small bursts. 10-20 minutes is about your usual length of a Halo/Unreal/Gears of War match/Worms game. Or just about any driving game you care to mention. In single-player games the use of checkpoints and autosaves has evolved to the point where the game is essentially broken down into 5-10 minute chunks. If the phone rings, the baby cries or you just get bored, you're only going to lose a little bit of the time you've already invested in the game. You can come back, load last checkpoint and be pretty much straight back into it.

Success and failure are short term affairs - you can spend an entire night playing, and chances are (with modern matchmaking services) you'll win roughly half your games. You won't have played only a single game for the entire night and lost, you'll have had at least SOME success. And generally, success makes you want to play more, whilst failure is a turn-off.

SIMPLICITY: In essence, Dominion is a simple game. You have one action, one buy, definitions of "discard", "trash" and "gain" and the layout of your play area. The complexity comes from the rules on the cards, which aren't hidden away in a manual in the box - they're right there in front of you.

I think it's significant that Pandemic - another recent and highly popular game - is a pretty simple experience too. Four actions, a handful of action types, and only one person really needs to know the exact rules of what cards get picked up when (thanks to it being a co-op game).

By comparison, Agricola is NOT a simple game. Race for the Galaxy is hugely not simple. Arkham Horror? Positively anti-simple. These are all good games, to be sure, but they are not opening their arms wide to the new player and making it as easy as possible for them to learn and get into the experience. They're a long-term investment of time and energy.

Dominion hides its complexity - 50 different cards in the two boxes, but you only ever need to think about 10 of them at a time. The more you play it, the fewer new cards you have to figure out. But there is depth there for those who look for it, in terms of figuring out the interacting/combining abilities of the cards.

Again, if we hold up the mirror of videogames, we see that this too is a defining feature of the most popular videogames. Complicated games like Civ, most simulations and so on tend not to sell as well as those that pick a simple set of mechanics and run with them. Polish and execution count for a lot, but The latest Civ game is as polished a game as you could hope for, but it still can't touch the amount of money Gears of War has made. And compare Diablo II's numbers (and its continuing playerbase, years after its release) versus the more complicated RPGs such as Baldur's Gate and there's no comparison at all.

EVOLUTION: Videogames are a rapidly evolving medium, and its rare to come across a videogame that doesn't crib mercilessly from its forebears. It's just the way of it, unfortunately. It's a lot easier to sell a game if you can compare it to something the player already knows and enjoys. Gears of War is pretty much any other shooter, but with one major difference - cover. Burnout is a pretty average racing game, but with one difference - crashes. And so on. In the industry these are called USPs, and are usually delivered as a variation to an existing theme. Getting brand and marketing to buy into an entirely new type of game is incredibly difficult (maybe less so in certain territories, to be fair) because getting the public to buy into an experience they have no context for understanding is difficult - which means less sales, which means less popularity.

Dominion's hook is that anyone who's ever spent a lot of time with a CCG building their own decks already understands the principles of the game. That opens its potential market enormously. A huge playerbase (how many people have played Magic: The Gathering?) that can relate to and understand your game very, very quickly. And like I've said, accessibility makes your first experience with the game much more positive, so you're more likely to end up playing it again.

LUCK: At the end of the day, Dominion is a card game, all about drawing cards. And so luck plays a part. Luck is an excellent aspect to a game that can be played at different skill levels. Luck means that there's always a reason to try - you won't just have the same person winning over, and over, and over again. Even if luck won't let you beat them, it may let you get closer to them in terms of score. Maybe you'll beat this other guy for a change. Maybe one good player will just have an absolute mare of a game. Does luck mitigate skill? Well, not entirely. Let's mention again how short a game is. Even if you lose one round due to bad luck (which means the game was close or you had unusually horrendous luck), on average you're probably still winning overall. You have your success in terms that are meaningful to you, and the lesser player has had a small dose of success too. Everyone's happy. Even the best Quake players don't win every game (I know I sure as hell don't).

