Recent additions | BoardGameGeek

Review: Cosmic Encounter:: Cosmic Enounter, or How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Embrace Chaos

San Il Defanso — Tue, 10 Nov 2009 02:58:10 +0000

I am the type of gamer who desires depth, not breadth. I'd rather play one game fifty times, than play fifty games one time each. A standard such as that requires a game that can hold up to fifty plays. Quite frankly, that is a rare case. This hobby is littered with the flotsam and jetsam of games that held up for five plays and were then traded away to someone else so that THEY could play it five times and trade it away. We tend to call any game a "classic" if it is pretty good (and sometimes when it isn't). It can be easy to forget that there is no such thing as an "instant classic." The only thing that can create a classic is time, and games that stand the test of time are the ones that get played over and over again. These are the games that get whole websites devoted to strategy, that reside in hallowed places on our game shelf in battered boxes, with grubby cards and tape along the edges. They may fall out of print, but they are never forgotten.

Cosmic Encounter is one of the few, the proud, the legends of gaming. I myself am a new convert. I've only been in this hobby for a couple years, and in my early rush to find new games to add to my collection, I stumbled on the Cosmic Encounter page in Bruno Faidutti's Ideal Game Library. It looked like the sort of game that I would have loved in college, one that would have stood beside The Settlers of Catan as our time-waster of choice. It was out of print though, so I passed it by. When Fantasy Flight released their reprint late last year, I felt that my time had come. I took the plunge, and it has become one of my favorite games.

The premise of Cosmic Encounter is laughably simple. Essentially, each player has a system of planets, and through the use of very limited spaceships and combat cards, each player seeks to form five colonies on the other players' systems. It's tough to go it alone though, so you will need the help of the other players to both attack and defend planets. Other players can add their ships to the fray, in hopes of getting a colony or some other goodies. The losers' ships get sent to the dreaded warp, where they will cool their heels until they somehow get freed.

What REALLY is the kicker in this whole deal is that each player gets to play as an alien race. These races let each player break a rule for the duration of the game. You may have a character who can make the of a battle win, or you may have a guy who can take back the awesome card he just played. The game comes with 50 of these, so there is almost limitless replayability built into the game. Throw into that mess a ton of cards that have MORE bizarre effects, and you have what could have been an enormous chaotic mess, a train wreck of game design.

The biggest miracle though, is that it's an absolute blast to play. The game feels untamed, as if it is bucking against the confines of it's own design. The interaction of the players, the cards, and those unbelievable powers makes for a highly volatile experience. This will obviously drive some players absolutely bonkers. If you can't take a situation where a stray card throws the entire game off the rails, then this is not the game for you. The key is to just lean back, say, "Hey, it's just a game," and enjoy the ride.

Cosmic Encounter isn't controllable, but there is definitely strategy present. Since there are no sure things, it is very important to pay attention to what cards have and haven't been played. If you can do that, and if you know when and how to help your opponents and when to throw them under the bus, you will certainly have a better shot at winning. Just be aware that nothing is guaranteed. I am living proof of this: in some 15-20 games, I've only won once.

Even if I am a wretched player, I don't care. If you approach the game with the right attitude, you will have fun. You will remember that one game where you stabbed your buddy in the back. You will remember the bargains, the struggles, and particularly the double-crosses. More than any game I know of, you can play several times in a night. Every game will be wildly different. Each alien power essentially forces a different strategy on you, and the way they interact with each other creates entirely new strategies on top of that. The design is also highly customizable. If you don't like a certain power, don't use it. If you don't like playing with flares, take 'em out.

While I can't speak to the different editions before this one, Fantasy Flight's reprint looks great. The alien cards have terrific artwork, with lots of personality. There also are some little systems in place to make games run smoother. Every alien power has a recommended player level (novice, advanced, or expert), so new players can be handicapped a little. Not only that, but a terrific timing system is in place to prevent a lot of the timing conflicts that were evidently rampant in the original game. The cardboard planets look fine, if a little plain. The cards are similarly unadorned, but they are very clear as to their use and effect. The Warp and the Hyperspace Cone all are suitably goofy and over-the-top. There's even a variant in the box called Technology, a FFG invention. I haven't played with it yet, but it looks like a lot of fun. If there's any complaint, $60 feels pretty steep for a game like this. There's enough game under the hood to justify the price though, so just swallow the cost. You won't regret it.

Cosmic Encounter is a bedrock of the hobby. If nothing else, you owe it to yourself to experience it firsthand. Don't be surprised if you get hooked though. This is no museum piece. Even if it's a 32-year-old design, Cosmic Encounter feels as thrilling and cutting edge as anything I've ever played.

Review: Puerto Rico:: You've almost definitely heard of it - so what about it is so great?

EyesOfWolf — Tue, 10 Nov 2009 02:53:03 +0000

by EyesOfWolf

General Information
Number of Players: 3 - 5
Length of Game: 1 - 2 hours
Difficulty of Game:
Strategic Depth:
Fun Factor:
Popularity at local game night:

Overview
All of the players have one jingle purpose in Puerto Rico – and that is to build a thriving colony. It will start out as a simple place, most likely with only a single crop and no colonists, but if you make shrewd decisions, you might be running a thriving colony with quite the collection of buildings and a very profitable crop yield. But this will only happen if you can perform your job well, whatever your role might be.

Game Materials
The materials for this box are all either hard cardboard cutouts or small wooden pieces. They are very durable and have stood up to the test of time since I got the game years ago, and this is despite the fact that this is one of the more popular games in my collection. The only damage or wear-and-tear I have seen is from when my cat managed to retrieve one of the tokens and chewed it. That being said, the materials are very simple and won’t win any awards for artistic representation. They are functional and durable, but that is all.

Play Summary
The game is played in a series of turns. Each turn one person is the governor. This is decided randomly at first and then rotates around the table. The governor gets to go first and picks a job. After the governor picks a job, each player performs the action associated with that job. Once it goes all the way around and everyone has had a chance to do something, the next person around the table picks one of the remaining jobs. Everyone gets a chance to perform the action associated with this second job, starting with the player who picked it. Play continues like this until everyone has picked a job and all players have had a chance to perform any actions.

At this point, three jobs will be unclaimed. Each of these jobs get one doubloon placed on it as a type of incentive. If a player picks a job with any number of doubloons on it, that player gets that money in addition to being able to gain the benefits of picking the job. After placing one doubloon on each remaining job, all of the jobs are returned, the governor position is rotated, and another turn begins.

If at any point in the game one of the ending conditions is met, play continues until that turn is over. This means that even if the ending conditions are met after the governor picks a job, each other player will still have a chance to pick a job before the game is over. When the game is over, the players count up victory points and whoever has the most is the winner.

This seems very simple on the surface, but there is a significant amount more to explain. First of all, whenever someone picks a job, that player gets a bonus ability. Each of the jobs has some type of bonus associated with it. For example, consider the Builder. This job enables each player to build one building as long as they pay the associated cost. Whoever picked the job gets the special bonus of needing to pay one less to build a building. It is convenient, and a good design decision, that each of the colony boards has all of the jobs listed on it as well as the special abilities.

There are three separate ways to get victory points. First of all, you gain victory points for shipping goods back to the motherland. For every barrel of goods that you ship back, you gain one victory point. The second way is by building buildings. Each building has a victory point value associated with it. At the end of the game, these values get added to your victory point tokens to provide you your score. The third and final way to get victory points is through the use of one of five special buildings. There are five buildings that provide bonus victory points at the end of the game based on special conditions. Those descriptions are provided on the buildings.

Buildings and crops by themselves do nothing. In order for a building or a crop to produce anything, it needs to be populated with at least one colonist. Some of the production buildings have multiple openings for colonists and can support more than one colonist at a time. In these cases, the building works once for each colonist working. The concept of production buildings brings up another interesting rule. The only crop that produces something by itself is corn. All of the other crops - indigo, coffee, tobacco, and sugar - require an associated production building in order to produce any goods. That means that you need to get the crop, build the production building, and populate both with one colonist before you will see any return on your investment.

As I said, the game seems simple at first and quickly becomes more complicated.

There are also several supplementary rules that need to be kept in mind, but those go beyond the scope of this review. Also, the description of each of the jobs is also beyond the scope. What I have currently written should give you a good approximation of how the game is played.

Play Experience
One of the things that you may have noticed in the previous section is that there is no dice rolling in this game. There is also very little random card drawing. The only random elements in this game are: who is the governor first; and which crops are currently available to plant. Everything else is determined by the jobs that people pick and what they decide to do on their action. This makes Puerto Rico a very popular game for the more strategy-minded people in our gaming group.

Adding to the popularity for this game is the fact that there are multiple routes to success. There is no one sure-fire way to win where everyone is trying the same strategy. Or if there is, we have not found it yet. In fact, one of the things that seems to work best is to do what no one else is doing. For example, if everyone is growing corn, it is not necessarily to your advantage to grow corn. There is a limit to how many goods can be produced at any time. This is determined by the number of tokens provided with the game. If you are the fifth player to produce corn, it might all be gone by the time it gets to you to claim your goods. Now, if you were producing something no one else was, you will find that you always have access to all of the goods available. This is a very powerful position to be in.

Because of these two elements, you need to pay close attention to what the other players are doing. If you can predict what jobs other people will pick when their turn comes around, you will be doing well. It also pays to consider where governor is. You will be surprised the number of times that knowing you will get to pick your job first NEXT turn is a key element to what you decide in THIS turn.

Picking jobs can sometimes be a tricky endeavor because there is a lot to consider. I often find myself considering what jobs other people will pick behind me, what I will gain out of this job now, what other people will benefit if I pick a certain job, etc. There are also numerous rules that you can use to your advantage, and this is particularly true with the trader or captain job. Both of these jobs have the potential to lock out other players so that you are the only one who can benefit, but you need to be paying attention for those opportunities to take advantage of them. If you get to pick a job and you are the only one who gets money or victory points, it means a lot in the game. Timing is the key.

As you can see, there is a lot that goes into this game, and that is part of the reason for both its popularity and large variance in play time. With respect to the game time, it can happen where a very analytical player spends what feels like an eternity picking which job to take. Other times, every player is on the ball and picks jobs almost immediately as soon as it is permitted to do so. I would say that the majority of our games, when played with experience players, fall around the 75 minute mark.

Notable Praise
The almost complete lack of random elements makes this game extremely fun. If you are completely out of the running for the game, most of the time you have no one to blame but yourself. You need to be able to come up with a strategy, and be flexible with it because one single strategy is not going to always work. This game is too dependent on what other players do to make a single strategy always effective.

Which leads nicely into point two: the game continues to be fun to play because you rarely can play it the exact same way. Sure, you may have your preferred strategy, but it is too easy for other players to interfere with it if they realize what you are attempting. This encourages agile thinking and adds to the replay value.

There is very little dead time in this game. The most time you will spend waiting and doing nothing is while another player is debating which job to pick. Most of the time, those decisions do not last a long time, so there is not a lot of time waiting for it to be your turn. This is nice and helps to keep all of the players around the table.

Notable Gripes
The game can take a while to explain and can be a lot to swallow for someone new to it. Trying to explain all of the rules and all of nuances at once can be a bit overwhelming and make it difficult to get a player going. A lot of players catch on after a turn or two, but by it can still be a while longer before they start to realize an effective way to play in terms of maximizing opportunities. A very frequent question is "What strategy should I use?" or "How should I play?" Neither of these is an easy question to answer, and I would argue neither one has a consistent answer. In my mind, this marks it as a good strategy game because of all of the nuances in it, but it does mean it can have a steep learning curve for new players, especially if they are new gamers.

The other gripe I would have deals more with my OCD than anything else. I have not found a good way to store the game with the plastic holder that it comes with. I just have not found a way to sort the pieces to my satisfaction that makes it quick and easy to set up the game. But, this is a very minor gripe and should not keep anyone from enjoying this game. It is just something that comes to mind every time I put the game away so I felt it warranted mentioning.

Summary
Puerto Rico is an excellent game, and one that I would recommend to anyone who enjoys any type of city-building game. There are very few random elements, and how the play goes is very dependent on other players. This gives the game a high replay value and also keeps all players engaged because there is very little downtime.

Review: Soaps (Where Soap Opera Writers Get Their Ideas):: Soaps - A romp through the riotous world of daytime television writing

zooks — Tue, 10 Nov 2009 02:26:47 +0000

by zooks

Gina cries to Alan, "If we only had a baby! That would make the murder of your brother bearable! It’s just so horrible that Ashley had to go to prison for it."

"What do you mean horrible? That woman had a past more sordid than your brother-in-law Eric. At least that snake is in a coma. There’s some justice in the world."

Sound like a really cheesy soap opera? You’re right! The best part? You wrote it! Danny Goodisman has taken the best and worst (and of course it’s the worst that everyone finds amusing) of the genre of daytime serials and puts it out to the masses in a very creative way.

The object of the game is to create a soap opera that uses all the cheesiest and trite plot items and characters, and then get the network to pick up your show long-term. Whoever has the most points at the end of Sweeps Week gets the network’s favor. The game is meant to be played in 75 minutes for 2-5 players, but it can really be completed in about 45 minutes, since there aren’t too many opportunities for analysis paralysis. It retails for $22 from The Game Crafter.

First Impressions

So as per the FCC’s regulation that someone is doing a review on an Internet forum or blog, I am required to state that this game was given to me free of charge by the designer in order to demonstrate it for my gaming group and provide feedback. When Danny Goodisman contacted me about his game, I jumped at the opportunity. Who wouldn’t? A free game to try out, and from first read of the rules it seemed pretty easy to understand and teach.

This was my first chance to work with a Game Crafter published game. I love the idea of providing cheap alternatives to publishing and allowing for unknown designers to realize their craft. I was, however, a bit taken by surprise when the box shipped to me had no logo. I opened it and inside was a set of cards, some folded up paper (the rulebook) and a couple of pieces of flair that advertised The Game Crafter. I contacted the designer via email to confirm that the game wasn’t a prototype and in fact it is out there in production. Presentation is important to some degree, but I reset my expectations a bit to go more along the line of Cheapass Games where it’s all in the design and presentation gives way to cost.

Contents

The contents are minimal - just the cards and the rulebook. The rulebook takes a "print and play" approach (cost-saving measure) and explains the rules within two 8 ½ x 11 pages. The first read through brought up numerous questions and to the designer’s credit, I was able to ask him directly for clarification. He not only answered the questions quickly, he also amended the rulebook, which is available for download from Geekdo. Also included with the rulebook is a 3 page card sheet explaining nuances of individual cards as well as a blank score sheet ready for photocopying. Having a more extensive card reference than rulebook can give the impression that this game suffers from conflicting or ambiguous rules between "card powers" that some games like Talisman and Dominion can suffer from. There is a little bit of that here, but it also should be a credit to how simple the rules actually are.

The cards themselves are made of pretty good stock and will last awhile. There are three types of cards: Events, Characters and Marriage. The Event cards are just words on a card, no design. If a game publisher were to pick this up, I assume that would change. They are very easy to read, but there’s plenty of room for flavor here and that could be one of the biggest areas of improvement. The Character cards feature the caricature artwork of Katie Green. In a style very similar to Blood and Cardstock’s Showbiz Shuffle, the artwork gives a more whimsical flavor to the game that is obviously meant to lampoon the entire daytime soap industry. It is very appropriate and pleasing to the eye. Finally, the Marriage cards feature the bare minimum amount of text to convey what they are. Similar to the event cards, this is an area where flavor could be added to the game.

Gameplay

The object of the game is to get points, and this is done by taking a number of characters and throwing cliché after cliché at them. Murder, marriage, divorce, pregnancy, babies, long-lost relatives... anything’s game here. The game takes place over 3 or 4 weeks (depending on the number of players) and players can gain points during each day of the week.

It should be noted here that there are some adult themes in this game. Each character has a gender and sexual orientation as well as some ability that comes into play with regard to events or characters that they can interact with. The author has taken a very open and liberal definition of relationships in this game, so if you have a very conservative background, I’d recommend staying away from this game. There are gay marriages, infidelity, pre-marital pregnancies and other juicy soap opera plotlines that any player should be comfortable with before going in. Or at least be ready to ridicule.

Each player starts with 5 characters and two of those characters begin the game married. This is done by taking one of the marriage cards in the pack and laying it under the bottom of each of the two partners. It may be a gay or straight marriage, depending on your characters. Each soap opera producer (player) is then given 7 event cards that represent possible plotlines for any given day of the show. As the soap opera runs from Monday through Friday, players will use 5 of the 7 cards during a given week. After the week is over, they will then redraw back to 7 and continue on to the next week.

On any given day, you have one thing to do: advance the plot of your serial. This can be either playing events (most common) or adding new characters. You can play an event out of your hand, discard an event to place a character, or discard any number of cards out of your hand to redraw new ones and play something at a penalty.

Events will be the plot devices that give you most of your points. They are worth points themselves, but also include any number of characters and their points. The more outlandish events like murder can sometimes remove characters from your cast and other events can introduce new ones (like having babies). A few events can also be played on other people’s casts, such as recruiting their actors for your show or soliciting a viewer backlash that cancels a particularly outrageous event on an opponent’s show.

Characters can be introduced on a show day either as the primary action of a day’s activities or by having babies growing up (quick - fast forward!), cameo appearances or a few other outlandish activities. The best way to succeed at this game is to have characters that not only play off of each other but also have events that include as many characters as possible. While some characters are obviously more useful than others, there aren’t any that seem to be so much better than all the rest. And there’s something satisfying in taking one of those really homely characters, fixing them up with plastic surgery and all of a sudden, they’re more interesting.

Each day, you will play cards out of your hand, therefore having fewer available to you later in the week. This does require you to plan ahead to get events to play off of each other. Getting the priest to murder the pregnant nun/convict right after she came out of the closet might take a little work, but it’ll be worthwhile in points. And think of the press coverage for your show! When the week is over, whoever had the best week (in points) gives their writers a little extra cash for the dijon mustard on their bologna sandwich (you get more points). Players then start the next week by drawing up to the 7 card allotment and continuing the completely absurd plotlines that were started the previous week. The last week is, of course, Sweeps Week, where all values are doubled. So make sure you save some surprises for late in the game. At the end of Sweeps Week, whoever has the most points wins.

Final Thoughts

This game is very simple to play. The fun of it is getting into the plotlines. I often found myself imitating Don Pardo narrating how such and such a character found himself in an even more ludicrous situation than yesterday. The more absurd the plot line, the more fun we had.
I played this with 2, 4 and 5 players. The game is very quick with 2 (my wife and I finished in less than 30 minutes) and with 4 and 5 players it was more like 45 minutes. Even hard core Euro gamers opened up to this as a diversion from the more heavy games they were used to. It’s probably a little long to be called a filler, but the light fare and jocularity that ensues is definitely a palate cleanser.

If you have ever played games like Showbiz Shuffle by Blood and Cardstock and enjoyed them, this game is definitely for you. If you want to bring in your non-gamer, soap-watching significant other, this may be a good offering. If you are uncomfortable with the subject matter that this game covers, then it is probably not your style.
I would love to see a larger publisher pick this up and improve on the presentation, although that will likely add to the cost of the game. There are still some conflicts between card powers that come up, but the designer has been very open to feedback and since he is with The Game Crafter, has the ability to make changes for now.

Rating

I really enjoyed this game with all numbers of players. It was a lot of fun and the other players in my group found it quite amusing as well. I give it 7 out of 10 daytime emmy awards.

Review: MedWar Sicily:: What the heck is a Medwar Sicily?

Myrdin T Sasnak — Mon, 09 Nov 2009 22:26:02 +0000

by Myrdin T Sasnak

]]>
If I were to ask this question to fellow BGGers, judging from its number of plays, I'd probably get a 'dunno, what's that?' This answer would be a pity.

]]>
Others might answer 'it's just another wargame set someplace in the Med during WWII.' This answer would just be wrong.

I've been playing a lot of Medwar Sicily. I've been very curious to see what people think of it. There have been no reviews prior to this. Perhaps it is because Medwar is an update of a previous game, Bitter Victory, which has an excellent review written by the master boardgame reviewer da pyrate ( http://www.boardgamegeek.com/thread/292274).