In videogames the luck is often build in specifically. Many racing games, for example, have a "catchup" system, where cars at the front of the pack are slowed down slightly, whilst cars at the back get a bit of a speed boost. Mario Kart goes even further - the guy at the front gets green shells and banana skins, whilst the guy at the back gets invulnerability, mass lightning and heat-seeking missiles guaranteed to hit the guy in first place. It makes the game chaotic, funny - players moving up and down through the pack constantly... And makes it, in general, more fun. It's a long way from a pure test of skill (unless the disparity in skill levels is huge), but the game's popularity is definitely at least partly attributed to these systems.

So what it boils down to, for me at least, is that Dominion espouses a number of the prevailing philosophies currently at work in the videogame industry as to "What makes a popular game", at a time in the boardgame industry where "popular" is becoming increasingly important, as the boardgame explosion continues apace. And I think these are the significant reasons why it's ranked so highly on BGG.

FUN = POPULAR = GOOD?
---------------------

The question then becomes, even if it's popular (which is an unassailble fact), does that mean it's good?

This is a bigger question than I can hope to address in a review. Is a popular film "good"? (I hated Titanic). Is a popular TV show "good"? (Eugh, soaps).

Is a fun game good? Can you have a good game that isn't fun? Fun is difficult to measure, but given how many people are playing and posting about Dominion, I think we can assume that a lot of people are having fun. And I think that how fun a game is should really be the fundamental measure of how good a game is. So, for me at least, I believe it to be a good game.

What we're seeing in the enthusiast community is an argument as to how worthy the game is. It's the argument of Eastenders versus The Sopranos. Transformers versus some Oscar-winning film that made a fraction of the money Michael Bay did. The analogy isn't precise - narrative-based media isn't always about how enjoyable it is to watch, whereas enjoyment is an integral facet of gaming.

But for what it's worth, I think that a couple of things have contributed to the negativity directed towards Dominion. The obvious success of the game tends to make people speaking out against it a bit more vitriolic than they would otherwise be - they're having to speak out against popular opinion, which always makes people foam at the mouth a little bit. And the second thing being the simplicity of the first box set. Having not had a huge amount of time playing the original on its own, picking up the expansion almost immediately, all I can say on that subject is that I think the expansion cards should alleviate that percieved simplicity.

THE ACTUAL REVIEW BIT
---------------------

The expansion has added a lot to the first box set, in my opinion. I don't buy into the "Tactic X gets you a province on turn 12.347 on average, whereas Tactic Y gets you one on turn 13.002" mentality. This is partly due to luck (as mentioned above), but also because it doesn't take the other players into acccount.

The best thing about the new set, I believe, is more ways that the players can interact with each other, either directly or indirectly. More attacks, more cards that have effects based on other people's decks. Also, the way to play a hand is slightly more interesting now with the choice cards.

But hand playing is not the point of this game - so if that's what you don't like, your view is unlikely to change. It's too simplistic (which is great for new players, remember!). But the directions you can choose to pursue in terms of deck construction in a single game have been expanded greatly. The supposedly "unbeatable" combinations come up less often. Chapel decks are more vulnerable than they were before. The games have become a lot less obvious in terms of strategic direction since we started using the new cards.

Now the question is whether or not new "unbeatable strategies" will be figured out by the community before the next expansion. Which leads to my final point.

The main thing I'd say about this game is that it will perform differently in different groups. As a group of people all learning the game at the same time, learning through play, it's been very, very enjoyable. There's more experimentation, more unpredictability, more use of cards that most people ignore. Even reading tactics on BGG hasn't yet allowed me to stomp all over other people, especially given how rarely chapel comes up with double the number of kingdom cards, and the new tactics afforded by the expansion. If you seek out the winning tactics online and hone them, then yes - some games where the right combination of cards comes up, you may do well (as long as no-one else has read them).

But doing so is anathema to what we should all be enjoying about games - the fact that every one of them is a learning experience to be shared with friends. Put away the browser, sit down and actually try stuff out. Go hog-wild. Figure out what works for yourself, instead of just accepting what some number-cruncher on the interwebs tells you. Experience the game, don't dissect it. And in so doing, you may find the depth, the fun, and the reasons why it's such a popular game.

Hope this review is of interest, or at the very least sparks some discussion.

Review: Discovery:: Politest Treasure Hunting Ever

VixenTorGames — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 05:46:36 +0000

by VixenTorGames

I've been known to review some pretty obscure games. Often they're the only game a small-press company will ever make, but sometimes they're just games people haven't heard of before. But this right here is the first time I've reviewed a game so obscure that it's not even in English.

Yeah, that's right. Destination Tresor is entirely in French. There's not a lick of English anywhere (except for the words that are the same in both languages, like 'destination'). I didn't know that until it arrived at my house. Then I said, 'how the hell am I going to review a game that's in French?!' Luckily, a member of BGG (who may also be nominated for sainthood) had translated the rules and posted them there, so I was able to play the game.

And wow! I gotta play more foreign games! This game is cool!

Here's the idea. You and one other player (yes, it's only for two players) are treasure hunters. You parachute down onto an island covered with jungles and swamps and stuff and start exploring. There are old forts where you can search for clues, and once you have enough clues, you can run off to the treasure site and dig it up. Last one to the treasure is a rotten egg fart.

Only the trick is that, while you have a map, you don't know where you are when you land. So instead of tracking your progress on your own map, you tell your opponent where you want to go, and she tells you what kind of terrain you hit. You map your progress and compare it to your map, to try to figure out where you landed.

(Note the use of the female pronoun above. I usually default to the grammatically correct 'he', but in this particular case, I only played the game with my wife. And since I live in Texas, where we're more likely to legalize public castration than gay marriage, you know that my wife has to be female. Thus the female pronoun. You may feel free to play with a dude, if you want.)

And while you're moving around this island, you're tramping through the jungle, or over mountains, or across wind-swept plains - and stuff happens. You might fall in a ravine, or get stuck in a rainstorm, or get attacked by angry penguins (that's the scariest one. Penguins are mean little bastards. They're probably angry about not being able to fly and always getting eaten by killer whales).

The exact nature of the hazards are not actually defined (so I totally made up the penguins), just what happens. And what happens is that you either lose time or you get lost. Getting lost totally sucks, because your opponent moves you to a new place, and once again, you're not sure where you are, and have to explore your way out.

There are some really neat things working in Destination Tresor. First there's the dual map thing - the maps are identical, and you can write on them with a dry-erase marker to track your opponent's progress. Then you've got the thing where you're wandering through the jungle, which is accomplished with a sheet of plastic that you mark up (with that same marker) to figure out where you are.

The clue thing works really well, too. Each clue gives you a hint as to the terrain around the treasure, so you need at least two or three. And while you're finding your clues (and hopefully not spending your next four turns rummaging through your backpack for binoculars or a flashlight), your opponent is doing the same thing. Your clues will both point to the same spot, but you might have two different sets of clues - he knows the treasure is on the coast and by some mountains, and you know it's in a sheltered cove, but neither of you has enough to figure out exactly where it's at.

With all the exploring and using equipment and looking for clues in a race with a rival treasure hunter, Destination Tresor feels a lot like an Indiana Jones movie (but there are no terrifying religious artifacts, and you don't wait thirty years and then make a sequel with stupid aliens and the world's most annoying child actor for a sidekick). You have to fill in the gaps a little - when the tile you pull says, 'you lose a turn if you don't have rope', you can either decide that you were A) confronted with a chasm that you had to go around, or B) captured by evil yetis who made you watch National Treasure, and that made you so dumb that you had to spend twelve hours recovering.

But then there are problems. The biggest problem is in the execution of the theme. If you were really in a treasure-hunting movie, you would be sabotaging your opponent, fighting with his henchmen, and having hair-raising adventures in far-away lands. Instead you kind of feel like a couple of bored housewives with GPS on your iPhones. It's just not all that thrilling.