Or perhaps it is because people just aren't playing Medwar - it only has 10 plays as of this writing listed on BGG. I hope this is because fellow geeks don't always log their plays - I know I am guilty of that having logged only 3 plays. I have played Medwar face to face more times than that. I haven't logged any of my solitaire games. I guess this makes me a prime offender in that regard.

]]>

Then what is it?
Medwar has nothing to do with the Mafia or Godfather movies or mob warfare. It is a wargame, but it is based on Operation Husky, the Allied WWII campaign conducted to seize the toe of Italy from the Axis and use it as a springboard into Italy and Southern Europe. Medwar is designed by the prolific Richard Berg. Worthington Games published the game in late July. I bought my copy shortly after its release in August while at the 2009 WBC. The Wylie brothers hoped I liked the Medwar game system because they said more games were planned that use it. Another reason why I hope the low number of plays is an aberration. If the game does poorly, I doubt there will be other games that use this game system - which would be a shame.

]]>
If someone were to take a quick glance at Medwar, it would look a lot like a traditional hex and counter wargame belonging to the old Avalon Hill / SPI school of gaming.

]]>
When you open the box you find a large folded full color map sheet of Sicily with a numbered hex grid laid over it. There are your typical war game counters complete with NATO symbols and two numbers representing combat strength and movement. Could this be a throw back to the good old days?

]]>
Then you start to notice some things that are not exactly part of the traditional classic AH/SPI wargame. First, there is more than one six sided die. No big deal. Worthington is probably just being generous.

]]>
Then you find cards. There is an Allied set of 10 cards and there is an Axis set of 10 cards. It looks like they cover certain historic events and various battle situations. Hmmm. Then with a sick feeling you realize you have not seen something a traditional wargame requires. Concerned, you look through the box thinking your game might be incomplete, but you don't find it. Where is the combat results table? It must be in the rules, right? After a real quick glance through the 12 page rule book, it remains missing-in-action. You look on the back of the box at the contents listing and see none listed. What the heck is this? No CRT?

Puzzled, you sit down and start reading the rules. Finally you realize that Medwar is not cut from the same cloth as the traditional wargames of your youth. There are certainly similarities. But this is something more. Something different even if it looks like the same-old same-old.

Each turn starts with a weather roll. Nothing really different there. A lot of wargames have weather incorporated.

]]>
Then things start to change. Instead of the traditional 'you do your move and combat', 'I do my move and combat', an initiative roll has been added. The winner gets to decide who goes conducts their half of the turn first.

You read some more and things settle down again. The second number on the counters are just what you thought it would be - unit movement points. Your sure the first number must be its combat factor for determining combat ratios. It turns out you are right and wrong. It is the units combat strength, but it represents the number of dice the unit uses in combat. Ah, that's why there is no CRT! Units with heavy weapons score a hit when a 5 or 6 is rolled. Others when only a 6 is rolled.

Now the differences between a traditional hex and counter wargame start coming hot and heavy. You start reading about zones-of-control. Well, at least Medwar has your typical wargame ZOCs, right? Wrong! Only units with heavy weapons have a zone-of-control. Units can march right around enemy units without ZOCs. And get this, attacking is never mandatory, even if a unit is in a ZOC. If you do decide to attack a hex, other enemy units adjacent to your unit do not have to be attacked. Wow.

Let's talk about the map. In Medwar's cast, it is almost a character in itself. Sicily is a rugged place geography wise. The map does a good job reflecting this. Terrain played an integral part in Operation Husky, and it is reflected in the game nicely and in not too complex a manner. Armor, motorized, and infantry, are all affected in different ways. Armor and motorized can only cross a river at a bridge. They can only pass through a hill or mountain hex if on a road. This is all easy to remember, instead of having a large empty area of Mediterranean Sea on the map, a well laid out chart shows terrain effects on stacking, movement , and combat. Medwar has supply rules. Keeping units in supply is crucial to success. Units must be within 8 motorized movement points of a road that leads uninterrupted to a friendly supply source. This is tricky. As one plays and studies the map, one better learn and realize where the important road and choke points are.

When hits are scored, the attacker gets to designate which unit receives the first hit. After that, its up to the defender to allocate any that might remain. Most units are double sided and have two steps, some only one. Hits are satisfied by removing steps. Armor, motorized, and half step infantry may satisfy a hit by retreating two spaces once per turn.

There are rules that allow steps to be restored, eliminated units refitted, and cards to be purchased. This is done with resource points. The Allies receive 3 a turn. The Axis a variable amount from 1 to 3 for a part of the game and then later 3 for the rest of the game just like the Allies.

There are likewise rules for Allied amphibious invasions by commando units and rules for air operations that include supply interdiction and parachute and glider assaults.

There are various stages and conditions for victory. Essentially, the Allies need to clear Sicily as soon as they can and the Axis need to delay them as much as possible while at the same time withdrawing German units to Italy. The longer it takes the Allies to take Sicily and the more German units withdrawn, the better it is for the Axis.

There are a lot of things I really like about Medwar.

The counters
The unit counters are larger than your typical wargame counter (nice for old farts like me). They are well thought out and designed. Heavy Weapons units are easily identified by a red movement number. Reduced units are easily identified by a white attack number. There also are not hundreds of them.

The game's combat mechanics.

The game's zone-of-control / terrain / and supply mechanics.

The map
It is well laid out and colorful. The player aid printed on make movement mechanics, combat adjustments, and stacking a non-issue when it comes to remembering stuff.

Good suspense and tension.
The game is very fun and full of important decision making, perhaps more so for the Axis player than the Allied player. Certainly if playing this for the first time, it will be far easier for the Axis to screw things up than the Allies.
When the games are close, it generates a huge amount of suspense. The Allies usually on the doorstep of Messina and the Axis trying to hold them off while weakening their defensive points to withdraw units.

There are a few things I don't like about Medwar.

The rule book.
It is in color and it contains examples, but for me anyway, I found it lacking in certain areas. Even though it is only 12 pages (only 9 of actual rules), it requires several readings. Subjects are hard to find when questions arise. A lot of time is spent looking and reading for stuff. Many subjects that should have their own detailed sections are buried in areas with nothing to draw attention to them. Some rules cause constant debates each time the game is played. Hopefully some good FAQs will remedy this last situation.

Bad luck frustration syndrome.
Depending when certain operation cards become available (using the base rules some very important ones may never come up in game), and if you are somebody who can safely say that dice are not your friends, bad luck can play more of a role than perhaps it should.

No historical event option.
I would have like to have had the option of playing where the operation cards that correspond to historical events occur when they did historically - or at least somewhere around where they did historically. Specifically I am speaking about the 'Mussolini Falls' card. This occurred historically at the mid point of the game. If the Axis never get this card, it will make things vey hard for them. If they get it near the first turn, it becomes more dicey for the Allies. I guess this just adds suspense for most players. Too me, it adds frustration. Having historical weather would be nice, too. It was by no means as good as today's, but both sides did have weather forecasting so weather should not come as a surprise in a game where every turn represents two days time.

And the verdict is...

]]>
I really enjoy playing Medwar Sicily. It's fun both face-to-face and I really like playing it solitaire as the Allies. The box mentions that there are solitaire rules, but this really amounts to a few sentences concerning operation cards. Like other wargames that don't really pitch the solitaire angle, it really comes down to being schizoid and playing both the Allied and Axis role to the best of your ability when it is your turn.

The box also states that the playing time is 2 to 3 hours. BGG has it at 120 minutes. Perhaps my friends and I are slowpokes, but I have yet to come anywhere even close to that mark. I think you need to set aside a lot more time than that. Perhaps its all the rule debates, but I doubt it.

Medwar Sicily is not just another wargame. It is instead, a game that anyone who enjoys wargames should try. It has a great mix of new and old mechanics that make it unique and a recent favorite of mine. I hope it succeeds so there are more like it. The game certainly deserves more attention than it seems to be getting.

Review: Race for the Galaxy:: Race for the Galaxy: The All-Limerick Review!

Abstractite — Mon, 09 Nov 2009 22:00:47 +0000

by Abstractite

People said Race was the best,
I decided to give it a test,
It was traded away,
I'd much rather play
A game to put hair on my chest.

Race for the Galaxy is
A game for a luck-lucky wiz,
Yes, I have read
Each strategy thread:
I'm qualified, I know my biz!

Simultaneous Action Selection
Somehow gets people's affection;
But used in this game,
It's really quite lame,
All that randomness! It's an infection!

To play a card from your hand
Your turn must be carefully planned;
For the one that you wish for,
You must first explore,
But the luck is too hard to command!

When I played this game with my brother,
I tried each good move and each other,
By the seat of my pants!
I found out that chance
Is the thing that decides the game: Mother!

In order to get a good score,
You need to be lucky galore,
But not all at once:
This game's a dunce!
By the end it will cause you to snore.

The game seems quite good at the first;
Your wish to know more becomes thirst,
But when you know all the cards
The game just retards,
The luck makes your strategy burst!

So to give this review a wrap,
I think Race is totally crap.
It is! Every bit!
If your considering it,
Take heed to this: "Luke, it's a trap!"

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

For the reader who wishes to post
A comment to make me a ghost,
The words must be terse
All written in verse!
And your problem will be diagnosed.

Review: Savannah Tails:: Not many improvements to Snow tails

Danjell — Mon, 09 Nov 2009 21:56:16 +0000

by Danjell

Savannah tails

A lighter version of Snow tails sums it up nicely. And that is also the biggest problem with the game. Though I am not a fan of racing games I appreciated the clever sled mechanic and the need to manage my hand. In Savannah tails it is often obvious which card to play and the races are therefore more dependent on luck. If you want to introduce people like children or non-gamers to racing games this might be what you’re looking for. It just didn’t sit right with me.

Components
This game will just have to live with the fact that it will always be compared to Snow tails. The components here are not as good (and it’s not only the fact that there isn’t a big paws/claws token). The tiles are smaller and thinner and made of paper rather than cardboard. This leads to them sliding around quite a lot. Although the track takes up a smaller area than in Snow tails. The meep-meep meeples are comparable to Snow tails. There is no equivalent to the sleds, which is odd considering they were the best part of Snow tails.

Gameplay
Pretty straightforward gameplay. Four cards in hand. Turn order determined by the current positions in the race, first place moves first. You play one card and move as many steps as the value of the card says. You have to finish in the lane (there are four of them) that matches the color of the card played and you can’t move through other players’ ostriches.

To aid you, you have three bonus cards. There are six possible cards to choose from and in order to use a card you have to run through or stop in a watering hole. The bonus can then be used at your discretion but only once. These cards are a nice addition to the game.

As with Snow tails there is a catch-up mechanism. When you play a card of the same color as the lane you start your turn you receive bonus steps corresponding to your current position. While not a bad idea this happens far too often.

The track can be customized in a lot of different ways and the more challenging ones contain different animals that affect your ostrich in different ways. This certainly lends the game a lot of replayability.

Summary
Savannah tails is far from a bad game. It doesn’t feel broken in any way and if you’re in the market for a quick, light race game this might be just right for you. But if you are a normal (you know what I mean) gamer and want to try one of the Fragor racing games, I believe that chances are you will like Snow tails more.

Review: Dogfight:: Dogfight, a new light filler for the lunchtime blues

Scammer — Mon, 09 Nov 2009 20:57:20 +0000

by Scammer

Review of Dogfight by Bucephalus games.

This game came onto my radar during Origins 2009 back in June. The first thing that grabbed my attention were the bits. Little metal aircraft are to me what neopets are to pre-teens. I remember stopping at the booth, playing the demo and absolutely fixated by the aircraft. Yeah, a pretty stupid reason to buy a game, but I’m sure there are worse reasons. In fact, I’m pretty sure there’s a geeklist or three with the title “Stupid reasons you bought a game”. Anyways, the price tag at Origins was a bit steep but I was ready to plop down the $50 right then and there for the game. Alas, the game was a prototype and Bucephalus didn’t have any for sale (there aught a be a law). So, I went home and placed a preorder with Thought Hammer and waited and waited and waited. Production delays pushed a 3rd quarter release to November. Finally, the shipments from Bucephalus started to trickle out and I finally got my hands on Dogfight. My gaming opponent at work was to be my first victim as he too was amazed when I opened up the box. But first, let’s break this review down…

What do you get?
 6 die-cast aircraft, each approximately 1” wingspan. You get representations of an F4U Corsair, Supermarine Spitfire, Lockheed P-38 Lightning, P-51 Mustang (the allied aircraft) and an ME-109, FW-190, FW-152 and ME-262 (the Axis aircraft)
 6 die-cast stands for the aircraft. Each with a spot for the dice
 4 white dice, 4 black dice and 2 red dice (for scoring)
 A four-piece board that is held together with wooden dowels and magnets. The board looks like 3/8” thick wood with cutouts on the bottom side to hold the pieces once you’re done. If you’ve seen any other of the Bucephalus games, this is common. It actually works quite well.
 6-page instruction manual which is actual only 2 pages of instructions and 4 pages of information about the aircraft in the game. But that’s all you really need. This game is really that simple.

Gameplay

Gameplay is very simple. Each player has 4 airplanes at their disposal (Allied vs Axis). You start by setting up your 4 planes on the edge of the board one at a time. Facing is critical. Each base is a hexagon, matching the hexagons on the mapboard. Each player rolls their four dice and then allots the dice to their aircraft. The dice allows the player to both a) move their planes and then b) change their facing. A roll of a 1 or a 2 allows you to change the facing up to 3 rotations (you can rotate the place up to 3 facings after moving). A 3 or a 4 allows 2 rotations and a 5 or a 6 allows 1 rotation. All after the move. If you fly over/through an opponent, the opponents plane comes off the board and you score a point. First to 6 wins the game. If you lost a plane during the previous turn, you get to replace one plane the next turn, starting it in your “starting area” (your edge of the mapboard). The box states that the game takes approximately 30 minutes and true to form, we were able to get a game out in just under 30 minutes, even with learning the rules for the first time.

First Impressions:

It’s a fun little abstract. I am the first to admit that I like the “chrome” first and foremost. The fact that these are little WWII airplanes sways my opinion of the game. If the pieces were WWII ships or Hobbits and Trolls, this game wouldn’t garner near as much interest for me. There are a couple of digs though. First, the rules don’t establish any method for deciding a first player in each round. In the “Game Setup” portion of the rules, #5 simply states “Choose a player to go first”. OK, simple enough for setting up the game, but each round turns on who goes first and last. We played with alternating back and forth first player privileges, but afterward agreed that this was probably not the best way to handle it. We agreed that in future games, we will use the die rolling to establish first player. Perhaps high cumulative roll of the four dice will determine first player each round (with ties going to the most 6’s/5’s, etc…). Something where the first player is not automatically known/determined before the round begins I think would enhance the gameplay.

Whether or not the game will handle multiple playings, time will tell. We played it twice thus far (lunch and break time with another worker here) and we had fun both times. With the changes to the first player per turn, I’m hoping for more strategy without any increase to the gameplay time. I’m also looking forward to exposing my 8-year old to this one. I think, with his quick pickup of abstracts, that he’ll grasp this one fairly quickly. He might not think that the WWII planes are as cool as his old man does, but there’s time for that!

So, let's go to the scoreboard....

For bits and components:
Nice looking, clean storage, gotta give it to Bucephelus.

For instructions (clarity, brevity, examples):
2 pages of instructions are enough to get a game this simple explained. They lose a star and a 1/2 with me for lack of 1st player determination.

Overall Gameplay:
It's a fun, light, filler of a game. But that's what I was expecting for my money. It's not shooting ME-109's over the Ardennes, but that's not what I was expecting with this game. It's advanced checkers (ok, that's probabaly too simple an analogy).

Review: Agricola:: A Review a Week #15: My grandfather would have hated this game

UndeadViking — Mon, 09 Nov 2009 20:33:12 +0000

by UndeadViking

First things first, yes I missed last week with my “review a week” series. I was fairly busy and had other stuff going on, but I will post two this week as long as you stay off my back, my adoring fans, or at least all one of you that took the time to send me a geekmail.

Anyway, as you may well know, this is my attempt to rate and review every single game in my collection. While some of my reviews have been quite topical, say the one about Middle Earth Quest, others have been a little behind in the times, such as this one you are reading right now. I will try to make it interesting, but I will be honest, I probably am not breaking new ground with this one other than my opinion, and probably not even there either, so if the teaser of the title brought you in here, you may want to skip ahead to my thoughts at the end. Anyway, on to my review.

Overview and Components

Well unless you just woke up from a coma, you should know that Agricola is a game about farming. Using workers, you earn resources that enable you to feed and take care of your “family”. As the game continues, you will upgrade your hut, till your fields, keep and slaughter animals, and try to have the best little plot of land as humanly possible. The components for the game are well made. You get a ton of cards, some cardboard place mats for the farms, and a ton of wooden components representing your farmers, the animals, grain, vegetables, and so on. There are a lot of options for people to pimp out this one, I myself own a bag of animeeples, but none of that is necessary to enjoy the game.

]]>

How do you play?

OK – there are tons of reviews out there that will take you through the game turns step by step, so I am going to skip the intensive overview and just touch on the basics. Agricola is essentially a worker placement game with some card driven actions and hand management thrown into the mix.

Going in turns, each person will place one of their farmers (you start with two, but if you have children you get more) on a spot on the board that will allow you to collect the resources placed there, or take the action that is printed on the space. Only one person can use each spot in each round, so you will have moments where you will have an action that you wanted to take but someone else has already taken it.

You will collect several different resources that will help you build your farm, such as wood, clay, and stone. You will also collect resources that will help you earn points and feed your family, like vegetables, sheep, and cows. Perhaps the most important resource of all is food, as if you cannot feed your family, you must turn to begging which causes you to lose points at the end of the game. Some places will allow you to collect food, like the fishing pond, but more importantly, a well made farm will let you grow your own food or slaughter your own animals to feed yourself, allowing you to use your actions to improve your farm instead of wasting them on collecting food.

Now the game would be the same thing over and over again if it was not for the cards in the game. Before you take a single turn, each person is dealt a hand of “Improvement” and “Occupation” cards. These cards usually allow you to break the rules in some way, such as using less resources to build certain improvements, or giving you an extra action because you have a guest staying at your house. Since the deck of these cards is huge, the combinations of the hands you will get will be different pretty much every time you play. It is up to the player to use shrewd actions and timely play to use the hand of cards they receive in the most efficient way.

After you get through the game turns, you will total up your victory points and determine who is the winner. Certain items will be worth more than others, like vegetables or cattle, but more importantly, if you do not have a balanced farm, you will lose points at the end of the game. This is a very good mechanic of the game since it keeps people from just focusing on one aspect and forgoing other options.
Agricola takes around 2 hours to complete, more with more players, and can be played solo or with up to 5 people.

My opinion

My grandfather Leo was a really awesome person. I don’t just say this because he was my grandpa, I say it because he did so much in his life. In World War II he was an artillery spotter that had to go on long reconnaissance missions behind enemy lines. He had tons of stories to tell me when I was a little kid about the things he saw, and he was smart enough to ignore my questions when I asked him anything that would have been a little too much for a little kid to comprehend. Plus, he was a bonafide war hero. He and another guy saved a bunch of lives when they ran into a burning ammunition depot to put out the fire after it had been hit by incoming artillery. I have a picture of him getting the silver star pinned on his chest by General Mark Clark for those actions. My grandma used to joke that If he hadn’t done what he did, he would not have got to come home that Christmas for three weeks, and then my Dad might never have “gotten started” as she put it.

Anyway, I tell you this because when my grandpa got home from the war, he inherited the family farm in North Dakota and started making a living, and he made a good one. But after 10+ years of running a farm, he sold off his land, ran for the position of County Sheriff, won it, and never looked back. One day, when he and I were hanging out towards the end of his life, I asked him why he had gotten rid of the farm. He mentioned lots of things, like how it was getting tougher to make a living, and how he thought the farm life was difficult on my grandma, but most of all, he said, “being a farmer was so damn boring!” – and then he laughed his infectious grandpa laugh and ordered another beer.

I told you that story for a couple of reasons. For one, I wanted you to know how cool my grandpa was. For two, that one statement succinctly describes Agricola for me to a “T”.