Another problem is how incredibly fiddly the game is. Now, I dislike the word 'fiddly' when used in relation to board games almost as much as I dislike the word 'elegant' to describe a Reiner Knizia game, but here, it really fits. The dry-erase pens don't write very well, and you might end up making marks you can't read. Or you might make the marks just fine, but forget how many times you've said 'northeast' and been told 'jungle.' It only takes a tiny mistake to completely throw the entire game down the crapper - if you miscount and tell your opponent he's in the swamp when he's really in the jungle, he doesn't have a way to check until he spends five minutes trying to make his plastic screen line up with his map. It's way too easy to screw up and throw the whole game into absolute, irredeemable chaos.

Plus there's the odd decision to have tiles to represent the terrain you cross over, when cards would have worked better and been cheaper. This is not a case where cards would work but the components are cooler. This is a case where cards would have been easier to manage, easier to shuffle, easier to store and easier to read. And they would have been way cheaper, too!

The good news is that the exploration part of the game (even with the tendency to forget where you are) is really fun, and redeems the game of the most glaring issues. And for the geocaching suburbanite issue, I've come up with my own solution - I'm making a supplement.

That's right, I liked the game so much that I'm taking the time to fix it. I'm going to make a deck of cards that lets you sabotage clues before your opponent can read them, or hire native guides to help you get through the terrain faster. I have a bunch of ideas for cards that you could play to screw with your opponent and get you ahead. And it's pretty impressive when I like a game enough to go to this much trouble. Usually when I find a game that needs help, I go, 'guess I won't play that again.'

So if you're not above using a downloaded translation for the rules, and you don't mind sorting clumsy cardboard tiles every time you play, you might really like Destination Tresor. It's an incredibly original game, and the game mechanic of mapping your opponent's location is unique and lots of fun. With a little tweaking and a lot of imagination, you could jump right out of your living room and into an old Errol Flynn movie.

Summary

Pros:
Awesome components (except for the dry-erase pens, which suck)
Unique and innovative
You're about half a step away from feeling like you're telling a story

Cons:
Weird component choice substitutes tiles for cards
Only in French
If you are telling a story, it might be a lame reality TV show

Review: Cuba - El Presidente:: El Presidente Shines

Nordiska — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 03:42:55 +0000

by Nordiska

First off I want to say that I am a big fan of Cuba, so when this expansion was released I quickly bought it.

Contents:
President car
Six new ships
Eight new Statue cards
Six new buildings (English edition)
Game Board
Six new "Cuban" cards

Ships
The six new ships are expected in a expansion like this, they add more variety; two are worth mentioning one ship is completely fruit and one is completely wood. Those ships are welcome additions and can throw a "monkey wrench" into someones strategy.

Statue cards
One of the new optional rules allows the game to continue up to 8 turns (from six in the base game). I've found that seven is a nice number, with six I often found myself longing for just one more turn. Seven fulfills that and with eight cards one is always absent(adding an unknown element). The nice thing is each gaming group can decide if 6, 7, or 8 turns are right for them.
Tax Acts: 6 pesos, 1 peso for every 10 VP's
Duty Acts: pesos as high as the current tax rate, the second new one is 1 product and 1 resource.
Subsidy Act: 1 VP for each unit of rum/cigars that a player owns, the other helps the losers catch up. First place earns 1 VP, Second place earns 2 VP's, Third earns 3 VP's, Fourth earns 4 VP's, and Fifth earns 5 VP's.
Other Acts: Export Act makes all shipped items worth 2 VP's, so it doesn't matter if the ship is in the 1 VP harbor or in the 3VP (about to sail) harbor. The other is the Control Act which negates the alternative features of the architect, tradeswoman, and mayor.
They are all welcome additions.

New Buildings
The casino converts 5 pesos to 2 VP's or vice versa. The customs office allow the owner to remove or add any one good from/to a ship in the harbor for zero VP's. The beach cafe allows its owner to use the alternative feature even if it is already used. The statue makes all end game buildings worth 1 more VP for its owner. The Newpaper allows it owner to choose a current bill and if that bill doesn't become law he/she earns 1 peso and 1 VP. The bonus tile in the English version is the Haceinda, for 1 sugar, 1 tobacco, 1 fruit, 1 rum and 1 cigar you earn 9 VP's.