Let me say this though – Agricola is a fantastic game, and deserves the recognition that it gets. There is so much about this game that is just downright enchanting. Watching your little parcel of land grow and expand, pushing the little pieces around the board, figuring out some sort of fantastic synergy between your improvements and occupations – all of those things make Agricola great.

For some people.

For me, I see Agricola as a chore. Collect this, improve that, add this, take this job, have a kid, etc. People rave about having so many different options to win. I don’t see that I guess. Take a look at the scoring chart and see what makes you the most points – more people and stone houses with lots of rooms. That’s what you should be shooting for in every game. More people is even more self explanatory since the more people you have the more actions you get to take – that’s just a downhill slide to points right there. I don’t find it particularly stressful to figure out how to feed your people either. It always seems to me that you have ample ability to feed your starving mouths, either via your own produce or by the board.

Ultimately, when I play Agricola, and I do end up playing it quite a bit because it is a favorite of my gaming group and my family, I have a two hour session of minimal player interaction coupled with me putting a puzzle together that always ends up looking the same when I am finished. Sometimes the pieces I have to use are a little different, but it always looks the same in the end – a 4 room stone house with 4 or 5 people living in it with just enough fields and pastures to maximize my points. Usually I end up placing first or second but for the most part I don’t really care that much – I am just glad I am done.

I would never give Agricola a bad rating though. There are games out there that deserve to get trashed on, but this is not one of them. As I said before, for what it is, it is as close to perfect as I have found, and for the right people, it is gaming nirvana. However, for me, it is a tired, ponderous time of pushing and placing wood tokens at a table with a few friends doing the same thing, in which all of us are stuck on our farming treadmills until we reach a conclusion that is neither a surprise, nor as fitting a reward for the efforts we just went through.

Review: Revolution!:: Revolution! - A fun change of pace

lflurie — Mon, 09 Nov 2009 19:36:15 +0000

by lflurie

I first heard about Revolution when I listened to a recent episode of The Spiel. The game's mechanics and quick play time really appealed to me, so I added it to my latest game order.

Over the past weekend Revolution! has gotten a lot of play from my gaming group, with really favorable reviews.

For background: my group is composed of about 12 regulars who get together at least 2-3 times a month for gaming. We're all in our mid 20s to early 30s, and are split pretty evenly between genders. Game preferences run from moderately light to pretty heavy.

On Friday many of us were tired from the week and so were looking for something a bit lighter than usual: enter Revolution! Because the game mechanics are so simple at heart, everyone was able to pick up the rules easily (which isn't to say that everything went smoothly: halfway through the game we noticed that one player had a huge number of force and blackmail. Turns out he was keeping everything after each round. No wonder he was winning).

Mechanics
As another player mentioned, Revolution! is a lot like multiplayer rock-paper-scissors, with added depth. The goal of the game is to receive the most influence by the end of the game. Influence can be won in two ways: during bids each turn, or by having majority control of a building at the end of the game.

Players begin with five pieces of gold and use that to secretly "bid" on the 12 different members of the town. The townspeople offer different rewards: influence, partial control of a building (i.e. putting a cube on that building), the use of force/blackmail tokens for future bidding (blackmail beats gold, force beats blackmail), or the ability to change the arrangement of cubes already on the board.

Once the bidding is complete, the bids are revealed and the outcomes are resolved. Then the process repeats again. Because you know what tokens your opponents are bidding with, you have an idea of what strategy they might try to play, and whether or not you can beat it.

How Well Did it Work?
Generally, very well. Revolution! was in use for pretty much the entire evening. When people weren't playing, they were looking over shoulders and watching the game unfold.

My first game was a bit rough - I was playing with a threesome who had just completed a few games in a row, and so it was very fast paced and cutthroat. I lost by a huge amount. However, now that I had a feel for how the game played, I was able to do much better in the second game.

Because the game plays so quickly it was very easy to start up a new game immediately after the old one finished. I was a bit shocked when I saw playtime listed as 1 hour on the box - games took us about 30 minutes each. I think a lot depends on whether players are prone to AP, but if everyone keeps speeding ahead it can be very fast paced and cutthroat.

Cons?
Two small issues:

a. Strategy is tough. At the beginning of the game everyone is sort of just throwing coins down and hoping for the best. Once people start taking buildings or showing preferences (i.e. who goes for the printer every turn?), than it's a bit easier to anticipate your opponents' moves. On the same theme, we had one game that refused to end: there were two open spots, but it took about four turns to get them both filled--people tied, or didn't even try for a spot at all.

b. I'm really surprised that there isn't a 5 player option. It would probably need a variant of sorts - each player only gets 4 gold to start, maybe - but it seems definitely possible.

Overall
All but one person in our group enjoyed Revolution! The one player that didn't is very prone to AP and said that she felt very stressed while playing, though this could definitely by due to the competitive nature of some members of our group.

Aside from this, however, we had a great time playing Revolution! and it will definitely be making an appearance at future game nights.

Review: Shatranj:: Europe's first chess

whac3 — Mon, 09 Nov 2009 17:36:23 +0000

by whac3

1. Introduction

This is a somewhat belated continuation of the series of reviews which began with Chaturanga. These reviews are intended as informal discussions so that no citations are included but one does strive for accuracy.

Certainly this form of Chess had become popular in Europe by he year 1000 C.E. The most likely and generally accepted explanation is that the game originated in India from which it spread to Persia. The Arab-Muslim conquest of Persia then introduced the game to the rest of the Muslim world among which it spread quickly. Many imams objected to the game because of the use of figures which could be judged as violating sharia (Muslim religious law) restrictions on images and so many sets from this era and place tend toward geometrical abstraction; the Chinese and Japanese expedients of simply writing the name of the appropriate piece on otherwise identical playing pieces seems not to have occurred. Europeans became familiar with the game via trade and of course via the contacts both official and unofficial that peoples at war have with one another.

An open question is how much the game was modified in Europe by influences from preexisting games such as Latrunculorum and tafl. In this question, I tend to be a minimalist. Although playing games on an 8x8 grid of spaces was familiar to European from Petteia, the Ashtapada was already used in India for Chaturanga. In the Graeco-Roman world, creativity was culturally centered on doing things people were familiar with in a new way; something completely novel was usually rejected out of hand as foreign; this attitude persisted into the Dark Ages. Yet to a European, chess would seem a variation on tafl or petteia so that the game just perfectly fitted the society's notion of creativity. The game became a fashion and has lasted with unabated popularity for centuries, even as the game has evolved.

Yet this is a review of this game, shatraj as we now call it to distinguish it from its modern descendant chess, specifically as a game.

2. Rules

A couple of rules descriptions available here on BGG are snigfarp's leaflet and AncientChess.com's, but I prefer this document which includes this game on page 3.

One can naturally play this game with a modern chess set, as I do. The only difference in initial set-up is that the king (shah) is placed on either of the two central columns with the vizier ("queen") on the other. The two kings must however be on the same column;

The main differences are in piece movement. Castling and capturing en passant do not exist in this game, nor does the initial two-space movement of a pawn. Otherwise the king, pawn, knight and rook move and capture exactly as in modern chess. The vizier (played with the queen piece) moves one space diagonally in any direction only. The elephant (played with the bishop) jumps exactly two spaces diagonally in any direction, like the analogous piece in XiangQi.

Nevertheless, another key difference does exist. The object of the game is to either checkmate or stalemate the opponent's king; unlike chaturanga which has the opposite rule, a stalemate counts as a win.One can also win by capturing all of an opponent's pieces other than the king so that the opponent is left with a bare king, provided that one does not in the next move also become reduced to a bare king.

Customarily at the start of the game, white makes either 10 or 12 moves subject to the condition that no piece can move past the fourth rank, and then black makes the same number of moves subject to the same condition. This rule is technically optional but is nearly universal.

3. Gameplay

To the modern player, this game offers numerous advantages. One can at moments of frustration understand why the game developed as it did, but this is still a fantastically good game. Unliek the modern game however, this game does not have copious books of openings to be memorized. The balance is also different in that the pieces are relatively weaker, especially the vizier.

The easily trap to fall into in this game is subconsciously forgetting the difference of the pieces and playing as if it were modern chess. That is part of the challenge and the fun. Historical enthusiasts will also like playing as medieval Europeans did.

Most importantly though this game has all the points which make chess a great game but is nonetheless less familiar. Try the game for a change of pace, a curiosity or whatever reason; just try it.

Review: Igloo Pop:: A Comprehensive Pictorial Overview: If Monty Python made a board game skit it would be something like Igloo Pop

EndersGame — Mon, 09 Nov 2009 15:14:53 +0000

by EndersGame

]]>

Introducing Igloo Pop

Ignore the negative comments about the theme - we all know it's silly. Ignore the negative comments about the game play - we all know that some adults hate it. But other adults enjoy it, and so do most kids. What really counts is the mechanics! In what other game do you find a let's-simultaneously-shake-plastic-objects-to-guess-how-many-beads-are-inside mechanic? That's what Igloo Pop is about! Picture grown men and women shaking frantically shaking little plastic igloos at the same time, close to their ears, desperately trying to figure out what's inside?! What other game creates an experience like that? Nothing, I tell you! And please don't start comparing this with Agricola, because this is only a 15 minute game. For fun. Puh-lease! This is the kind of game Monty Python would be proud of, and that you can grow to love. Well, maybe not quite love, not in the same way as you love your prized copy of Space Hulk or your collector's edition of War of the Ring. But love, just like you enjoy Incan Gold or Liar's Dice, and other lighter type games, as a fun diversion from time to time.

Yes I know that the theme of this game is completely ridiculous. At some point I'm going to have to confess its silliness, so I may as well get that over and done with by quoting from the game itself: "The young ice giant has a big problem: he wants to buy fish sticks, but he cannot remember how many and he has nine shopping lists in his basket.So he goes from igloo to igloo and shakes each. In each he listens to the delicious fish sticks bouncing off the igloo walls. When he thinks that the igloo in his hand has the same number of fish sticks as one of his shopping lists, he takes it home.When he gets home, there are no fish sticks in the igloo. Instead, wild and laughing Eskimo children tumble out of the igloo. Excitedly they shout, "Shake us again!" "That was great fun!" "This is super", thinks the young ice giant. "Now, I have found some new friends to play with!" And, he promptly forgets all about his shopping lists."

An ice giant with shopping lists shaking igloos? Trying to guess how many fish sticks are in each, only to find Eskimo children inside? Groan - this is beyond silly. But then seeing a group of people frantically shaking plastic igloos looks pretty silly too! A ludicrous theme is the game's worst point, so now that we've got that out of the way, it can only get better from here! In fact, when teaching my children this game I didn't even mention the theme, but just explained it as a game where you have to guess how many glass beads are in each igloo - and then we could get right into the fun of the game! It is really a kind of dexterity game, but probably one like you've never played before, shaking igloos to try to guess how many beads are inside. Silly? Yes, of course, but that's why it's fun! I can see the lads from Monty Python making an entire skit around this game! (suggestions for appropriate costumes are welcome!) It's like candy floss - it can make you sick if you have too much, but once in a while a quick sugar rush is exactly what you need. So let's go find out more!

]]> ]]> ]]> ]]>

]]> ]]> ]]> ]]>

COMPONENTS

Game box

Igloo Pop is a game for 2-6 players, and takes only 15 minutes. Stop right there! Because that's already a point in its favour! A game that can handle 6 players and still be done in 15 minutes? That means this has real potential as a filler, without actually being an hour long game pretending to be a filler. This is a genuine filler and that's a good thing, because it means that it has no pretenses about trying to provide the ultimate game experience - it's only intended to offer 15 minutes of amusement before or after other things.

Now get an eye full of that box cover:

]]>

Gulp! A dazed eskimo child, dizzy from being tossed around inside an igloo? Should we call the political-correctness police? Should we inform the authorities to investigate a suspected case of child abuse? Or should we just ... smile? C'mon folks, don't take this seriously, the cute polar bears and pink lettering is a pretty big give away that this is hardly intended to be serious!

The back of the box shows us the components, and tells us more about the theme - but we're not going to be fooled by any of this - no siree, it's clearly just intended to be a light-hearted romp of silliness!

]]>

Component list

So what do you get inside the box? The complete list of components:
● 12 igloos
● 12 stickers
● 90 glass beads
● 60 tokens (thalers) in 6 colours
● 33 cards
● Rules

]]>

Rule book

The rule book consists of 12 pages, the first half is in English, the second half is in French. Why French? I have no idea - perhaps the French have a special fondness for eskimos, ice giants, Monty Python, or candy floss. I can't read any French, so fortunately the instructions in English were entirely adequate.

]]>

The explanation of game-play only takes up four pages, and there are ample illustrations and explanations. You can easily teach the game to a new player in just a few minutes. The rules are online here, although without the amount of pictures that are in the Rio Grande edition.

Igloos

There are 12 plastic igloos, and the first order of business is to assemble them by placing the glass beads (representing eskimo children) inside them.

]]>

The igloos are numbered from 2 through 13, and there's a sticker for each one:

]]>

After you've affixed the stickers, you need to put glass beads in each igloo - these are very tiny!

]]>
picture by Matt S (tasajara)

The amount of beads going inside each igloo must correspond to the number on the sticker of the igloo, as in the example below:

]]>

You then push the two halves together firmly - this requires a bit of brute force, but when they snap together you won't be getting them apart in a hurry! So you don't need to worry about children prying them apart and getting the glass beads out - if the effort required to get them together is anything to go by, they'll stay firmly inside! Just make sure you put the right amount of beads in each!

]]>
picture by A Morris (Android)

The igloos are rather cute and are of decent quality.

]]>
picture by Nicolas Guay (nickguay)

Here's the final result, once we've finished our assembly work:

]]>

I'm not sure why they couldn't do this for us in the factory - perhaps the sound of beads rolling around would be alarming to the customs and immigration folks when shipping the games? I can just see some burly customs guy quarantining an entire game shipment, fearing weapons of mass destruction. Perish the thought - no weapons here sir, only beads and igloos!

]]>
picture by Erik Gibbons (Gibbo)

Tokens

There are 60 wooden tokens, called thalers. With a bit of research, I discovered that thalers were silver coins used throughout Europe for several centuries. I guess ice giants prefer their thalers to be in bright colours rather than silver!

]]>

Each player will get 10 in their colour.

]]>

These can be placed inside the igloos, and will be used by players to mark which igloo's contents they are attempting to guess.

]]>

Cards

There's a deck of 33 cards:

]]>

The artwork on the reverse side is appropriately arctic looking.

]]>

Each card has two important things on it:
● a number: your job is to find the igloo which has this amount of beads inside
● 1, 2, or 3 eskimos: these represent points you will score for getting that card

]]>

If you correctly guess the contents of an igloo and place it on the matching card, you will get that card. The amount of eskimos pictured on the card will be the amount of points you earn at the end of the game for that card - during the game you'll earn points by collecting these cards, and the eskimos on the cards you get will be added to the thalers you have at the moment the game ends.

The amount of point-scoring eskimos on the cards varies from 1 to 3. The hardest to guess cards require an exact match, but earn three points, whereas the easier to guess cards will give you a match for one of three numbers, but only earn 1 point.

]]>

The chance of getting a match with the cards that have three numbers obviously is higher, which is why they're only worth one point (eskimo) each.

]]>

This allows for some interesting decisions: if you think the igloo you are shaking has 6 beads inside, do you place it on the card with the numbers 5,6,7 to increase your chances of getting a match? Or do you go for the higher scoring but riskier card which only has the number 6? These cards are worth more points, but it's much harder to get an exact match!

GAMEPLAY

Set-up

Set-up only takes half a minute: everyone gets 10 thalers in their chosen colour; the igloos are set up in the middle of the table; and deck is shuffled and 9 cards placed around the igloos face up. You're ready to play!

]]>

Flow of Play

I love this next bit. The youngest player does a countdown, and on the count of three, everyone goes mad by grabbing an igloo and simultaneously shaking! "Ready, set, go!!!"

]]>

Shake, shake, shake! No cheating by peaking at the number underneath mind you! How many beads do you think are inside? Try to guess, then grab another igloo, and shake and guess some more! One of the fun parts of the game is watching all the players frantically shaking their igloo and trying to figure out how many beads are inside! Really, how many other games can you think of that have this mechanic? It's hilarious, and kids love it, and even adults can too - this would never work in a 90 minute game, of course, but as a 15 minute filler, it's hilarious for young and old! Check out some of these shakers!

]]> ]]> ]]>

Actually what this image gallery really needs is some more pictures of adults shakin' dem igloos! Really every image gallery needs more pictures of adults shaking igloos, but at least with this game the GeekModders won't have a legitimate reason to decline them.

So what happens when you're ready to guess the contents of your igloo? If you're really not sure, you can put the igloo back in the middle and take another one. In fact, that can even be a good strategy if you're quick enough and look for the 2 igloo or 3 igloo for some guaranteed points! But mostly you'll be ready to try to guess how many beads you think are inside. Four? Five? Six? Mark the igloo with one of your thalers, and place it on a card that matches your guess.

]]>

If you put the igloo on a card with three numbers, you're increasing the odds of being right, but you'll also get less points. Players can put more than one igloo on a card, so sometimes there will be competition for a card - only one person can earn it!

]]>

Once you've placed an igloo you can grab another and shake some more for further guesses - you just can't take an igloo that has been "claimed" and placed with someone else's thaler. The round ends only when all igloos have been placed on face up cards, or when nobody wants to shake and place more igloos. Until then, everyone is busy simultaneously shaking, taking and placing igloos. Here's how the game might looks midway the frenzy!

]]>

Scoring

Now the cards are turned over to check the accuracy of the guessing! This is one of the most fun parts of the game, as you find out how many beads were really in the igloos you were guessing. It's tense and exciting especially if multiple players have guessed for the same card, because everyone is on edge wondering who guessed correctly!

The general rule is:
● if you guess right, you get your thaler back, and you get the card.
● if you guess wrong, you lose your thaler and place it in the box.
If more than one player has guessed for the same card, the thalers lost by the players who guessed incorrectly are given to the player who guessed right - this is an additional way to score points! If more than one player guessed correctly (e.g. a card with two or three numbers), the player with the igloo that had most beads wins the card (and the thalers of any incorrect guesses), while those who guessed correctly but with lower numbers still get their thalers back.

In this example, the player who played the 12 would get the card and the thalers of the players who played the 8 and 10 since they had guessed incorrectly. If a player had guessed 11, they would have got their thaler back, but the player with the 12 would have got the card, since 12 is higher than 11.

]]>

And that, my friends, is how you play Igloo Pop! You repeat this several times, until one player doesn't have any more thalers left (i.e. can't make any more guesses), or until there's not enough cards left to surround the village (in which case you do one final round with an incomplete set).

To determine the winner, you add the thalers you have left (including thalers you may have earned from opponents who guessed incorrectly when you guessed right), to the eskimos on the cards you've earned. The highest score is the winner!

Here's an example of a final score of 13 points (6 thalers + 7 eskimos):

]]>

CONCLUSIONS

What do I think?

Some of my thoughts about the game:

● Theme - Yes it is totally wacky. But that's okay, just ignore the theme and play the game!
● Components - The igloos are cute. So are the cards. Decent components all around.
● Mechanics - Bonus points for novelty value of a mechanic that has you shaking igloos to guess the contents!
● Game-time - A game of Igloo Pop plays very quickly, and the 15 minute play time is perfect for the kind of game it is.
● Suitability - It's probably best suited to children, but it would work well for gamers wanting to try something totally different and light hearted as a 15 minute filler. Be warned that very little kids might find the temptation to peek at the numbers under the igloos rather difficult to resist. But my 5 year old can join in with this no problems.
● Replayability - This is a tough one. Certainly don't expect to be playing it over and over again with adults. But the novelty value (let's face it, what other game do you know has this kind of mechanic?) can make it worthwhile in the right situation! As far as children are concerned, I'm not certain about the long term replayability, but after learning the game my children were very eager to play it again over the next few days.
● Skill versus luck - Some people think that this game is all about lucky guessing. Not so. I consistently get scores of 2, 4 or 6 in this game, while one my children consistently gets between 20 and 30. I tested her outside of a game situation by giving her some igloos and telling her to guess how many beads they contained. Result? She was accurate within 1 or 2 most of the time! My 7 year old is also starting to get extremely good at this game, in her last game she whomped my wife by a score of 50 to 6 - and I'm not making this up! They've also developed a technique of shaking and returning igloos very quickly, to get a sense of comparison, or to find the ones with only 2 or 3 beads. Smart play! The truth is that it is possible to be good at this game, just like it's possible to be good at a dexterity game like Crokinole, or an economic game like Age of Steam. Whether you actually want to be good at this game is a different matter. Either way, the good news is that even for those who are totally useless at Igloo Pop, like I am, it still offers 15 minutes of fun and laughs.

But there's more skill involved than merely the dexterity element of judging the amount of beads by sound and weight. More room for decision making than appears at first sight? Absolutely! Matt Carlson astutely observes the following: "While kids can play the game and have fun, there is actually a bit more going on behind the scenes to provide adults with decision-making opportunities. Do you quickly hunt down those low-numbered (and thus easier to identify) igloos as fast as you can? Hedge your bets by only placing on triple-number cards, or do you like to risk it all for the best reward by placing your igloos on single-digit cards. ... All of these things combine to make a very good game for the younger set, and a pretty darn entertaining one for us older "adults" who don't mind a little good clean, albeit silly, fun."

]]>

What do others think?

The critics

Let's be honest - some people hate this game. But no surprise there - this is no Agricola. To be fair, let's hear what they have to say about why they don't like it. My favourite negative comments are from Matt Drake, who thinks that "you should not play this game if you're old enough to read" and that it's like "a coin toss, only in this coin toss, it's likely none of you actually wins." I disagree with Matt, but his review is worth reading for amusement value. Quite honestly, I think he's probably like me: useless at the game, and couldn't handle getting beat up by his kids. In fact he says "The problem is that the beads are really small, and it's nearly impossible to tell if there are four beads or eight. Forget about telling the difference between four and five. And God help you if you're trying to decide if there are ten or eleven. You play until you run out of cards, or until someone says, 'wait, what the hell are we doing? And where are my pants? Which of you douche nozzles drew on my face with a permanent marker?'" Matt, I think we just have to be honest: you and I suck at playing this game, and we just have to get over the fact that we're gonna lose big time when we play. Does that mean it's a lousy game for everyone? Not at all. But we should hear all sides of the argument, and let the nay-sayers have their say. They give it a big "nay" (no surprise there - that's what naysayers usually say isn't it?), and here are some of the reasons why:

"Shaking an igloo to guess how many beads are inside? Exactly what are my strategic options here? Am I missing the point?" - Bruce Baskir
"Not my cup of tea." - Marc Magne
"Shaking small children in little igloos doesn't do anything for me." - grey_tinman
"I don't like violent games so this one isn't really for me." - Lindsay Scholle
"Fun at first with the kids, eventually a bit tedious." - Gerry Lowe
"Blargh!" - Gary Averett
"Fun for children for a short time. Wears out its welcome quickly." - Brian Griffin Waters
"A cute game, but I'll pass. If I had kids, they'd probably drive me insane with the rattling igloos! This score (4/10) is my opinion only, and shouldn't be seen as a reflection on the games quality. Please don't email me telling me how I'm wrong." - Dave Heberer
"I suspected my hearing wasn't too good and this game confirmed it. I'm always looking for good games to play with the kids. I usually don't mind simple mechanics but I don't really want to spend my time shaking plastic igloos next to my ears." Matt K
"Has some fun, but doesn't last very long. This is a pure luck game. I don't know how you can make a logical guess in this game." - Brent Gallmann
"A really goofy game that rewards those with either incredibly precise hearing or a supernatural ability to determine minutes difference in weight." - Steve Krebs
"The game mechanics are good but guessing how many things are rattling in a container doesn't work for me." - Michael Van Biesbrouck

So what have we learned?
1. Don't buy this game for the theme. Please don't! If you do, I'd recommend you get a psychiatric evaluation. It's not about the theme. If you even attempt to make the theme work, please get professional help. It's all about shaking little containers to guess the contents.
2. Don't use Igloo Pop for that all-night games session with your hardcore gaming group. Not unless you want to be shot, or worse, have your gaming buddies freeze you and turn you into a popsicle. It's not that kind of game. Really! And it doesn't have that kind of replay value. But for 15 minutes of fun before your Agricola session, just to get everyone loosened up and laughing? Maybe. Just don't bring it again the next week.
3. Rattling igloos to guess their contents isn't everybody's cup of tea. Let's be honest - I'm glad Marc Magne was (quotation above). But just because it's not your cup of tea doesn't mean it won't work in the right setting for the right people. For half an hour's entertainment with Uncle Bob and Aunt Margaret with their snotty nosed kids? Absolutely! (just don't let the snot get on the igloos) Kids will love it! And even non-gamers will have a blast! For adults, this game is a novelty item that will please as a once-off activity, even with a non-gaming crowd, for kids this game is the kind of game that kids like.
4. It's tough. Yes it does reward people who can distinguish minute differences in weight or sound, and there really are people who can be good at them. I'm not one of them. The last two times I played with my kids, I had 4 points and 2 points respectively, and they all had more than 20 or 30. But then again, I kind of crush them with games that reward other skills, like math, or optimizing resources in Notre Dame. But ultimately, do we really care about what this game rewards? We don't play this game for the rewards do we? Let's not even pretend to! We play it to watch Great Aunt Margaret make a fool of herself shaking her little blue igloos, and the squeals of pleasure our children make as once again we screwed up our guess and they got to win our thalers!

In fact, even the critics had to grant that the game isn't all bad.
"A silly game that is good for silly laughs. Not for serious gamers. But fun for non-gamers." - Dvonn Yinsh
"This will definitely be one to try when I have kids." - Ellen Tigh
"Would make a good kids game." - JAE (Bagherra)
"Simple funnish game - and tough!" - Marko Tamminen
"Fast-paced & funny. There is strategy but much of it involves basic ability to distinguish differences in sound. Think it would be a good family game for age 6 or even 5 & up." - Jamie Tang
"Light and light-hearted, it's a party game and I bet kids would like it." - Chris Schott
Who are these comments from? All from people who rated the game 5 or lower. So even the critics concede that in the right setting and with the right people - especially kids - this game could really work well.

]]>

The praise

So what do the fans say? Yes this game really does have fans - one person rated it a 10, and there's a whole page of ratings of 8s and 9s. As far as I can tell, these are all rational, articulate, well-adjusted individuals, armed with avatars and microbadges as credentials, and in some instances, even Geeks of the Week and Golden Meeple title-holders! Let's just sit back and listen as they gush:

"Superb light filler! Played it so much the stickers are almost completely faded. I don't think I'll ever get bored with this. Gamers nd non-gamers can enjoy this." - Kevin Duffy
"Who cares if I suck at this game, it is all about the laughs per minute and the ratio is quite high. One of the greatest fillers. Light. Fast. Hillarious." – Morgan Dontanville
"Everyone I have played this with has enjoyed it. Five or six adults fighting over little blue igloos, shaking them and holding them to their ears is a ridiculously funny event to behold." - BakeliteTM
"Very fun and a little bit noisy party game. Good for both adults and children." - emanon emanon
"Fun game of auditory and tactile interpretation, dexterity, deduction, guessing and risk-taking. I'm really glad I got it." - Sonja Elen Kisa
"A very original and cute game. Kids should love it and adults will enjoy it as a light and speedy distraction or as an activity to enjoy with beer." - Zee Garcia
"Great fun with the right crowd, not to be taken too seriously. A minute or two of practice before the game start is recommended." - Martin Villemaire
"GREAT for kids. GOOD for adults." - Tom Vasel
"For relaxing the brain after an intense game of E&T or El Grande, there's nothing like it...It's good to have a game that does NOT require thinking for a change!!" - Bryan Burgoyne
"Very fun game! I like the added stress by simultaneous play." - Martin Ethier
"Very good game. ... So very fun game for everyone in every age!" - Raiko Puust

No, I didn't make those quotations up! I'm not that smart. No, these people weren't intoxicated when they wrote those comments! They're not that dumb. Did you know that this game even made Tom Vasel's Top 200 in 2007? It was #118. Ahead of games like Tide of Iron, Zooloretto, Nexus Ops, Tigris & Euphrates, Ra, and Tichu! Don't believe me? See for yourself here. I'll leave you with one more quotation, from someone who shares some analytical insights that prove he is definitely in his right mind when recommending this game:
“Within the 2 days after I've just got this game, our family played it over 10 times! While this is undoubtedly a "light" game, it is very fun! ... the game is rightly focused on the best part, the "rattles". The three different kinds of cards, with different difficulty levels and different score values, creates lots of fun and laughters: especially during the "showdowns" when there are more than one igloos placed on a 3-point card (with only one number)! The rules are cleverly optimized: the risk that you'll lose a point if your bet is wrong rewards careful accuracy over reckless speed; the rule that you can win your opponent's wrong bets increases the excitement and tension of the "showdowns" (and justifies the risk in "challenging" an opponent's bet); even the rule that the higher-numbered igloo wins the card (where there are more than one correct bets on a card) is right, because it is harder to correctly identify a higher-numbered igloo than a lower-numbered one! The "miss by one" bets are hilarious, the "miss by a lot" bets are hilarious, and those miraculous correct 3-point bets are hilarious (especially when a player makes several of them in a round)! The respectable 20+ scores are hilarious, and the insulting 5- scores are hilarious too! There are so many funny moments in this game.” – Alan Kwan

Okay, so I've been a bit reactionary. But I think you get my point. Don't dismiss this game too quickly because of some of the hate it gets.

]]>

Recommendation

Is Igloo Pop for you? If you are a stuffy hardcore gamer who only wants the steak of their Agricola and Puerto Rico, has no time for a quick appetizer or some light dessert, or for that matter, an ice cream cone on the park bench with the kids, then this game is not for you. Stay away! - I'm not sure I want to game with you anyway! But for the rest of us, there will always be an occasion - both with gamers or non-gamers - where we'll be able to pull out Igloo Pop for a barrel of laughs and silliness. Gamers could use a little more silliness, I say! Of one thing I am absolutely certain: Monty Python would rate this a ten. And if they made a board game skit, it would be something like Igloo Pop (just add grown men and costumes). Recommended - in carefully selected small doses, just like candy floss and ice cream.

]]> ]]> ]]> ]]>

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The complete list of Ender's pictorial reviews: http://www.boardgamegeek.com/geeklist/37596

Review: Fearsome Floors:: Fearsome Floors- A Highly Underrated game!

madhujith — Mon, 09 Nov 2009 14:11:51 +0000

by madhujith

Perhaps one of the games that is good, but highly under rated. One that can be learnt in 5 min, but can give you hours of laughter for 2-7 players

Well what is this fun game all about?

You and your friend/friends are in a dungeon/palace or whatever you want to call it and trying to escape from that place without getting eaten by the monster that roams the corridors. What awaits you is a trail of death, blood and horror!!

Well the last part should read- What awaits you is a fast paced, exhilarating fun game that will make you come back many times!

This was a game I had no idea about. My brother was in Singapore and called me from the game shop telling me that a particular game that I wanted was not available and put me onto the shop owner. He strongly recommended me this game and I was very hesitant till I played it. But boy was this a good buy!

What do you get in the box?

Well you get some really nice stuff inside the box:

* 1 Big game board
* 17 floor tiles (stones, turning tiles, teleporters, blood pools!! oooo, etc. etc.)
* 8 Monster movement tiles
* 1 Starting Player marker
* 25 playing figures in 7 colors (4 each in 4 colors and 3 each in 3 colors) representing characters from Adams Family!
* 1 DIY (Do it Yourself) Monster kit (This is fun, believe me)- fix the head, shoes, hands and create about 3-4 different monsters
*

I have the Rio Grande published version and the quality of components is top notch!

How Does it Play?

1st the game mechanic:

* On your turn you move 1 or more of your markers as per the number indicated on the figure and then turn the disc around to show the other side- each marker is a round disc with a number on each side of the disc totaling upto 7 (so you have characters with number combinations like 5-2, 6-1, 4-3 etc. you can differentiate the sides by the black and colored backgrounds)
* Once all players move their characters they draw a monster movement tile and move the monster as per the number printed on the tile
* The game plays for 15 rounds (monster tiles are exhausted after 8 turns and the last 7 reshuffled to form the next draw pile)
* Player who manages to get most of his characters out is the winner!

Simple enough right :-) Here's what makes this game fun:

* On your turn you move a character and turn it around- so if you had the 4 side up, you can move your playing figure upto 4 spaces (any direction except diagonal) and turn it around with its 3 side up- so the next time it can move only 3 steps
* Monster moves in a straight line and can see in all directions except back side ;-)
* Monster moves till it sees a playing figure, upon which it changes its direction and moves towards the figure
* If 2 playing figures are equidistant, the monster continues in a straight line so make a smart move and trap your friend!
* Monster can't see characters behind stones so go behind stones, or move using stones as a shield, but be careful the monsters can crush you if you don't get out of their way as they can push the stones with ease
* You can slide over blood pools and maximize movement
* Monster goes through walls! This mechanic is just the killer for which you should get this game- i.e. the board is marked with letters and the monster goes through one side of the wall say A and comes through A from another side, so all characters who felt were safe once are now in grave danger of getting eaten!
* In the 1st phase i.e. drawing the monster movement cards from the 1st 8 times you get a chance to come back even if you get eaten, but the next 7 rounds, you get eaten and you are one character short
* The whole game is about meticulously placing your pieces so that you don't get eaten, but at the same time are progressing towards the exit!
* Monsters don't stop till the number of movement points are moved, so they can really surprise you when they start to move. You might be thinking that you are safe, but a smart player can expose you and make you look like a fool
* There is another mechanic that makes this game beautiful i.e. the one and 2 hits. Whenever this comes up, monsters move upto 20 spaces till they find a victim, so be sure you are not one of the victims ;-)

All this augers for an exciting game that you can play which ever way you want- either light or heavy i.e. if you want to plan your moves meticulously like in chess, you can do that and play this really deep or just move around and have fun!!

How long does it play?

It depends on how many players you are playing with. With 2-3 players you should be able to get a game inside 40 minutes, but with 4+ players you can have a full game lasting 60-75min! I would say more the people more the fun. Just don;t get too deep and try to play it like chess, this might take away some of the fun element out of the game!

Who would you recommend it to?

I definitely think this is another game apart from Bang! that everyone should have. So simply go and get it. It is light hearted fun that will make you come back and play more everytime you bring it out. It has an advanced version with teleporters and turning stones which makes it a great game for replayability!

Any Downsides?

If you have players who get into the thinking mode like chess, downtime increases and the fun element goes down a bit, so keep pushing players to make quick movements! Apart from this I don't see great downside to this game. You have to be a little careful with the monster bits as they can wear out by constant assembling and dismantling.

Final Thoughts!

This is a very underrated game according to me, but I highly recommend this game purely for the fun factor it can deliver. Accepted that there might be limitations on the strategy part, but I feel not all games need to be strategic to give you kicks, it can be pure fun that can leave people saying, wow we had a good laugh for about an hour. I think this game is a must for everyone! It can be a great family entertainer though some may offended by the theme! (which is very rare).

Scales up beautifully across 7 people and light at the same time. You can use this as a great get-away game as well. So simply get it!

Review: Jaipur:: Jaipur Initial Review

Eisley — Mon, 09 Nov 2009 14:11:28 +0000

by Eisley

I’ve mentioned before that I’m always on the lookout for great 2-player games, so hearing that Jaipur was 2-player only got my interest.

Players collect cards of goods and camels with which they will claim goods tiles to earn points. In between the players are five face-up cards and next to those are the goods tiles which are discs with points values on them. The goods discs are laid out in order with each stack having the highest on the top and then decreasing. Players take turns performing actions.

A player can take a single face-up card, take all the camels cards on display, or take as many face-up goods cards as desired but, in this last case, they must be replaced with cards from your hand or with camel cards. Alternatively, a player can claim goods tiles by discarding goods cards of the same type and, in return, they receive an equal number of discs of the relevamt type. For example, discard 2 green cards and take 2 green discs. If a player cashes in 3, 4 or 5 cards at the same time they receive a bonus tile too. The points values for the bonus tiles are hidden and vary, although the points for the bonus-5 tiles are the greatest.

A round is over when tiles of only 3 goods remain. The player with the most points wins the round and first player to win 2 rounds wins the game.

The game may be simple but it offfers some very interesting decisions. Taking lots of cards at once is great for you (especially if you replace them with camels) but then the cards drawn from the deck to replace them may give the opponent a great set to pick from too. The same applies when taking lots of camels at once. So, sometimes taking one card can be a better tactic if you know you’re both waiting for similar cards. Timing is cricital: Should you grab a couple of goods discs with higher scores now but no bonus, or wait to get more matching cards so you get the bonus tile too but by then your opponent may have taken the higher scoring tiles? These decisions are fun and make you realise that you need to watch what cards the opponent has picked up too. Also, being best 2 out of 3 rounds is nice so that a large win in a single round doesn’t overwhelm the game and makes it simple.

Overall, Jaipur is a simple but clever, card management game with good interaction and nice push-your-luck gameplay too. It has more depth than it first appears but remains light & tactical. I was pleasantly surprised and look forwards to playing it more. Jaipur now joins my collection of fun 2-player games that I take wherever I travel, and I am hoping it will continue to deliver after repeated plays.

James

[Played with 2 players]

This review and other reviews of Essen Spiel 09 games on my blog at http://thegameofgaming.wordpress.com

Review: Die Siedler von Catan - Kartenspiel: Ritter & Händler:: Episode #2 Reviewing the Settlers of Catan Card Game expansions

Mr Thijs — Mon, 09 Nov 2009 14:05:28 +0000

by Mr Thijs

For some reasons the Catan card game is not that popular here on BGG, the entries of the individual expansions lack even reviews. That is why I decided to play the expanded base game with every single expansion again and review them all individually.

Other already published reviews in these series:

-Episode #1 Science & Progress: http://www.boardgamegeek.com/thread/376454

Here is the second review of the series:

Episode #2 Knights & Merchants:
-To understand these series of reviews you need to know the Settlers of Catan base Card Game
-The expanded base games are reviewed, but there are some notes about the tournament version
-The names of the cards are in Dutch with the possible translation behind them (geekmail me if you know the official English translation)

Knights & Merchants was the first expansions I purchased. And I played it often, sometimes combined with the other expansions Science & Progress and/or Politics & Intrigue

Components
Knights & Merchants contains 30 cards. But some cards came already with the base game: karavaan (caravan), rooftocht (raid), goed jaar (good year). It is not as extreme as in Science & Progress. So I don’t make an issue out of it.

]]>
]]>

All the cards

I like the drawing on the overval (assault) event card, it illustrates that the knights are not as cute as some may look like, especially that Bertus de Vreedzame (Bertus the Peaceful) guy. Jonkvrouw Swaan (lady Swaan), the women who seduces all the knight could have been a bit sexier. Now she is more an ice queen.

Rule changes

Set up:
Devide the cards of the base game in 4 stacks face down. Shuffle the new event cards with the base event cards to make one event drawing pile. Divide the other cards of the expansion in 2 stacks face down.

Goal:
The player who reaches 13 victory points first wins

Other rule changes:
In the upcoming Barbarians and Traders review I will talk about all the other rules that are different from the base game, because that expansion did the complete job.