Cubans
This is where this expansion really shines, each turn every player will choose one of these in addition to the four from the base game (tradeswoman, mayor, worker, architect, foreman). They each have a bonus.
Dancer next turn you are the starting player.
Musician gives you 2 pesos
Harbor Master allow you to exchange the position of two ships
Lawyer for 1 peso you can activate 1 building (worker position is irrelevant)
Revolutionary gives you 1 VP
Day Laborer immeditely stores all products in the storehouse.

These new Cubans offer more choices and more strategies toward winning. Do I take the musician for 2 pesos to help win the parliament vote? Do I take the revolutionary for 1 quick and easy VP? Do I take the harbor master to move that ship(from the 3 VP haror) that I suspect my opponent will fill with a product that I don't have? All gruelling choices to make. The best part is every turn one Cuban won't be picked, the Presidente drives his car to that Cuban and that will further influence the game. Such as one space sends 2 characters to parliament next round (so players will only be able to play three), or all bills automatically get passed, another is the worker may move when the foreman is choosen. With six new Cubans and six spaces it really takes the strategy to the next level.

In Review
If you like Cuba this expansion will turn it up a notch.

Review: Tomb:: Tomb, a great game

jeff ven — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 01:44:37 +0000

by jeff ven

Im going to do a review on tomb, i hope you will enjoy it and for anyone that dosent know the game i hope it will shed some light on what it's all about.

Theme
Tomb is a dungeon crawler in every aspect, but unlike other dungeon crawlers, dilivers a fast set up and resonable gameplay time (about 60 to 80 min).
recruit a party, kill the monsters. take there stuff, thats what it says on the box and thats just what tomb dilivers.

Components
Let me tell you tomb is a heavy box, and when i say heavy i really mean HEAVY especially considering the size of the box.
Once you open the box you will see that it is packed full with goodies.
In the box there are 1 board (double sided),the inn board,a bag to put all your characters in (wich i think is a nice touch),a character poster, 6 adventuring party markers,84 characters,40 characer stands,25 spell deck cards,25 prayer deck cards,25 item deck cards,25 tactic deck cards,200 cript deck cards, 21 tomb dice (7 green, 7 bleu and 7 red) and 48 wound/tomb tokens.
The only thing i think is a little disapointing is the fact that the characters are not moddels but cardboard prints (but then again i just love miniatures.)
All the components are of exelent quallity, printed on nice (real) thick cardboard.
The artwork i verry nice, and the bag to put your characters in deservess a + for the effort.