Game play
Most of the new cards focus on the knights. The game introduces 3 new military units: Boerenleger (peasant army) and the 2 knights Bertus de Vreedzame (Bertus the Peaceful) and Ronald de Moker (Ronald the Hammer). Boerenleger and Bertus got often build in my experience. The first is an interesting way to take over the wooden/plastic knight. The boerenleger cost only two recourses and its strength is equal to the amount of grain on its neighbouring land cards (also very thematic) and next to that it has the benefit in being immune for Lady Swan (or not, but then Lady Swan has to be in for a "group hug") and some other cards. Bertus is just another cheap knight. But on the other hand there is Ronald, he cost 7 recourses for only 1 strength point and 7 tournament points. Way to expensive for what he contributes. He is never played in one of my games. Building expensive knights to take over the wooden/plastic knight, gain that victory point and win the game is an okay tactic, but paying 7 recources to have the most tournament point is insane.
And even more insane when two cards are introduced to eliminate knights: the two action cards Lady Swan, who I mentioned before. When played, the attacked player has to choose which knight to remove and place on the discard pile (so not back in his hands). The best defence is to get these cards yourself first or to build a cheap knight to protect a more expensive knight.
Next to these cards there are two settlement buildings that have to do with knights: toernooiveld (tournament field), every knight in your kingdom gets one extra tournament point; and burcht (castle) every knight that you want to build in the future is one recourse of your choice cheaper. Two other reasons to build more small knights instead of that silly expensive Ronald.
There are not only more cards to struggle for the ownership of the wooden/plastic knight, but also its value is increased, when playing with Knights & Merchants by the introduction of two event cards Overval (assault): the player with the wooden/plastic knight selects three building of his opponent, the opponent takes one of them back in his hands.
The cream on the cake are the action cards grensconflict (border conflict) that lets the owner of the wooden/plastic knight exchange one of his own double land cards with one of the opponents’ double land cards. This is a way to steal recources but also ruin the position of a nice placed doubler.

Next to the whole knight thing there is also some focus on being the largest trading power. The grote handelsvloot (large trading fleet), tolhuis (tollbooth) and grote haven (large port) are new cards to gain in trading points. The large trading fleet has the extra benefit to trade the recources on its neighbouring lands and the owner of the tollbooth gets two extra gold when the sun is rolled with the event dice. But the real pain in the ass is the new city building bank (bank) and the two event cards specerijenkaravaan (spice caravan). When the player with the wooden/plastic mill owns the bank and the mill is rolled with the event dice, he may steal two recourses instead of one. When the owner of the wooden/plastic mill plays the spice caravan he also may steal 2 recourses of the opponent just like with the raid card but without the risk that the raid is turned against the person who plays the card.

For the rest there are three other types of cards to mention: piraten vloot (pirate fleets), paleis (palace) and inquisitie (inquisition). The unit pirate fleet also came with Science & Progress and lets you sink one enemy fleet and gives you one extra gold when the sun is rolled with the event dice AAARRR. The action card inquisition can only be used in the tournament version of the game: the other player has to shuffle all his cards: hand cards and cards in his development piles; make four new piles and draw new cards, causing a serious bump to slow him down, when the timing is right. The last card to write about is the city building Palace, and it is a real palace. Every time the sun is rolled the owner of the palace may choose an pick up a card from the discard pile instead of getting recourse of his choice. This can result in a total disaster for the other player when the sun is rolled to often, a nasty action card like the spice caravan is picked up and played again and again causing complete destruction.

What do I think about this expansion
In contrast other expansions there are no central cards. The advantage of this is that you don’t have to build that one card first before you start thinking about drawing cards from the Knights & Merchants piles. This causes that the knight and merchants expansion blends nicely in with the base game and that this expansion can be combined with other expansions and players can play for fourteen point.

This expansion makes the game more aggressive, by some nasty action cards and because the extra focus on the wooden/plastic mill and knight. There is a real struggle to own at least one of them. The downside of this is that a game can take longer than normal because players build trading point and strength points instead of victory points. And when you loose the struggle you really loose the struggle, the other player can totally bitch slap you.

But I like my games aggressive and because of the more aggressive nature I don’t have a problem with the fact that a game can take longer. But when you don’t like that buildings can get destroyed in the base game or your opponent always cries when you kill his/her knight with the black knight. Don’t play/buy this expansion. If you and your opponent love that, or you like to make your opponent cry: buy and play this expansion!

I hope this review was useful to you and I hope you read my next one in these series!

Review: Age of Steam:: review of Rejected sequel

JohnBandettini — Mon, 09 Nov 2009 12:58:20 +0000

by JohnBandettini

(userid=otubrabnad)

Has created a fun geeklist, Rejected board game Sequels. I thought it might be fun to do a review of one of those rejected sequels. So, BGG Admin permitting, here we go.

Age of Steam Ironing

The sequel to Age of Steam takes us in a very different direction. In Age of Steam we concentrate on some very large powerful steam driven machines, in Age of Steam Ironing we go down to a very small steam driven machine, for this Extreme sporting based game.

The aim of the game is to Iron at the highest altitude. Players start of with a very basic iron and ironing board and no sponsorship at all. Players need to get Ironing in more and more remote locations to attract sponsorship and be able to upgrade their Iron to high-spec sporting models with extra long leads and work there way up to extra light carbon fibre Ironing boards that perform well at high altitudes.

The game lasts up to 10 turns, but will end before then if anyone manages to Iron on the top of Mount Everest (an automatic win).

The board features a map of the world and has such man made features as the Empire State Building, The Eifel Tower, Sydney Harbour Bridge and more. These locations are used to attract early attention and that all important sponsorship. You then move on to natural locations such as the Grand Canyon, Mount Blanc and finally Everest.

What I really like are the little miniature irons and boards, all different as well. For real big fans there is a deluxe version in the pipeline where the Irons and boards are all made of metal and will come pre-painted, should be amazing. For the base version creating your own custom Irons and Boards is just part of the fun. Who needs Space Hulk when you can have a Morphy Richards with go-fast stripes.

On each turn each player gets to choose three actions, one at a time. Available actions are: travel to location, upgrade equipment, negotiate sponsorship, iron, and get a longer lead for your iron (going to need a really long one to Iron on Everest.)

As mentioned if any player manages to iron on Everest they win, if the game ends without that happening it’s whoever ironed at the highest level. If that is still a tie, the winner is the player with the longest lead.

There is a bit of in-game advertising as it features such exciting real life companies as Rowenta, Morphy Richards, Black & Decker and all your other favourite Iron makers.

Who will like this game?

Well pretty much anyone. It’s a great sports game and a deep strategy game in one. I mean who would have ever thought a farming game would ever get to number 1. This could be the game to knock Agricola of the top perch. The appeal of Ironing is so widespread, (it’s done in every house after all) that this could be a game that crosses over even more than Ticket to Ride. I would not be surprised if you found this game in your local supermarket soon.

What do I rate it?

It has to be a 10. Since I got my copy I just have not felt like playing anything else. The game really makes you want to Iron on top of Mount Everest. So far the nearest I’ve got is K2, but I am determined to get there. This game is so much fun it’s like I designed it myself.

What are you waiting for, go get a copy.

Review: Little Italy:: Little Italy First review.

jamesmckane — Mon, 09 Nov 2009 09:13:30 +0000

by jamesmckane

Hi this is my first review so please keep that in mind when reviewing my review. He he he he he.

Thankyou.

Well first impressions: I must say i bought this game with no previous knowledge of its existence. I come from a sicilian backgroud and thought the cover looked good and bought it. ( i often do this and for everyone bad game you pick up you'll pick up a little Gem)

The game itself is quite simple to play, The rules could have been written a bit clearer and from reading some peoples rating comments i think they may be playing it wrong. Still it didn't take long before we were on the road.

Gameplay: Is as i said Simple to play, But Will keep you thinking and there are plenty of strategies and risks that can be taken for such simple game mechanics.

It starts off with all cars in the centre alley, Each player has two cars, they will gain the money if either of their cars land on the money token, Or loose money if it lands on the Handcuff token (bacause the Police are asking for a bribe). The board has numbers scattered over the board - 1 to -7 for the Handcuff token, and 1 to 7 for the money token, The Money token starts on 1 and when a car lands on it they receive 1 (dollar) and the token moves to the number 2 and so on. So the pick ups are worth more as the game goes on. And the same rule applies to the Handcuff token so also becoming a bigger hazard as the game progresses. The game ends when the 7 money has been collected or the -7 handcuff has been collected.

(Something i think that is easy to confuse which some may do is the Money/ Handcuff token is what you are chasing not the markers on the board)

O.k sounds like every other game you've played so far right? well it gets interesting because the turn begins like this The first player to move rolls all dice ( every car has a corresponding colour matched Die) After they have rolled all dice they are free to move any of the cars. So they have the option of moving their Cars closer to the money or their opponents closer to the Handcuff token, after the first player moves a car he keeps that dice aside and passes the rest of the dice to his/Her opponent, So the opponent cannot move that car that turn. When the dice pool reaches one the pool is topped up with all dice again and so on.

Strategy: The board only goes around in one direction with a short cut (the alley) in the middle. So sometimes if you roll a low number on your opponents car and they are close to the token its a good idea to move it so they are close but not close enough to get it, Or move them into the alley just before the token so they are forced to do another half lap before coming close again. Sometimes your opponent is a shoe in, They will get the token inevitably so a good idea is to move their token onto the money yourself, Why? because they will get the token but everytime a car is moved onto a money token the player that moved the car gets 1 dollar so you can get 1 dollar (but they will still get the value of the token, But hey better you get the bonus dollar and not them.

Multiplayer (4+) Gets interesting because you still get 2 cars each so I might get the points of the red and white one and my opponent next to me might get the points of the Blue and white one, So if the white one lands on a token we both gain or take the disadvatage. So if hes ahead on points it might be best for me not to move the white car on any money token because it'll put him further ahead.

Anyway I really like this game, Its Easy to learn and teach, fun and good 2 player and good with more also, If your looking for a quick game (i've played a few now none of them have gone over 30mins even with 4 players) So for a quick fun game
i give it an

8/10 With a quick fun game in mind.

Review: Caesar & Cleopatra:: Caesar & Cleopatra- Review after almost 60 game plays

madhujith — Mon, 09 Nov 2009 08:33:38 +0000

by madhujith

Here I'm with Caesar & Cleopatra, perhaps a highly debated game- Do I like it or Not?

If you have read my previous reviews say Lost Cities, Balloon Cup etc. This game is definitely deeper than those, however why is it that it is not highly ranked by people and lot of people want to trade it? Answers lie below!

I saw this game for the 1st time during my visit to the game store 'Games People Play'- Harvard Square. I got interested, but did not venture out to buy this one. However after almost an year and having played Lost Cities and Balloon Cup to death decided to read about this game on the Boardgame geek and then asked a friend of mine to get it for me from the States :-)

After having played this game for more than 60 times, I started asking myself- Do I really like this game as much as I used to when I got it? The frank answer to that was a "No", but I still play it occasionally. I don't play it as often as I used to play just because I go games that are better than this. However let me take you through this interesting game and leave the final verdict to you guys :-)

The game says this is a game of influence and politics. In this game a player can either choose to take Cleopatra or Caesar. Each one comes with a set of cards, though the nomenclature is different both sets are the same with same functionalities. Like with any other Rio Grande games the quality of cards are excellent, though the size seems very odd and makes it a little hard to shuffle. The art work is neat and very thematic with the Caesar and Cleopatra age. However this in itself is its downside as the game fizzles out on the theme. Though we are talking about politicians, winning them on your side to gain a majority, all that translates to having a larger sum on your side compared to your opponent(smaller sum in case of a 'Philosopher' card).

The objective of the game is to win as many Roman patricians on your side using your cards, tact and skill so that the winner gets to keep Egypt!

There is definite tactical depth and variety, but the randomness seems to take away a large portion of the tactics (More about this in the next section). This game will appeal to a lot of people who would want to try out a slightly more complicated game than say Lost Cities and seek more variety. It by no means is a game that is bad or somthing that you'll absolutely detest owning (though few people have that opinion ;-)..) Not me though!

What do you get in the Box?

Cards, cards and cards. This game is all about bunch of cards:

* You get 37 influence cards for each player (Caesar & Cleopatra)
* 13 Action cards for each player- don't worry about the names, they are all the same
* 6 influence bonus cards
* 8 vote of confidence cards
* 21 patrician divided into 5 groups (3 groups of 5 cards and 2 groups of 3 cards)

A very interesting aspect is the nomenclature (and they have no impact on the game what so ever)- they have use Latin names for characters, which of course the moment you look at it, you'll realize are very fictitious and bad in humor. E.g. Justitianus ANUS, etc. Most names are similar, very artificial I felt!

How does it Play?

There are a few things that you do right at the beginning:

* Each person takes the influence cards for his character i.e. Caesar or Cleopatra and separates out 2 sets of cards numbered 1-5. One set he places face down in front of the patricians and the other in his hand
* Each person arranges the 13 action cards in an order that he wants to use them throughout the game (this btw is a very good mechanic and gives players some tactical advantage)
* Each player also takes one influence bonus card, which tells him which group he needs to win a majority to score the bonus
* He then shuffles the vote of confidence cards and keeps them in a different stack and shuffles the rest of his influence cards

Once this is all don, you start the game play:

* On your turn, you can choose to be either active or passive (though I've not seen many being passive)
* If you are active then you can play 2 cards face up in front of any of the patrician groups or play a single card face down
* He may with the influence cards play an action card anytime during his turn
* If there are a total of 8 cards both sides put together, you count the total and the highest total gains a patrician card from that particular group (remember that you can have only a maximum of 5 cards on your side- if that is the case your opponent can have only 3!)
* There is a special influence card called the philosopher card which reveres this rule and give a patrician card to the player with the lowest total.
* Once you place your cards on your turn, irrespective of the number of cards you draw one of the vote of confidence cards and see which group needs to be scored (this btw is a spoiler and wI'll tell you why in just a bit)

The game finishes when all the patricians are won and the score is calculated:

* 1 point for each patrician
* 1 extra point if you have a majority in a group (3 cards for a 5 member group and 2 cards for a 3 member group)
* 1 extra point if you have won all the cards in a particular group
* 2 extra points for winning a majority in a group that matches your influence bonus card

Some unique mechanics, with 13 action cards, the philosopher card makes C&C a very entertaining game, but if your are seeking a no luck game, this definitely is not one. The vote of confidence cards can absolutely annoy you. All your plans can go for a toss if you turn up a 'no vote orgy today' card. This element takes away a lot of sheen from this game.

How long does this play?

As it is printed on the box, this takes about 30-40 minutes. The game plays fast and keeps you occupied with very little downtime. With 13 action cards that you can arrange it the way you want allows for a fair bit of tactics and variety. However this game is definitely not deep enough for keeping you engaged for long periods of time. This is no brain burner, but at the same time not a dud that you play it blindfolded. I would say this game is light-medium in its weight and lies somewhere between a filler and a full fledged game. Requires a little bit of learning to get used to the action cards and how to stack them.

Who would I recommend it to?

Definitely not to everyone. This is a game that people who do not want very heavy games like. It can be entertaining and exercising your gray cells a little bit. I would say this game is suitable for gamers to play it once in a while, if they don't want to play very light games. You play this and then perhaps move onto something more serious (just to set the mood right hahahaha). This game can be a good get away game as it is just a set of cards and hence good to carry along- though you have to like it first.

People who play a lot of 2 player games may find this a nice change and addition to their collection as simpler to 'Hera and Zeus" (Don't quote on me as this is what people say, I don't have Herta and Zeus so can't take a stab at that one)

Any Downsides?

Apart from the odd sized cards and funny names, the game has some serious shortcomings:

* The vote of confidence can absolutely annoy you as it is completely random and can screw up your plans (mind you for people liking randomness this is great). The great idea of having action cards that adds so much variety is in a way lost out due to the vote of confidence cards
* There is no theme and you end up using just the numbers, so the entire artwork goes waste
* Requires some learning as the action needs to be arranged smartly, else you can pay quite a hefty price as you cannot have more than 5 cards in your hands and having an action inappropriate to the game situation can really hurt you (say having a scout right at the end)

Final Thoughts!

This game is another one which blows hot and cold for me. Up until recently I used to like this game a lot, but after playing Battle Line and some other games that I'll talk about a little later, the interest level has gone down. But I don't see myself getting rid of this game any time in the near future as this keeps hitting the table once every couple of months!

Review: Le Havre:: Le Havre Sneak Attack

jocose — Mon, 09 Nov 2009 04:36:48 +0000

by jocose

So I received Le Havre several days ago and have been itching to get it to the table, I was reading the rules and punching it out and my wife walked by the game room looked in and shook her head at me ... everyone with a s/o knows the look and head shake.

Even though there are a million and one pieces to Le Havre the pieces, cards, rules and illustrations are well laid out and make it easy to setup.

There is a solitaire version that I played along with while reading the rules, it was a great way to learn the game. I can tell from the little play that I will really enjoy this game. All those bit come with tons of resources to obtain and manage, buildings (the same as roles in some games) to build, food to collect and people to feed.

So two days later I was told we could play a game when she finished some shopping she wanted to do.

Now I know the games she likes to play; [thing=27162][/thing], [thing=34635][/thing], [thing=3076][/thing] ... she will even play [thing=25613][/thing] with me. But we still have not passed the look and head shake phase when I get excited about getting a new game.

So I got Le Havre out and set it up and waited ... and waited.... (this is a girl who went shopping) and waited.

She saw the game on the table and gave me the "really" look. I swore she would like it and if not we could put it away and get out any other she wanted, so off we went.

I won the first game 231 to 175, she remarked "I like this game lets try again". Who am I to say no!

I won the second 241 to 210, I started to put it away and she said "this seems like a lot to get out and set up, you sure you don't want to leave it out for tomorrow?"

Le Havre Sneak Attack - Successful

There is plenty of planning and strategy involved, even lingering in a building if you can afford it, blocking its use by another player. So to an extent it can get aggressive if you wanted. A deck of special and randomized standard buildings depending on number of players and a shuffled deck creates a different play every time.

Look if you like any of the games mentioned above or any resource management game you will like Le Havre, it really is that simple.

The proof is sitting out on my game room table, ready for tomorrow.

Review: Senet:: Review of one particular version of Senet

whac3 — Mon, 09 Nov 2009 00:18:09 +0000

by whac3

Introduction

No one knows how the ancient Egyptians played this game exactly, but based on research and educated guesses three sets of rules have become standard, those of Thibault, those of Bell and a third set which I have not seen definitely credited to anyone in particular. These last are of more questionable scholarly standing but most set are designed to employ them, including the [company=7506][/company] set I own.

This is not to say that this set of rules has no scholarly foundation, but it does emphasize playability over scholarship. While I admit I prefer accuracy in games of this sort in general, this set of rules does in my opinion make the best actual game of the three rules. So, I am reviewing Senet as played with these rules, which (since I don't have a link for them) I will summarize below.

I have played this game a number of times with my wife, and for a Backgammon-style game this is pretty good. Indeed, to me at least Senet is a better game than Backgammon because while like the latter this game involves at least as much luck as skill in play, the game is decidedly shorter. We (i.e., my wife and I) can and do play it as a filler or when we feel like playing a quick game but are too tired for one that involves concentration, although normally we prefer heavier games.

2. Components

Since this game is about as much in the public domain as a game can get (since it is from ancient Egypt) I should specify that I own the edition pictured below. ]]> Its components are pictured below, ]]> except that my set came with a spare throwing stick (which I have since given away as part of a trade).

First, the board which includes a drawer for storage of pieces, throwing sticks and rules is a pretty good reproduction of an actual Senet set found in an ancient Egyptian tomb. This is not to say it is identical to any one set but rather than it is realistic enough that one would not be entirely surprised if it were.

Similarly the pieces mimic those I have personally seen pictures of from ancient tombs. (NB: To anyone making a home-made set, using small spools from thread and old thimbles for pieces works well for the feel of authenticity.)

Finally, the throwing sticks are durable. This is important because they are going to get thrown again and again. More importantly, the black paint on the rounded side provides a sharp contrast to the plain of the flat side. Thus, for example, I use these with my Puluc set because these are clear whereas the beads that came with that game to serve the same function are not. (NB: For those who-- like myself-- are interested in traditional games, a set of throwing sticks is a must; they are the simplest way of "rolling" for exactly 5 possibilities.)

3. Rules

The board consists of a 3x10 square grid of spaces. The spaces form a topologically linear track which proceeds from one corner of the board along the longer edge and then proceeds down the middle row of spaces in the opposite direction, finally turning back along the third row of spaces in the original direction. Thus, for purposes of reference, the spaces are numbered 1 through 30. Squares 14 and 26 through 29 are marked. Square 27 returns one to square 14 (if it is unoccupied or else square 1) but the other three marked spaces are "safe" spaces, as will be explained shortly.

Pieces initially completely occupy the first row with the lighter thimble-like pieces on the five odd squares and the darker spool-like pieces on the five even squares. The two players alternately throw the throwing sticks until one player throws a one; that player then plays the darker spool-like pieces and uses the throw to move the piece on square 10 forward one to square 11. (To determine the number thrown using the throwing sticks, one usually counts the flat sides showing, from 1 to 4, but if no flat sides are showing this counts as 6.) Including the first turn, a player's turn continues until that player throws either a 2 or 3. If a player can, he must move a piece forward the number of spaces indicated by the throw; if a player cannot move a piece forward, he must move a piece backward. Two pieces cannot occupy the same square, but if a piece is moved onto a square occupied by an opponent's piece then that piece is moved to the space the piece moved originally occupied before the current move. Two things prevent this from happening. If a piece either occupies a safe square (squares 26, 28 or 29) or has at least one other piece of the same player on a space consecutively adjacent to it (e.g., if a player has a piece on both spaces 10 and 11 but not if a player has pieces on spaces 1 and 20), then those pieces are safe from being displaced. Three of a player's pieces on consecutive spaces (e.g., spaces 19, 20 and 21) form a block to the other player so that pieces cannot be moved past either forward or backward. If a piece lands on space 27, the piece returns to space 14 unless space 14 is occupied, in which case the piece moves to space 1. (In the rare instance that space 1 is also occupied, the piece moves to the first unoccupied space after space 1.)

The object of the game is to bear off pieces so that the first player to bear off all five of his pieces wins. A player cannot bear off pieces if he has any piece or pieces in the first row. To bear off the board, a piece must move one past space 30 but need not do so by exact count. Unused parts of a throw then can be used for another piece but cannot be split among pieces.

4. Game-play

To me, this is a filler, but for a filler the game is not bad. As a backgammon-style game, the game is mostly roll-and-move but knowing which piece to move when does add a small element of thought to playing the game. Yet, unlike backgammon the game is short enough not to become wearisome. In other words, before one stops having fun, the game is over.

I know this sounds like damning the game with faint praise but the game really does work for what it is. The novelty element of the game will only take one so far, and the same will in the end be true of fascination with antiquities. Yet the game does work. This is one of those games that one may never consider great but which will in practice get a fair amount of play because it is relatively quick (but not too quick), can be played and enjoyed even when one is tired but does not yet wish to go to sleep and can be played by all ages. If one is looking for a deep and meaty game, this is not it, but if one is looking for a quick and light filler game this fits the bill.

Review: Red November:: Two Thumbs Up-Periscope : A Red November Review

Focuscoene — Sun, 08 Nov 2009 21:58:48 +0000

by Focuscoene
Let me begin by saying this: I love this game, despite the fact that I totally understand why "Why not just play Pandemic?" is a valid question. Why not indeed? Pandemic is mechanically almost the same game, except more refined mathematically. What I mean is: it's better. Not only is it more fine tuned, but because it doesn't have a crazy theme or a boatload of items to memorize, it's more accessible too.

So why play Red November instead? I'll tell you.

For those of you who don't know the basic idea of Pandemic and other games like it, the mechanic works like this: the more actions you take, the more bad things happen on the board that you and your fellow gamers have to take care of. So basically, every time you go to fix something, something else happens that needs fixing. Thus everyone who is playing is working together as a team against the board.

What makes Red November so darn fun is it's theme. You and your teammates take control of a group of gnomes aboard a submarine that is perpetually falling apart. Rooms catch on fire, they flood, there's even a giant kraken that attacks the ship.

Allow me a moment to talk about this before we go more into the mechanics of the game. Any game that has a unique theme is going to win points with me automatically, even if it has flawed mechanics. Sometimes I'd rather play a game with a silly, colorful theme that runs a little more clunky than a smoother game that is yet another period piece (feudal Japan, the French Revolution, medieval fantasy, you know the drill). Gnomes on a submarine? And they can get drunk? Sign me up!

Back to the game. Every move you make (opening a door, entering a room, putting out a fire) costs a certain amount of "time". Around the edge of the board is a timeline. Say you do a series of moves that cost a total of 4 "minutes", you then move your piece on the timeline 4 spaces. Say that in crossing those 4 spaces, you pass 2 marks on the line. This means you draw two cards, both of which will cause more things to go wrong on the ship. The idea is that you and your fellow gnomes survive long enough to make it until the end of the timeline.

That alone sounds like enough, but there's a lot more going on in Red November. In the corner of the board are three bars, and every time certain things go wrong, these bars move up a space (similar to the outbreaks in Pandemic). If even one of these three bars reaches it's end, the game ends and all players loose. UNLESS! Unless you have decided to abandon ship ahead of time. If you abandoned ship, you can no longer play, however if the rest of the players fail to keep the ship alive you are the victor. If they do succeed, however, you are the loser. (For the record, I have never seen anyone abandon ship)

On top of all of this are items that help you. Fire extinguishers for putting out fires, water pumps for pumping out floods, crowbars to unlock blocked doors, etc. There's even booze that, once consumed, enables you to enter rooms that are in flames (presumably because you're too drunk to care).

This is a lot for some people to take in. I've had it be hit or miss depending on the crowd. If it's a crowd that's into learning all the rules of board games, and has the patience for it (and doesn't mind trying to remember what all the items do), then it should be a hit. However I've had a crowd that just became overwhelmed by the whole thing, even I sometimes forget exactly how some of the rules work.

The other big problem is the board itself. It's small, like really small. This alone makes it less easy to pay attention to and get involved in, especially with 5 or 6 people (I've found that 3 or 4 makes for the best games). Also, the way it's cut is kind of awkward. It never seems to sit flat enough.

So there we have it. I love this game, I could play it again and again, but I totally understand when people don't want to play it. I also totally get why Pandemic can be more appealing. The problems I've pointed out in Red November aren't even close to being present in Pandemic. But come on, what's more exciting? Being an operations manager who builds research facilities in Atlanta, or being a drunken gnomish sub-mariner who fights giant purple krakens in Atlantis?

Review: Thurn and Taxis:: A Comprehensive Review of the 2006 Spiel des Jahres Winner: Has it Stood the Test of Time?

cvandyk — Sun, 08 Nov 2009 20:18:04 +0000

by cvandyk

]]>

Designers: Andreas Seyfarth, Karen Seyfarth
Publisher: Rio Grande and others
Year: 2006
Players: 2-4
Time: 45 min.
Recommended Age: 10+
BGG Rank: 120
Rating: 7.25

Note: this article is both review and resource and so is very long. To help you find what you’re looking for, here’s the list of contents, so you can skip to whatever piques your interest.

Introduction
Components
Gameplay
Variants
Customization
Strategy
What do the Critics Think?
My Take

]]> ]]> ]]>
]]> ]]> ]]>

INTRODUCTION

Thurn and Taxis is one of those many medium length games that promises a typical Euro-game experience. You spend an easy forty-five to sixty minutes collecting some cards, playing them, and scoring a few points. You consider a few tactical options, you pass the snacks, and before you know it the game is done. No brains are addled, and no one stomps away from the table angry because tempers never flare up. A minor rules question might need to be clarified, but everyone is content that the game went smoothly and that each player contributed to the colourful board. You think to yourself, "Ah, I may have found myself the perfect gate-way game." It’s a little easier than that, a bit more complex than those games. It even won the Spiel des Jahres back in 2006. This will surely see a lot of play.

You put the game back on your shelf in a hopeful mood. The question is, will you ever be keen to take it off the shelf again? Or has the game failed precisely because it does everything rather well, but is not particularly compelling or inspiring in any way?

Thurn and Taxis is one of those games that suffers from this problem. It’s easy, it’s a nice little package, but is it good enough to remain on the table when other games are vying for attention?

Just imagine convincing your friends:
“Anyone want to build postal routes in Germany again?”
“Oh I don’t know – the theme is kind of boring.”
“Okay, but it’s not only about postal routes. It’s also about beer. There’s a city called Budweiser!”
“You mean Budweis?”
“Right, and close by it on the map is Pilsen, where we get Pilsener beer from!”
“Hmm, that sounds interesting. Are you pulling my leg?”
“Nope. In fact there’s even a real Thurn and Taxis beer”
“I had no idea – I like the sound of this!”
“Just check out this picture:”

]]>

“Alright, count me in. I’ll see if it gets any better this time…”

So convincing your friends may be a problem if they like adventure, warfare, long strategy games, and so on. Where would this light-weight Euro fit in? What’s the appeal of this game and will it stand the test of time? Let’s find out.

COMPONENTS

When you look at the box you get a pretty indication of the nice illustrations Michael Menzel (the artist) has done for this game. I’m not sure why the woman at the bottom of the picture is so excited. Perhaps it’s because she likes to see a nice looking ~~male~~mail ~~under~~carriage (I had to cross that out because this is a family game)!

]]>

When we open the box this is what we all get:

]]>

In other words, we get some cards, a nice board that folds open, a whack of postal houses in four colours, a couple of thin rulebooks (this game is easy to learn!) and a bunch of cardboard pieces that you’ll have to punch. Let’s look at a few things in more detail:

Here, for instance, are the yellow houses:

]]>

Here’s the board:

]]>

As in Ticket to Ride we’ll be collecting sets of cards. In Thurn and Taxis we try to get cities that are adjacent to each other so that we can create a postal route that runs through these cities. Each turn we can place one or two city cards on the table in front of us. When the route is long enough it’s time to close it and establish permanent postal houses in some of the cities that we have traveled through. Here’s a sample hand of city cards:

]]>

When postal houses are placed it’s possible to earn extra points by collecting the bonus chits:

]]>

In addition, we get a bunch of carriage cards, which you’ll receive if you build postal routes of different lengths:

]]>

If we take a specific carriage card – the 3 carriage card – we see that you’ll need a postal route of at least three locations to get this card. At the end of the game the card will be worth the points indicated in the bottom left corner of the card (I’ll let you figure out how many):

]]>

The game also comes with a handy (and sturdy!) turn order summary card:

]]>

You’ll notice that on your turn you can use one of the following four abilities in addition to your regular actions:

Postal carrier: play two cards (instead of one)
Postmaster: add two cards to your hand (instead of one)
Administrator: replace all six cards in the display
Cartwright: Acquire a new carriage with up to two fewer city cards.

There’s even a picture on the board of these four friendly fellows:

]]>

Speaking of the board, just to the right of these four guys, there’s a nicely illustrated space for where the various carriage cards are placed.

]]>

I could go on and show you much more of the board and the components, but I’m sure you can already see that for the prize you get a beautiful game. It’s a little more compact than Ticket to Ride, but possibly more lavishly produced – at least in terms of its cost.

Let’s conclude this section of the review with a picture of one of the rule-books. One side of it explains some historical information about the buildings depicted on the board. Now that’s attention to detail!

]]>

GAMEPLAY

Thurn and Taxis is not a difficult game. The main rule book is only four pages long, and it’s nicely laid out and illustrated. Here’s the front of the rulebook:

]]>

I don’t want to get into all the particular rules for this game but I’d like to add a few comments to the observations I made in the previous section.

As mentioned before, your goal is to collect city cards, play them in front of you and then close the route when you think it’s a good time to do so.

Here is a sample route that goes through multiple provinces (each province has a different colour) and cities:

]]>

When you decide to close this route, you have to make a decision. You can either put one postal house in all the cities in one province that you’ve passed through. Or you can put one postal house in one city in each province that you’ve passed through.

If that makes no sense to you, read it again. For some reason this is the most difficult rule to explain to new players. However, this is really where many of the difficult decisions in this game stem from. You’re not allowed to put a postal house in every city but you have to come up with a strategy for how you want to use the route that you’ve built.

When you are able to get a house in each city in one or two provinces you can often score bonus points. These are indicated by the chits placed on the board. Here, for instance, are the scoring markers for the orange and red regions:

]]>

So pretty soon the board will start to fill us with houses. Here for instance is a picture of houses placed in Regensburg:

]]>

And here’s a larger perspective on the colourful board:

]]>

When the game comes to an end players count up the bonus points they have scored, add the highest carriage card they have acquired, and subtract any postal houses they haven’t been able to build. And that’s their score!

VARIANTS

There are quite a few variants out there, but let me mention the ones that have seemed most popular or have gotten the most response. First of all, there are a few solitaire variants. I’m not into playing games by myself (I’d rather read a book or write a review or something), but I recommend you check out the ones by Jim Marshall and by GameRulesforOne.

There is also some discussion of making the game more interesting for two players. It has been suggested that you take out some of the bonus tiles so that there’s more of a difference in points between the first one who scores a region and the second one to do so. In addition, it has been recommended that you use fewer of the four roles available each turn. For these ideas, check out this thread.

Others want more interaction and nastiness to this game. If this is you, check out the Highwayman variant. This variant allows players to make one city on the board impassable to mail traffic. Which city is controlled by the highwayman can change during game play.

A variation of the highwayman has been posted elsewhere. This variant is humorously called the “Gentleman Highwayman,” although the effect of the new proposed rule is rather nasty:
“instead of drawing a card from the 6 available, you may take one 'end' card from one player's planned route at least three cards long (scorable) in front of them.” I think most people would agree that this would change the game very drastically, but perhaps a more benign version might work (and might be more gentlemanly!)

There are other ideas about how to incorporate more interaction. Check out this thread if you want to join the discussion. At present, however, there is no consensus on what, if anything, should be changed.

In some way reading through the variant threads is a good way to see what people like and dislike about the game. The overwhelming sense I got was that people just want to have more interaction. They want to bug their neighbours or affect their course of play. In one thread it was suggested that this game would actually work quite well if it was reworked with a Wild Western theme and with a few rule changes that reflected the new theme.

CUSTOMIZATION

]]>

Thurn and Taxis doesn’t need much customizing, since it’s already nicely produced. However, here are a few ideas to get you started if you want to add a bit more chrome to your game or if you want a player aid to help you with the rules.

First of all, if you’re into tuck-boxes, you need to go here. Interestingly, this file has had 1500+ downloads and only 11 thumbs! These are very nice, although I’m not sure why there’s a tuck-box specifically for just the four thick player aid cards.

Perhaps the most useful player aid is by Chuck Pierce. You can find it here. This one is particularly nice for explaining graphically how to place postal houses after closing routes.

And lastly, let me mentioned Darren M.’s FAQ sheet. Just click here. There’s almost always something that get played wrong in any given game, so it’s good to have a quick look. The rule we played wrong for the longest time was that you only have to reduce your cards in your hand down to three on a turn where you’re scoring a route. For a while we were discarding down to three every turn, but you can in fact do quite a bit more collecting.

STRATEGY

If you’re interested in developing your strategy for playing Thurn and Taxis, there’s really only one place to go, and that’s this thread by Steve Perucca. Other the other threads on strategy are mostly musings on questions like "what’s the minimum number of turns the game could take?" or "does the start player have an advantage?" Steve, on the other hand, gives us a really thorough run-down of things that will help your game. He acknowledges that there’s a lot of luck in how the cards come out, but there are things you can do to play better.

The key principle is clearly EFFICIENCY. That’s why the Administrator (who sweeps the card display) is such a bad option, and should only be used rarely. You don’t want to waste time collecting cards you’re not going to use or looking for cards you need. The game is all about optimization and speed. You want to get a carriage card every time you build a route. You want to build as many houses as you can per route. You want to build in such a way that you don’t have to go through the same towns again.

You can see that most of this advice is fairly obvious stuff. And in fact I think most players grasp these kind of principles intuitively. I’ve never really seen someone play and the game using a really new strategy. There are no surprises from left field.

I think the main trick to the game is to watch the other players. Try to avoid competing for the same things (whether it’s chits for long routes and provinces or for specific areas of the map). Also, at some level you have to consider the speed at which you need to build. Do you want to force the end game by building short routes and picking up the carriages in quick succession? Or do you want to gain more by getting the chits on the board? There’s no easy answer here. I also don’t think either strategy is necessarily better. It’s a matter of taste for some. For others it just depends on what the cards allow you to do.

If you really want to beat the luck you do need to keep a bit of an eye on what cards have come up. There’s no need to look for that third copy of Innsbruck if it’s gone already and won’t come up for a while. I guess the question is whether you’re serious enough about the game to want to count in your head for each, or even some, cards.

WHAT DO THE CRITICS THINK?

It’s always useful to know why you might not like a game. It’s arguably better to analyze negative comments than to dwell on the mellifluence of epideictic rhetoric (i.e. "hype"). So what do people not like about Thurn and Taxis? Well, let’s make a tidy list:

Boring theme

It’s just multi-player solitaire. Playing games is about interacting with other people, and Thurn und Taxis doesn't offer that.

It’s Ticket to Ride with added (but unnecessary) complexity

It’s simple and inoffensive

The feel of the gameplay is of a serious, thoughtful game, but it doesn't have the strategy to hold your interest.

There is no excitement, like in Ticket to Ride, nor is there any kind of "I stole your route" screwage.

The game is so artificially balanced that the final point spread is very close.

I think you can see what all of this gets at. The critics see it as a bland euro, with a pasted on theme, and little to offer in terms of depth or excitement. As Johannes Goslar says, the game has been successful primarily because it has been "gehypt." That’s my favourite new word, by the way: gehypt.

My favourite quotation from people’s personal comments, on the other hand, was this one: "I like this but I think it sucks" (yayforme). I like that comment, but I think it sucks!

Perhaps the most perceptive observation was the following, by Maarten D. de Jong (Cymric): "It suddenly struck me how quiet everything is on the T&T front. It's just like St. Petersburg in that regard: people want to play it all the time, and after a few months they've burnt out and moved on. The two games share other similarities, but that the meta-characteristics are also similar really is intriguing."

I think I would have to agree with that. Each game will have its share of fans, but both games also leave many folks cold after a few plays.

Finally, I’ll leave you with Tom Vasel’s sharp criticism: “Wow - game of the year? More like snoozefest of the year!”

Oddly enough, one of the personal comments said simply, “Sleepy.”

MY TAKE

]]>

So what do I think? To be honest, I tend to agree with the critics, but my final judgment is not as harsh. For me the game is a pleasant diversion. I enjoy the art, and the game play is not particularly taxing, which is kind of nice once in a while.

The game works quite well as a gate-way game – although Ticket to Ride is still the better option. I also have some folks who I play games with who enjoy a lighter experience, who don’t need to be totally immersed in a game to have a good time, but who enjoy making their move and talking about other things while they wait for their turn to come around. One couple we played the game with purchased it afterwards precisely because of those reasons.

So yes, it is multi-player solitaire, but there are a few things that affect other players. Obviously, if you push the game to its end – by picking up carriage cards for instance – then other players are forced to complete their routes faster. If you are going for certain region markers, other players may or may not compete for those. If you see some good cards come up for the player after you it may be tempting to take them or to replace the cards with six new ones. Yet that’s about as far as the interaction goes. There’s no direct screwage, no trading, no negotiating, and very little worry that someone will take what you need.

In fact, in a four player game you have no guarantee that any of the cards will wheel around. In that sense it’s a risk management game with little of a chance to manage anything. So you depend on the luck of the draw. You can do some calculations about the percentage chance of getting a certain city card (there are three of each type), but that would just tax the brain, which is precisely what this game wants you to avoid doing.

In conclusion, if you want a light diversion (and you don’t want to play a light game that is tenser, more exciting, and that leaves you in suspense right up to the end), Thurn and Taxis might be just the ticket for you! (I miss the old Tom Vasel red highlighting, so I coloured the important wording just for him!)

I rate this game a 6/10, which means that for me it’s an "Ok game, some fun or challenge at least, will play sporadically if in the right mood."

My wife tells me that it’s a little better than that, surely. So she rates it a 7 (Good game, usually willing to play), she says. No wait, a 6.8. I’m not sure why the two decimal points were taken off, but I guess it means that it’s "almost a good game" and that she’s "almost usually" willing to play.

Finally, if you get bored by the game you can always make lame jokes about drinking Lodz of Budweis.