Mechanics
Tomb is a rather easy game to learn, and compared to most dungeon crawlers not overly complicated.
As an example im going to take a 2 player game, it dosent differ that much from a 6 player game but its easyer and shorter to explain.
At the start of the game everyone rolls all 7 bleu dice, the one with the most hits (axe simbols) wins, play then passes to the left.
The first thing you do is draw 5 random characters from the character pool (indeed the nice bag they added ).
Then you get to choose one and the rest is placed in the inn for later recruiting.
If you chose a wizard you get to draw 1 spell card from the spell deck, if you chose a cleric you get to draw 1 prayer card from the prayer deck.
If you chose a multi classed character lets say wizard/cleric, you get to draw both 1 spell card and 1 prayer card.
This rule applys every time you recruit a new character in the inn.
Once everybody made there pick of there first character,by drwing the 5 random characters and placing the remaining ones in the in, its time to set up the board.
The board setup is rather easy, the player who got to go first draws 3 card from the cript deck, then the second player draws 3 cards and so on.
Then the first player gets to put one card in one of the cripts and draws a new one.
There can only be a certain nummber of cards in a cript at the same time, as indicated at the entrance of the cript.
Then the second player puts a card in a cript and draws a new one, and so on untill all the cripts are filled.
The remaining cards go into the cript cards discard pile.
Now you are ready to play, play starts now with the second player getting the first turn.
During your turn you can do a couple of things, when at the inn you can recruit a character, or draw 2 cards of your will at any order.
Also when you bigin your turn at the inn, all wounds dealt to you are imediatly heald.
So probably the first couple of rounds you will recruit some members to your party, and try to load them up with gear and spells.
To go into the dungeon cost you your turn as well, just a small detail.
When in the dungeon you can move (up to 10 spaces) per turn.
You can also try to pickpocket one of the characters of a oposing party, if they are within moving range (10 spaces) for that turn and you have a rough character on your party.
To pickpocket someone of a oposing party first declaer ho it is you are going to steal from.
Then tell them what you are going to steal, then you should make a skill roll with your rough.
Then the oposing player gets to roll a skill check ith any character on his party (his choice), the one with the greater amount of victorys wins.
In case the attacker wins he gets to steal the loot, i case the other player wins he "catches" the thief and gets 1 attack against him.
Another thing you can do is heal your characters, only a cleric on your party can do this.
He makes a holiness roll and heals that meany wounds to your party (your choise), thiis also takes a complete round to do.
Then the most important part of the game, the cripts.
Lets say you would end on the sqaure of a cript door and you still have movement left, thats to bad you will have to wait until your next turn to enter because you allready got your action (moving).
When you enter a cript the player to your left or right, as indicated on the board takes the cards.
First you encounter the traps, lets just say there is one trap.
The card will tell the cm (cript master) how meany characters can try to disarm it, what roll needs to be made, the tn (target number) that needs to be beaten and the effects the trap will have when it gos off.
The cm tell the player the name of the trap, how meany characters he can juse and what to juse (skill, attack, magic, holyness) and thats it.
Lets say the tn (target number) is skill 5 and 1 character, that means your best chanse is to take a rough because most of the time they have a better skill.
You roll and beat the number, now the cm gives the trap card to you and you get to bank it for xp (ill explain this later).
Then after the traps are resolved battle begins, the cm always gos first.
Lets say battle is about to begin, but one of your characters has a react ability that says, when monsters are reveald you get to attack first whit your skill, this counts as your turn for this round.
This means your character gets to go first, and attack with his or her skill dice instead of attack dice.
But later in this round this character will nt get to attack because the card said it counted as your turn for this round.
Lets say you fighting 2 badguys, one you allready killed jusing the react skill.
Now the other monster is going to attack, you chose a character that is going to defend against the incomming blow.
But before the monster attacks your wizard plays a spell card that reads, react: when a monster is about to act you may juse this card to disable him for the rest of this round, thus canceling the attack.
Now you chose your warrior to diliver that fatal blow, he rolls with his attack dice (lets say 1 green 2 bleu and 1 red) and adds up any bonusses he gains.
He rolls 3 successes, the enemy has 5 hp (Hit points) so he still has 2 remaining.
But your warrior is equipt with a blade that kills a monsters if it suffers more then 2 wounds from 1 hit, thus killing it.
If a character of yours would die in combat you must put it in the dead pool, and draw a new character that you put in the inn for later recruiting.
All the item cards and other cards that where attached to this character are also discarted.
You get the monsters you have slain and get to bank them right away.
Then you get the remaining tresure from the crypt, you get to chose if you bank it right aay or equip it.
If you equip a item and want to bank it later on you need to go to the inn to do this.
The game ends when all crypts have been raided and there are no more cards left.
Then you total up all the xp you have bankt and the one with the highest amount wins.

Conclusion
Well my conclusion about Tomb is that its a great dungeon crawler i will be enjoying for meany years to come.
Because there are so meany cards and characters, no 2 games will be allike.
The art is bautifull, and components of very good quality.
The only down side to the game is the manual, wich is very poorly written.
But if you just go to the tomb website and download the faq all the answers you might have are solved wright away.
Just a great game

Review: Pandemic:: Choose Your Own Adventure review of Pandemic

ragingoptimist — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 01:01:53 +0000

by ragingoptimist

A researcher in a biohazard suit is holding a copy of Pandemic with some metal tongs. People around you scream and run away, but being intrigued by the board game he is holding, you decide to hang around. "Hey you!" he shouts from inside his bubble suit. "Want to play a fun cooperative game?"

A) Everyone knows there can only be one winner in a game. Shared victories are defeats and "being a team player" is a dirty insult where I'm from. Go to #1.
B) My middle name is cooperative. Yes, I got made fun of a lot in school. Go to #3.
C) Only if this is a cooperative game that is actually fun. Go to #2.

#1 You have been vaccinated previously from getting infected with the "Pandemic Board Game Virus." You are immune to its charms, and need not pay it any heed.

#2 Do you mind a stiff challenge in a cooperative game?
A) If I win less than 90% of the time, I declare a game "impossible, poorly designed, and broken." Go to #1.
B) I'm fine with a tough but reasonable challenge. Go to #3.

#3 What game length and complexity do you like?
A) Anything less than 6 hours or fewer than a hundred pages in its rule book is a waste of time. Go to #1.
B) Playable in less than an hour with easily explainable rules sounds great to me. Go to #4.

#4 Does a relatively abstracted theme of fighting global spread of disease sound fun?
A) I earned a Masters in Public Health while dreaming of this day. Go to #5.
B) Yawn. Couldn't this be about WWIII or something? Go to #1.
C) Definitely different than standard fare, but I could go either way. Go to #6.

#5 You are predisposed to being susceptible to the "Pandemic Board Game Virus." This is a chronic disease, and it is contagious to close friends and family. Symptoms include the constant desire to play "one more", interest in vaccinating your children against "the blue cube disease", and trouble concentrating during news coverage of the swine flu as you imagine plucking cubes off cities that it has spread to.

#6 Willing to spend 23-35 bucks for a game with pretty standard components (wooden cubes, glossy cards, good board)?
A) Why not? Health care for that price is a bargain. Go to #5.
B) I absolutely HATE the sight of wooden cubes. I started an Ameritrasher boycott of all games with such an unoriginal component. Go to #1.
C) Not too bad for a game, but I'm not sure. Go to #7.

#7 You have a subclinical exposure to the "Pandemic Board Game Virus." Your immune system may fight it off, but you should seek out someone that has the full blown disease. Ask them about their symptoms, try fighting some global diseases with them once or twice, and then decide if you want the cure or not. I suspect you won't, as this virus is the only one I want to have.

Recent additions | BoardGameGeek Forums

Review: Lord of the Rings:: A fun way to introduce your kids to Tolkien's world

Review: Metro:: Metro Review

Review: Supernova:: Reviewing the designer’s review

Review: Lego Robo Champ:: Review for Robo Champ (or Lego Cootie)

Review: Fzzzt!:: We are the Robots

Review: RoboCop VCR Game:: ProCon Review

Review: Zombie Mosh:: Just For Stoners

Review: Rugrats - Lookie! Cookies! 3-D Balancing Game:: A children's dexterity game like Arch Rival, but without the alcohol

Review: Kachina:: Review by Joe and Monica Steadman

Review: Battlefields of Olympus:: Is that an army in your pocket, or are you just glad to see me?

Review: Leader 1:: Leader 1 vs. Leader 2

Review: Pandemic:: Pandemic – curing the world one cube at a time

Review: Admiral Ackbar "It's a TRAP!" GAME:: Review: Admiral Ackbar "It's a TRAP!" GAME

Review: Kámen - Zbraně - Papír:: First impressions

Review: A Touch of Evil, The Supernatural Game:: Follow Up Frog Game Fantastic as its First

Review: Bundeswehr:: Doug Murphy *Quick Start Notes*

Review: Doubloons!:: Where be me Pieces Of Eight!? (A Doubloons! Review)

Review: Lord of the Rings:: How To Completely Ruin A Theme

Review: Beowulf: The Legend:: Ripping Off Arms and Killing Mothers as Heroically As Possible

Review: Atlanteon:: 'Undersea Conquest' = 'Boring Math Game with Sea Monsters"

Review: Maginor:: Reiner Knizia is Pretty Good At This

Review: TransAmerica:: First Impressions of Transamerica

Review: Flames of War:: FoW review – mid war period

Review: China:: Pictorial overview - A new spin on an old classic

Review: Go Nuts:: Silly speed dice-rolling for kids, definitely not a party game

Review: SEEKRIEG 5:: New Player Review

Review: Sim City: The Card Game:: Review of a dead CCG: SimCity

Review: Battleground: Fantasy Warfare:: Game review by wargame fan

Review: Notre Dame:: Notre Dame as a 2 player game

Review: Dungeon:: A classic game that feels like an introduction to a "monty haul" campaign with a fair dose of nostalgia

Review: Three For All!:: Pyramid plus Tribond equals a game with no point.