Alternatively, you can play with your meeples:

]]>]]>

Review: Khronos:: Kevin's Fun-Filled, Five-Point Reviews

pacman88k — Sun, 08 Nov 2009 18:51:34 +0000

by pacman88k
KHRONOS

2-5 Players
90 Minutes
By Arnaud Urbon and Ludovic Vialla

Introduction:

I picked up this game on red-tag sale for $40 (yeah, I know – “red-tag” sale…). Still, it was the cheapest I found. Having read all about it, I knew that I would love the theme. I also got the sense that the game had mixed reviews from players, either liking it or saying that it was too hard and a brain-burner and that it has the potential for too much downtime or analysis paralysis, etc. I’m glad I didn’t let those reviews get the better of me. I bought it, regardless, and have been very pleased with it, for the following reasons outlined in this review.

1. Out of the Box:

This review is of the second edition, put out by Rio Grande Games. The components are all very good. The board is a giant (well, maybe not “giant” but pretty big) tri-fold, depicting a geographic region identically, thrice, once on each fold. Each board represents a different Epoch – Age of Might, Age of Faith, and Age of Reason.

There are 216 cardboard bits that you must punch out. Let me tell you, it took me a good bit of time, carefully punching them out, but it was a lot of fun having to separate them and bag them all. The cardboard bits are as follow: You get 30 pieces of money in three denominations (1’s, 5’s, and 10’s). You also get 155 building tiles that come in three colors and each in three sizes (tall, grande, and venti). And you get a turn track; marking the seven turns of the game. The small-sized buildings are a bit small – about the size of the goods that come in Le Havre – but they work just fine. All the cardboard is of good, thick stock.

You also get 125 LWC (little wooden cubes), 25 in each of the five player colors, 10 adventurer pawns (2 per player), a turn-track marker, and a deck of 55 cards corresponding to each of the three colors of the building tiles. A small op-ed about the cards: I really appreciate the design of them. They are simply colored-cards with simple artwork depicting either a sword, some sort of “religious” staff, or a cane. I like this because in a game that is already complicated enough as it is, the cards don’t present anything new or more than is absolutely necessary. They are basic, and they are perfect for the functions they serve.

The insert in the box is similar to the one that comes with Stone Age, and works just fine. The box is an odd size; it’s big, for sure, about…I’d say, two-thirds the size of Twilight Imperium.

- Very good components
- Just the box alone has provoked intrigue and interest about the game

Fun-o-meter: 5/5

2. Rules:

Ah, the rules. The rules were part of the gripes people had with the game, I suspect. I suppose the second edition might have changed a few things? – I don’t know. But Rio Grande always does a bang up job on the rules. But these rules are…well, different. And the reason they are different is because of the subject matter of the game itself. I feel that time travel is a very fascinating subject, but it has many conundrums, right? – All that stuff about paradoxes, doppelgangers, whether time is linear or whatever, etc. Even in movies, they are never consistent – each of the Terminator movies, for example, treats the aspect of time travel differently. So, with such a convoluted theme, it’s no wonder the rules were going to be a challenge.

Let me say it this way: the rules *themselves* could not be “organized” any better. It is in perfect outline format; with each section having its various sub-sections explained immediately following. The presentation is spot-on. Good job, people. However, this proper writing format is one of the most confusing approaches to conveying how the game play actually works. In this respect, it doesn’t succeed at all; at least it didn’t for me. I poured over the rules for almost a week before a light started to come on. Oh, I got the basics down, but I had to reread it a few times and in an out-of-order format to make my mind understand all of the games (for lack of a better word) intricacies. Now, maybe that’s just how my brain works, but is took me a while.

Let me also say one more thing about the rules. Once I learned them, they made sense to me. Actually, the rules are very much tied in to the theme. And as such, all of the rules that might seem “fiddly” to some critics are actually carefully thought out – with a reason, I believe – regarding the game’s mechanics and theme. So with that, I am not going to give even a brief overview of the rules here, but I shortly post another “review” of just the basic rules to give people a flavor of the game. I’ve chosen to do this to A) keep this review to a reasonable length, and B) because the rules will seem like a lot in written format (but are really not, I promise) and I don’t want to overwhelm or scare people away from a good game.

Why have I ranted on for so long about this? Because the bottom line is people learn differently. I never think enough is said about this simple fact, especially when it comes to games. And if it happened to me, I’m sure there are others out there, and I just want them to know that I understand and not be put off by games like this. Just be forewarned, read the rules in whatever fashion helps you learn the game, or any game, for that matter.

- The rules are well-organized and laid out
- If you’re like me, this just happens to NOT be the way you’d want to learn them

Fun-o-meter: 2.5/5 OR 5/5 (depending on how you learn and process information)

3. Ease of Play:

The more I play games the more I appreciate a self-time-capping mechanism. This game lasts after 7 turns. During your turn, you have the option of replacing any/all of the cards in your hand. After that you have the option of paying 1 Ecu (that’s the name of the “currency” in the game, which used to be the actual form of currency in the EU before the Euro, I think…) and time travel to one of the other boards and/or play cards that let you do a variety of stuff in that epoch. Then you refresh your hand back up to 4. That’s it. Oh yeah, it’s over-simplified, but that’s the skeletal outline of a player’s turn.

In this respect, the game play is easy enough. It’s the laws of time-travel that might make it seem more complicated. There are rules for building the building tiles, rules for joining many building tiles together by having them touch on the sides, and rules within the formation of clusters of building tiles themselves, and rules for doing something on one board that might violate said rules on the other board(s). This all sounds worse than it actually is. But such is the nature of time traveling. Also, one has to understand that the last game board (the Age of Reason) along with its corresponding building-types (civil buildings) have nothing to do with how the other two boards are played upon, yet affect the way scoring is accomplished at the end. Since players only score on a board on which they have an adventurer pawn (2 boards, max), players much choose which two boards they will focus their energies into during turns 4 and 7. One board will never be scored for every player.

Overall, I think the game play is pretty cool. It’s not a fast-moving game by any means. This game was meant for the long haul. It presents many interesting choices, challenges and decisions to make. And once time travel is understood (as it relates in the world of this game) game play will be much more enjoyable.

- Game play mimics time traveling
- Game gives a deep-thinking, satisfying experience

Fun-o-meter: 4.5/5

4. Weight/Length Ratio:

This game is not for the faint at heart. And yet, it’s not that difficult either. This game is as mysterious as time travel itself. The box says upwards of 90 minutes, but really in a five player game, it may take a couple of hours. Actually, it’s wired because the box implies that it should take 90 minutes regardless of the number of players.

Honestly, I feel that there are multiple strategies one can pursue in this game. Since you only score two boards, you can play to exclusively get points on certain boards, but it’s challenging because all the boards are inextricably linked to each other. And players can mess with your plans just as easily. The scoring of the Reason board is sort of like the inverse of the other two boards, because in each of the other two boards the highest military/religious building in a domain scores civil points, while on the Reason board the most populated civil building(s) score the sum total of all the military/religious tiles in that domain. That’s trippy, if you think about it. I mean, in terms of strategy married to theme, that’s like saying if you lived in either the Age of Might or Faith, the mightiest Warlord or Pope would win the points (money), but in the Age of Reason, the person who populates the most “civil” buildings gets revenue from the other buildings types (possibly renovated), as though they were museums of ages bygone and you’re a curator or something.

The “fiddly”-ness in the rules that people complain about is not fiddly at all. In fact, a lot of the rules are pretty ingenious, IMHO. For example, size 1 buildings are never “rippled” through time, and yet, it is only the size 1 buildings that can ever be directly demolished. That is a nice balancing mechanism. Another rule I like is that you can never directly build on the Age of Reason board. This implies that we can never really affect the present, but only the future with our present actions. Yet another rule I like is that military and religious buildings are “ruins” by the time they reach the Age of Reason, as if to suggest we have moved past it all, we are enlightened, and we want to preserve what’s left as a reminder or something. This also implies that the players themselves are currently living in the Age of Reason, and they have to go back and fight to keep their own present history.

So, basically, every rule I can justify in such a way that helps with the game play, strategy, or the theme. Actually, the more you think about it (and the more you can get into the game) the more it comes across as being really well designed.

- Lots of (changing) strategies(s)
- You come away feeling as though you’ve just saved the world or something

Fun-o-meter: 4.8/5

5. The “F” Factor:

Okay, let’s face it, I for one, really like this game. Just accept the laws of time travel as they pertain to this game, and it can be a blast. I’ve already shown how the theme fits with the mechanic. Is it smooth, elegant? That’s debatable. For me, it most certainly is, but maybe I simply have low standards.

The artwork is pretty cool. It is, well, sort of “grunge” if that makes any sense, a kind of Orwellian feel to it. All of the gears and cogs around the box and board and such give it a retro-futuristic look to it all. The adventurer pawns are also pretty nifty, as they fit with the look and feel of the game. I feel like this is a game that would grow with you.

This game is well worth the time invested into it (no pun intended. Okay, maybe a little) and is plenty fun. I don’t know how hard it is to come by, as I usually don’t ever see it on the shelves anywhere, except for a single copy at my FLGS, and on the discount rack at that. But if this all sounds like something that would interest you, by all means, pick up a copy.

- “Time flies” with this game
- May not be for everybody, but it IS lots of fun

Fun-o-meter: 5/5

Overall: Recommended

Review: Bang!:: Bang! I Shot the Sheriff!!

madhujith — Sun, 08 Nov 2009 18:41:28 +0000

by madhujith
I shot the sheriff, but I did not shoot the deputy- Bob Marley

Guess most of us have heard this song, well even if you haven't don't worry. The reason I put that line up is because this game is all about shooting people down!! Well not in the real sense, but using cards! And my word is this game fun!! I have not seen a simple pack of cards pack this much punch.

The game is like:

Sheriff: I'll kill all these outlaws and restore peace!!
Outlaws: Let's kill the sheriff whoz in our way!
Deputy Sheriff: Oh no! I can't let the outlaws harm my boss!!
Renegade: Ah haa!! Here's is my best opportunity to eliminate everyone and become the new sheriff!!

Well this is the game in a nutshell. This game is truly multi-player in nature in that it can accommodate 4-7 players. So finally I've come to multi-player games! This my friends is an absolute no brainer, so even before you read the review, just pick this one up..period.

I played this for the first time with a group of strangers at Brew haha (my friend's board game cafe') and fell in love with this and ordered it immediately.Ever since where ever I've been in mid-sized groups this has been a smash hit. So much so that I had to refrain from playing as they became addicted to this game!

This is a fighting, bluffing, little bit of mystery, classic western, role playing (some of my RPG friends may take offense to this being called a Role Playing Game, but it is in a very simple sense though)!

What do you get in the box?

As I mentioned before this is just a small box of cards. Exactly the same sized box as any playing card deck:

* 7 role cards. The roles are- 1 Sheriff, 2 Deputies, 3 Outlaws and 1 Renegade
* 16 character cards. Each player chooses one for the game
* 80 Cards to play

Please don't get fooled by the components. I know some of you might wonder how come Madhu is harping about this game and this game comes just with some cards! You'll see that in the next section.

How does it play?

I'm not going to go through the entire rule set, but giving to give you all an overview of how this game flows:

* Each player get a role card viz. Sheriff, Outlaw etc. and the Sheriff reveals himself/herself. Of course the number outlaws etc. change with the number of people
* Each one is then given a character card that talks about the special ability of the character and also the number of life points indicated by the number of bullet. Now this character card plays the role given to you. E.g. Bart Cassidy one of the characters might play the outlaw, Willy the Red might play the Sheriff.
* Each one gets another character card, but this one he keeps it face down with the bullet side up and covers it using his previous character card to indicate the number of life points. Note: The sheriff has one extra life point as he discloses himself!
* Each player gets 4 cards as a starting hand.

This is the game set up and now the shooting can begin!

* The sheriff starts the play
* During any players turn, they draw 2 cards from the draw pile
* Play as many cards as they want or not play any as well! (which btw is very rare)
* In case they have more cards than their current life points they discard down to match the current life status

With such simple rules, you might wonder where is the fin element?

* The playing card deck comes with a variety of cards, but the most important ones are the Bang and Missed cards. Use the Bang card to shoot someone and missed card to avoid the hit!
* Apart from this there are special blue bordered cards that give you additional powers like increasing your range of shooting(each person starts with a range of one, meaning they can shoot players who are next to them, either side)
* They can put others in Jail (not the most pleasant thing to do)
* Indians attach so shoot them down
* There is a machine gun attack so avoid or get hit!
* Someone can take away your powers!
* Someone uses a dynamite!
* Oh my God! I'm hit! I'm hit! drink beer and save yourself!!

Many many more fun options to play it. There is never a dull moment in the game and it is high voltage action all along. But for the Sheriff none of the other players reveal their roles, so it is going to be a game of cat and mouse trying to guess who is on whose side!

* If the sheriff and his deputy kill all the outlaws and Renegade they win
* If the outlaws kill the sheriff they win!
* If the Renegade manages to be the only one alive- he wins (this btw is the most difficult role and fun role to play)

You don't know who's on whose side, but you keep guessing and shooting at people. There is going to be chaos, pandemonium and lots and lots of laughter.

There is limited amount of strategy, but this game was not supposed to be a strategy brain burner, but just a game of unadulterated fun and laughter for the family and friends alike.

I've seen people seeking revenge the next time around when they play completely disregarding the roles!!!!!! Absolutely hilarious this ine I say!! I have heard stories where people have almost got into fist fights!!

Enough of what I've said, just try this and I can assure you you'll find this very hard to put down.

How long does it play?

A typical game should go on for about 30 min. I would say it lasts somewhere between 30-40 min. So there you go, such a small duration and so much fun. Just that it might take a little longer in the initial games till you get used to the different cards, but once you are through, the fun really kicks in :-)

Who would you recommend it to?

You cannot not have this one..period!! Go get it everyone immediately!

Any Downsides?

Well really there are not too many things that I can complain about this game, but for some small things like the cards are not of the greatest quality and because you tend to play this so many times, may to wear out fast. There is little but of learning curve, but nothing to worry.

The only thing I would say about this game is- the more the merrier. Though you can play with 4 people, I would say 6-7 is the sweet spot. Now you may not have this number all the time, but when you have it don't miss it!

Final Thoughts!

I have played this game more than any other game with a lot of different groups- age group ranging from10-50 yrs and everyone has enjoyed this a lot.NO EXCEPTION! I have never stopped this game at just one round, people always ask me to get it out as their first game on any game nights! I have had to tell some that my Bang copy is with someone so that I could play something else; that is how addictive this game is :-)

Though there is limited strategy/tactics purely based on the fun element this ranks as one of my top rated games!

Recently a friend of mine who did not know what board games were got this through his brother in the US!

I have no hesitation in ASKING you all to go get a copy of this game!!

Review: 10 Days in Asia:: 10 Days in Asia- Slightly different take

madhujith — Sun, 08 Nov 2009 18:30:18 +0000

by madhujith
Well,you don't get to really see Asia, but yes, you can see Asia's map and get familiar and go to possibly 10 different countries in 10 days! Well that's what this game is all about. Traveling! around Asia. I had read about this series i.e. the 10 Days series (it comes in 4 variants- 10 Days in Asia, Europe, Africa and USA) and some of them had mentioned that this was the best among the lot and a good introductory game for people into boardgames.

While I can't comment on how good the rest are, as I haven't played them, I agree to some extent that this can be a good introductory game for children rather than adults.

Before I go into the game- if you have kids at home, get the entire series, it can be a good geographical experience for them, they will surely learn to locate countries and can learn about their capital, population and the size :-)

What do you get in the Box?

For a light game, the box is very heavy! You'll see why :-)

* 78 tiles (57 Country tiles and 21 transportation tiles)
* 4 sets of wooden tile holders, 2 per set (this makes the box heavy). These wooden hilders have Day 1- Day 10 printed on them to keep the tile in the appropriate slot.
* A nicely printed map of Asia

The game is printed by Out of the Box and the quality of components is top class, though they could have made things light.

How does it Play?

* Players take tiles 10 of them from the face down draw pile and place them one after the the other without changing the order
* One placed they cannot be moved
* Place 3 tiles face up, which forms the discard pile

This is the initial setup and then the players start:

* On your turn, you pick up a tile either from the face down pile or from any of the face up discard pile
* You must place this tile by removing one tile from your tile holder, which is then discarded onto any of the 3 piles
* You may even discard the card you have just drawn

That's it, these are the rules. very simple right! The first to complete a logical route of 10 days is the winner!

Of course there are some aspects that needs to be adhered to while completing a route:

* Completed10 day journeys should start and end with country tiles and not transportion tiles
* 2 tiles from the same country may be included so long as they are not next to each other
* It is not necessary to include any trasnportation tiles in your route
* Transportation tiles cannot be placed next to each other

Now having said all these how do you connect?

* Any country that is adjacent can be traveled by road, so just keep it next to each other
* On the map is the rail route connecting countries and hence you can use a Rail tile to connect those 2 countries
* Each country has a color code (5 colors in all). So you can use a plane of appropriate color and connect it to another country of the same color. Eg. India (brown)- Brown plane- Russia (brown)
* Countries can be connected so long as they are on the same ocean i.e. Indian or Pacific.

So not fussy at all, pretty straight forward to learn and play :-) There is very little strategy or tactic as everything is based on tile draw, though some nasty things like placing a tile on one of the discard pile to prevent your opponent from getting a tile that you know he/she wants is a fun thing to do :-)

How long does it play?

With a really bad set of tile draws the game can extend upto 30 minutes, else 15-20 min is what you are looking at. Of course with 4 people, you can say it might be a 30 min game on an average. So pretty fast.

Who would you recommend it to?

Well I would say any household with young kids should have the entire set, just because parents can sit with kids, have fun and also learn some basic geography stuff! Otherwise I would say give this a skip as this becomes too boring with limited replayability.

Any Downsides?

Even casual gamers might not get into this game as it is too light (that's been my experience with my group). One say a very rare occasion you might get a play or two, but that's about it. With luck playing such an important role, very difficult to induce gamers into this game :-)

Final Thoughts!

Well, though this game is simple and fun, I would strongly recommend this to only families with kids as they can enjoy more than a grown up adult gaming group. But as a learning to know where countries are, this can be a fun game of and on! Try it if you get a chance before you buy! I would say for people with Children, get all the 4 games and play 40 days around the World!!

Review: Quelf:: You Take A Shot Every Time You... : A Quelf Review

Focuscoene — Sun, 08 Nov 2009 17:25:50 +0000

by Focuscoene
Quelf is not a game for gamers. I'm actually rather fond of party games myself (I know some people who poo-poo them without even a glance). They have their purpose, which is to get everybody kind of into gaming mode before settling down into something perhaps a bit more serious.

Either that, or they make great drinking games.

The idea behind Quelf is to be foolish and have fun doing it. For those of you who are familiar with the drinking game Kings (or "Circle of Death", as I've heard it called), you will feel right at home. The thing is, those of you familiar with Kings would probably rather just play a game of kings, as the board really serves no purpose other than to tell you what kind of thing you're going to do.

Everyone keeps saying this is a great game for letting loose and acting silly and yadda-yadda-yadda. My opinion, which was agreed upon all across the board with my group, is that it has the silly without the game, thus making the silly feel TOO arbitrary. Meaning, you may draw a card that says you have to run around like an ostrich, but other than the act itself there's no real motivation to do this.

Honestly, there's not much else to say on the matter. It needs more to it. Maybe if you got bonus cards or something, anything else other than moving forward on the board a la Candy Land, it would have been an excellent party game. Instead, it just feels like it's making you do stuff and not rewarding you for it in any way.

On a positive note, the board itself is pretty, and the character designs that you move around on the board are very creative (there's an old-maid looking pickle who apparently is romantically involved with the guy with a screw for a head). Oh, that's another thing! The characters!

When you read the rules, they make it sound like what character you pick is going to have an impact on the game, meaning some cards you draw are going to say, "If you are Platypus, then draw an extra card and do both!" or something. This rarely, rarely happens, and when it does the effect it has is practically non-existent. That part was a huge letdown.

So there you have it. I recommend other party games over this one, however I'm sure that there are groups out there that this really strikes a note with. Maybe groups that aren't acting crazy all the time anyway need a little something like this in order to get to that point, but my group does half of this stuff out of boredom so who needs a Candy Land board to prompt us?