Review: The Bridges of Shangri-La:: Bridges Made to the Highest Chinese Standards

Review: Song of Blades and Heroes:: Song of the Splintered Lands Review

Review: No Thanks!:: A Girlfriend's Perspective On: No Thanks!

Review: Napoleon's Last Battles:: A Review of the Ligny Scenario

Review: Incan Gold:: Get the kids involved - adding my 5 y/o son to a game

Review: Arkham Horror - Innsmouth Horror Expansion:: Innsmouth Horror Review (or, Watching Your Friends Pronounce "Y'ha-Nthlei")

Review: Steam:: A curmudgeon's rambling review of Steam

Review: Fluxx Promo Cards:: Pandora's Box - Very Fluxxy Indeed

Review: Mystery On The Nile:: They've Made a Game Out of Us!

Review: Race for the Galaxy: Rebel vs Imperium:: 50 Games of RvI in 6 days.

Review: Santiago:: A Girlfriend's Perspective on: Santiago

Review: Goblin:: Review of Goblin

Review: A Castle for All Seasons:: A Castle for All Seasons - Italian review - Recensione in italiano

Review: Dungeonlords:: Dungeon Lords short review after one play of the prototype

Review: Colosseum:: Almost one year in, I still like it

Review: Vikings:: Vikings - Italian review - Recensione in italiano

Review: Long Shot:: And coming up along the outside - Long Shot!

Review: Sector 41:: Quick review of a nice puzzle game

Review: Blood Bowl: Living RuleBook:: Blood Bowl PC Review

Review: Space Alert:: Giant Hamster Ball of Chaos

Review: FITS:: The First Game I Enjoy Solo?

Review: Die Säulen Der Erde: Duell der Baumeister:: Small review of Pillar's nice little brother

Review: Dominion: Intrigue:: An Expansion Always Does Expand Things...Right?

Review: Battlestar Galactica:: A taxonomy of the metagame.

Review: Hogwarts: House Cup Challenge:: I have yet to finish a full game

Review: Tales of the Arabian Nights:: A Non-Bullet Point Review for Tales of the Arabian Nights

Review: Dixit:: A game unlike any other

Review: Diamant:: A lightweight game, perfect for larger groups

Review: Fairy Tale:: What's Your Game? 2008 Version - Component review

Review: Runebound Second Edition:: Kill monsters, take their treasure, and then buy swords and armor? Yes please.

Review: Power Grid:: Choose Your Own Adventure review of Power Grid

Review: Wasabi!:: Wasabi! A Review for Gamers and Non Gamers

Review: Race for the Galaxy:: Choose Your Own Adventure review of Race for the Galaxy

Review: Hamburgum:: A Girlfriend's Perspective on: Hamburgum

Review: Torres:: {Lite Review} Torres... A game with many levels

Review: The Birthday Game:: {Lite Review} The Birthday Game - A party game for a birthday party

Review: Ogre Castle:: Ogre Castle - dice, cards and ganging up!

Review: Fjords:: Carcassonne's eastern cousin

Review: Candamir: The First Settlers:: The Saga of Lief the Nearly Settled of Catan

Review: Scrabble:: A classic, but can this game be salvaged?

Review: Thud:: Should you believe the rulebook? A review and strategy notes.

Review: Dominion: Intrigue:: Review of Dominion and Intrigue: viewed through the lens of videogame design

Review: Discovery:: Politest Treasure Hunting Ever

Review: Cuba - El Presidente:: El Presidente Shines

Review: Tomb:: Tomb, a great game

Review: Pandemic:: Choose Your Own Adventure review of Pandemic

Review: Bundeswehr:: Doug Murphy Quick Start Notes