Review: Krysis:: a light review based on 2 plays

horlaci — Sun, 08 Nov 2009 16:26:41 +0000

by horlaci
Hello,

I played this game on a Mensa event yesterday, and I decided to share my opinion. This is my first review, so I don't make any formal things, just rely on my feelings.

Here is a picture of the first game end:
]]>
http://www.boardgamegeek.com/image/600971?size=medium

I don't want to list here all the rules, but a few facts on the concept.
You are gathering gems and relics in the game. You do this by mining, and then carry the mined things to Your "home". Mining is done on the board provided for the game by placing the miners on slots. (see the upper right part of the picture). Placing order is determined by bidding.

The things You mined automatically transfer to Your "camp", which is the place in front of Your little hut. (in the picture, the orange player has 9 gems in his camp). Your "home" is the place inside Your hut (yellow player has 6 gems in his home).

So, You hire 3 agents in each round (practically: choose 3 cards from your hand 6) to do some action. possible actions are:
- carry some gems/relics home from the camp
- rob another camp and carry those gems/relics home
- additionally mine gems of sum value 6

OK. I'm hungarian, so I was very pleased to see a game from hungarian designers, but my first thought when starting reading the rules was OMGWTF. Are You serious? Some creepy monster-animal-dwarf-like creatures from the future mining "relics" leftover from our time, which are in fact guns & bags. Hmmm. I was afraid, that the - lets face it - at least to say unusual theme might ruin the game. But it did not!!
In fact, these two plays was very exciting, and I soon realized that the theme goes very well with the mechanics, which is just amazing!

PROs:
1. Playing time. The game takes EXACTLY 5 rounds, no more, no less, so the playing time is very predictable once You become familiar with the game. Even with the rules explained just before the game, the first game took 1 hour, the second about 45 minutes, and I can see experienced players still lowering this value. But be aware, You will absolutely want to play more then one game one night!
2. Decisions. There is very little randomness in this game. In fact, the only random thing during play is the 6 cards in your hand (from which You have to choose 3 agents). There are 18 cards for each player. This randomness is balanced with the fact, that every player has exactly the same 18 cards (when playing with the basic rules), which will anyway be played in the game, just the order is not fixed. This means, that Your decisions - rather than luck - will influence the outcome. And these decisions can be hard to make. Without going into details: The gems and relics have other usage then only points to gather at "home", and to build up Your agent "army", You have to balance between speed, power, and strength of Your agent group very carefully.
3. Plays very well with both 3 and 4 players. Practically there were no difference in excitement value between these scenarios. I can easily imagine extending the gameplay to 5 or 6 players, there is nothing in the mechanic against this, and it seems to scale up very good. Probably another mine board would be needed though. I hope we will see this in an expansion.
4. Beautiful parts. The cards, board, gems are very high quality. I prefer the standard sized playing cards - which these are not - but anyway, it feels good to take the parts into Your hand. The box is also very good, not too big, and with fine art and colors.
5. Replayability. Seeing the possible tactical choices during the game, I say the replayability is very high. Even with the basic rules. And there are also advanced rules, with additional cards, which we haven't tried yet. This is definitely a great value!

CONs:
1. AP. I think this is a direct effect of the second point above. Although we didn't have an issue with this during this two games, I can easily imagine that players who tend to have serious AP will have it in this game too. You have to plan very carefully, and even further ahead then just one round, so the decisions can take some time. This generates some downtime for the other players, but this is not an issue. (They will also be planning ahead during this time... ) A gentle warning "Come on... put that agent down" will most likely be enough.
2. No randomness can mean, that the expert people will kick the newcomers asses in the first 2-3 plays. (I don't know the learning curve yet, as i am not an expert)
3. 2 player game? Since in our games, the decisions "whose camp shall I rob" was indeed a big excitement, I can imagine that excitement will go down in a duel. haven't tried it though. Opinions welcome on this.

So for me, this is a definite hit for Christmas, and now second on my "things to buy" list. The mechanics are amazingly good. I just mind that it does not play (yet?) with 5 or 6 players.
Grats for the designers!

regards,
Laszlo

Review: Kogworks:: Kogworks- Turn the Gears of your Mind!

madhujith — Sun, 08 Nov 2009 16:12:28 +0000

by madhujith
Kogworks from Dr. Wood's stable of games. "An Amazing Strategy Game" is what the punch line reads. Well to be honest, this is far from being amazing, but something that can definitely keep you engaged for short periods of time. The game is short and so is this review :-) (Won't bore you all to death)

This is a game played with 30 gears (spur gears)- 15 of each color. Players try to for a chain that connects the gears to a final golden gear at the top of the board and when the bottom one is turned the entire series should turn. This is the game in a nutshell.

Kogworks by- Dr. Woods

Dr. Woods is an Australian company that produces a lot of puzzles, mind benders and abstract games like this one, Kaleidoscope, Heist etc. The company was incorporated with the express mandate to globally commercialize the works of Dr Mark Wood (psychologist) and Frank Dyksterhuis (mathematician/physicist).

I personally feel that Kogworks is one of their better products compared to a host of other games and puzzles that they have out in the market. BTW, all their products are available across all the Landmark bookstores across the country and Crossword bookstores.

This is again a 2 player game. Takes about 5-7 min to read the rules and understand it.

What do you get in the box?

It comes in an oddly shaped triangular (well almost) shaped box:

* A triangular board with lot of pegs to mount the gear
* 15 Red colored gears
* 15 Blue colored gears
* 1 Gold gear

The quality of the plastics are good and robust. I say this as all these gears are constantly moving and needs to be strong :-)

How does it play?

This is a very simple game that offers good tactical depth. However if there was any category called as very light games, I would gladly put this under that.

* Place 3 gears-1 each in red and blue and the gold colored gears at 3 corners of the board.
* Each player chooses a color and starts placing a gear on alternating turns
* After each gear each player must prove that his base gear (the corner gear) can turn
* Players can block the other by forming a triangular formation
* Players cannot have 2 of their gears in a corner forming a triangle
* The 1st player to reach the gold gear and successfully turn it by turning the base gear or successfully block their opponent in a way that they can;t turn the base gear is the winner

This is it! Simple to learn and play. I would say it players well even with kids!

How long does it play?

The box says it takes between 15-30 min. I say it usually takes somewhere between 10-15 min with occasional games going up to 20 min. So it players fairly fast, with very little downtime. Its great for a coffee break!

Who would you recommend it to?

If you are looking for a very light game to be placed on your table that you can play while waiting for someone- this is a good game. This is also a good game to keep kids engaged. If you are looking for a deeper game, don't even think about it.

Any Downsides?

Personally I'm not a big fan of light games. This game looks attractive but fails to impress you in terms of game play. You'll come across this game as a very superficial game and might lose interest after a few game plays, as it lack both in variety and depth. But never the less a good game if you want to finish fast or kill time.

Final Thoughts!

Personally I guess this is one of Dr. Woods' better games. Others like Kingdom Quest are heavily flawed and not worth your time. This being a very light game can form an addition to your collection, but you may want to try this one out in any of these stores- the guys would be more than happy to play a game with you! Then decide if you want to spend on this.

Review: Machtspiele:: Portuguese Review

Soledade — Sun, 08 Nov 2009 15:43:51 +0000

by Soledade
previamente publicado em http://spielportugal.blogspot.com/

A coragem de publicar um jogo é assumida no momento em que se lê, "autor dois pontos" [autor:]. Quando o autor aparece no plural achamos que foi uma feliz coincidência do destino e, às vezes, até tentamos perceber quem foi o Alfa e o Ómega daquela criação. Mas quando o autor é mais que um plural, quando ele é várias pessoas ao mesmo tempo, ficamos mais desconfiados e com dificuldade em entender. Se o tipo assina uma caixa dizendo Bauldric & friends, o que pensar dele a não ser que:

1. está com vergonha de assumir o possível fracasso da sua criação.

2. a humildade saiu à rua como um bom samba de verão e partilha a criação com tudo o resto da sua vida.

Depois de já ter jogado Power Struggle cheguei à conclusão que a opção dois é a mais coerente com a caixa e com o que está lá dentro. O orgulho de assinar este jogo a solo era algo que eu gostava de conseguir. Mas eu terei o ego mais inchado que este Bauldric & friends. Ele fez-me relembrar a citação de Picasso "espero que quando a inspiração chegar me encontre acordado". Só assim se explica que o tema mais enfadonho do mundo se torne num bom jogo de duas horas. No caso de Picasso, uma carreira inteira prova que ele esteve sempre muito acordado. No caso dos amigos e do próprio Bauldric, este primeiro jogo não prova coisa alguma a não ser uma noite mal dormida em que o talento bateu à porta. O futuro dirá sobre o resto.

O acontecimento específico de Power Struggle prova, também, que o tema mais chato do mundo pode resultar bem desde que um jogo seja bem elaborado e, sobretudo isto, bem testado. Mas afinal, qual é o mais aborrecido de todos os temas? Bom, passo a opinião muito pessoal mas, definitivamente, a burocracia. Power Struggle é um jogo sobre burocracia. Os jogadores são "colaboradores" (acho que é assim que se deve dizer agora) de uma companhia empresarial imensa, e o objectivo é meter as pessoas certas nos lugares certos a fazer as coisas certas.

Contratar pessoal, abrir departamentos, chegar às chefias, tornar-se accionista ou ter conselheiros, são algumas das muitas opções que este jogo nos mostra. Para conseguir algumas destas coisas, por vezes, as ajudas dos vários chefes de departamentos que existem na empresa são essenciais. Um suborno pode ajudar a cumprir um determinado objectivo (claro) e um favor bem articulado pode conseguir-nos um amigo para o futuro. Ou não! Tudo isto, todas estas estruturas, funcionam de forma muito bem articulada, de processos simples mas com grande complexidade na decisão. Estamos a falar de burocracia e, portanto, é confuso.

As malhas com que o poder se cruza em Power Struggle são imensas e complexas. Os jogadores, primeiro e de forma mais ou menos óbvia, vão tentando chegar a chefes de departamentos. Noutros casos, tentando chegar à administração da empresa e noutros ainda, ser o presidente do conselho de administração. Todas estas coisas geram pontos que estão inscritos no tabuleiro. Dando um exemplo simples, quando um jogador conseguir chegar a presidente do conselho de administração da empresa, ele factura dois pontos de influência. Um dos objectivos do jogo é conseguir ter 7 pontos de influência. Ou quando um jogador consegue posicionar-se como conselheiro da empresa assegurando a pasta de, por exemplo, Comunicação, ele já está mais perto de outro dos objectivos possíveis para vencer o jogo e que passa por conseguir ser conselheiro em três matérias diferentes - contabilidade, comunicação, desenvolvimento ou recursos humanos, entre outros. São também estes departamentos que dão algumas vantagens aos seus respectivos chefes. Por exemplo, o chefe dos recursos humanos, quando está para recrutar alguém para o seu departamento, tem a vantagem de poder recrutar mais gente pelo mesmo dinheiro. É uma vantagem de quem manda. Claro que, estes pequenos poderes que os chefes têm, são cobiçados o suficiente durante o jogo, tornando-os apetecíveis o suficiente e justificando os tais subornos de que há pouco falava. Todas estas informações estão presentes no tabuleiro. Quer isto dizer que, os jogadores sabem quem está para ganhar porque é visível. As condições de vitória são idênticas às que encontramos em Tribun - há várias opções (7) e os jogadores têm de realizar 4 delas. O primeiro a consegui-lo é o vencedor do jogo ou, só para chatear, o burocrata capaz.

A única adenda que o jogo traz, quando comparado com as condições de vitória de Tribun, é uma condição de vitória escondida e que dá alguma pimenta (mais alguma) a Power Struggle. No início do jogo são distribuídos aos jogadores uma carta com um arqui-inimigo. Esse arqui-inimigo será um jogador adversário e o jogador que recebe a carta tem de fazer melhor que esse seu inimigo em 3 parâmetros. Ou seja, ninguém sabe quem é o arqui-inimigo de cada jogador nem quais são os parâmetros em que estes têm de ser melhores. Esta característica confere algum factor surpresa ao jogo, tornando-o mais tenso e menos óbvio quando se procura o vencedor. Isto porque, a quarta condição de vitória, aquela que dá o xeque-mate, pode ser alcançada às escondidas e na surpresa - embora numa surpresa consciente. Funciona como uma espécie de James Bond e Dr. No mas sem o carro maravilha e a Ursula Andress! O nosso arqui-inimigo é para abater com estilo.

A burocracia de Power Struggle esbate-se com a celeridade e com o interesse das acções que cada jogador tem ao seu dispor. Eu gosto de poder contratar empregados, subornar chefes, acabar com departamentos. Culpado! Gosto de poder influenciar cada uma das minhas decisões, distrair-me com o jogo em si. Sabemos que temos objectivos por cumprir e que, ganhar o jogo, passa por eles mas, quando me embrenho naquela teia de gestão de recursos (humanos e outros) entretenho-me de tal maneira que me esqueço dos objectivos e espalho magia. Esqueço-me de que o meu objectivo é simples - se sou extremo, tenho de chegar à linha e cruzar. Se sou ponta de lança, só vejo baliza e tenho de fazer golo. Se sou defesa, bola para o mato que o jogo é de campeonato. Esqueço-me de tudo isto e começo a fintar no meu meio campo, saio a jogar desde a defesa ou assisto o médio quando estou à frente da baliza. Fico distraído com o jogo porque me apetece jogar à bola com estilo. E perco. Mas perco cheio de graça e fantasia e com o saldo de dever cumprido - um sorriso de quem se empoleirou no banco e assaltou a caixinha de bolachas.

Review: Assyria:: Assyria Initial Review

Eisley — Sun, 08 Nov 2009 14:01:06 +0000

by Eisley
Ystari games usually contain careful planning and thinking, so when we were at the Rio Grande Games stand we decided to give it a try. Players place huts on a landscape featuring two rivers, supply their huts with food and can perform other actions too. The goal is to score as many points as possible from building ziggurats, hut placement and winning favour with dignitaries.

The game lasts eight turns split into three reigns (lasting 2 turns, 3 turns and 3 turns each). In the first phase of a turn, players select food from the cards available. There’s never enough food for what you really want and the food you select will determine player turn order too. Next, players place their huts on the board’s hex spaces. Placing huts on rivers earns camels (used to perform important empire expanding actions later) and huts placed elsewhere earn points.
Once huts are placed, they must be supplied or they will perish. Each hex space on the board has a specific food type on it and it is this food type that the player will need to supply the hut with. If a player has a group of huts next to each other then they create a well which scores instant extra points too.

After removing any unsupplied huts, players use their camels to perform actions, all of which give the player the chance to earn points at the end of the turn or end of the game. The actions include building or developing ziggurats, vying for favour with the dignitaries, buying one of the remaining food cards, and so on. If it’s now the end of a reign (i.e. after the 2nd, 5th or 8th turn), the river floods and any huts on a river space are removed.

Assyria is a very tight and strategic resource and building game. Huts must be placed next to your existing huts/ziggurats which means you’ll need a wide variety of food to feed them which of course you’re unlikely to get because you only get a small variety of food each turn. You want to place huts to gain camels, but also want to place huts to build wells and earn points. In most games, you ensure that anything you build survives, but in Assyria you start to realise huts are actually (fairly) easy come, easy go. It just isn’t possible to feed all of your huts every turn especially when you add further huts to existing ones, but still only get a small amount of food each turn. Once you realise huts being removed is okay (although you still need to have a plan), the game’s full tactics start to reveal themselves.

The mechanism for turn order and food is very clever. Five food cards are drawn randomly but are laid down so that the cards have increasing amounts of food going from left to right. A second row of five cards is added below the first in the same way. Players then get to pick a column of two cards for their food income. Taking the cards on the far left means they get the least food but means they will go first in the turn order, and vice versa. It’s a very neat game balancing system. Unfortunately, sometimes the food type you really need just isn’t available which can really get in the way of your plans.

I liked the flood at the end of each reign as it resets the board quite a lot because so many huts get removed. This means a player who had a bad couple of turns can progress from a more level point.

I had a problem with the wells as they scored a lot of points, are limited in number and, once you have one well, it seemed too easy to build more. Unfortunately, certain food types weren’t available at the start so I was unable to build huts to create a well. As a result, I found I just wasn’t able to catch-up. During the game, I closed the lead my opponents had gained from their wells but there was no way to catch them. I dont think this is a flaw in the rules, but it was a harsh lesson to build wells early.

Overall, Assyria offers lots of thinking & planning. I enjoyed the mechanics especially as you never felt comfortable and were always scraping for resources. Due to the inter-related resource management, I felt I only really understood the game after the first few turns. I would gladly play it again but would definitely focus on building wells and not trying to keep huts when trashing them and building others would serve me better. An enjoyable thinking game (maybe prone to analysis paralysis by some players) and not as heavy as it might sound.

James.

[Played with 3 players]

This review and other reviews of Essen Spiel 09 games on my blog at http://thegameofgaming.wordpress.com

Review: Ystari Box:: Review of the Caylus Magna Carta: Royal Favor portion of the Ystari Box

Blue Steel — Sun, 08 Nov 2009 07:38:47 +0000

by Blue Steel
Caylus Magna Carta is my favorite board game ever made. So when I had the opportunity to acquire the Royal Favor expansion from the Ystari Box (out of a copy picked up in Essen), I had to take it.

The Ystari Box comes with expansions for five or six different games, which is an odd decision in and of itself. It has the effect of forcing people to pick up expansions they may not want and then trading them off piecemeal. I believe a few other companies are moving in the same direction, but for what it's worth, I am not a fan of the idea. That said, let me get on to the review of the Royal Favor:

What You Get

The Royal Favor expansion comes with two main portions: (1) the building cards, workers, and passing token for a fifth player to enjoy the base game and (2) a small board, replacement prestige buildings, resource cards, four wooden tokens for each player, and special joust cards for each player to play the Royal Favor version of the game.

The combination of a fifth player option and the Royal Favor rules and materials makes it the meatiest expansion in the Ystari Box and a good value for fans of the game.

On the Positive Side

The fifth player option is awesome, and all by itself well worth the price of admission. As a huge fan of the game, I absolutely love being able to get more friends into a match.

The Royal Favor expansion adds a lot of deep options and a very fresh, interesting new twist on the card game version of the modern classic original game of Caylus. You get even more of the feel of the original, with the ability to choose a favor with the use of certain buildings, construction of certain prestige buildings, or for making the most or earliest contributions to the castle in a round. The favor options include a quick victory point (up to 15 maximum that way), a random resource card that can be redeemed at any time, or advancement through three levels of six special powers.

The special powers are very interesting and make for some tough decisions. For example, you can gain the power to make your first two provost movements for free, or give up a worker for a coin, or give up a coin for a resource card, or give up a worker for the ability to build a building with one less resource of your choice, or get both the benefit of the primary and secondary effects of your own buildings when you place a worker on them, or pay a coin to get a victory point during the income phase.

I was afraid the expansion would undermine some of the elegance and purity of the base game, and it may to some small degree, but it adds a lot more interesting decisions without significantly lengthening the play time of the game, so for variety it is a fun and excellent option to have available.

On the Negative Side

The rules are very brief, but some examples would help clarify some of the potential confusions and ambiguities. There are a few of those in the rules, but they are very minor.

The fifth player color, purple, is a shade that is tough to distinguish from the red player cards in dim light, so that is unfortunate, but it is something most players can live with.

The fifth player workers are shaped differently (short and stout) from the other four players' workers. That seems strange as all the players no longer match, but it may be just a difference between the versions for different countries and some players may actually like the variety of slightly different worker tokens.

Perhaps the biggest potential problem over the long term, though, is that the favor options do not seem perfectly balanced. Admittedly, that is a preliminary assessment, and I may decide that the balance is adequate for sufficiently interesting games or that the balance is only slightly problematic and only with certain numbers of players. But specifically, at this point, I suspect that resource cards are a little on the weak side (too random and not as good as other options), and the powers to move the provost twice for free (even if you don't do it, having the power to do so and thus limit other players' abilities to thwart your plans) and especially the power to build your buildings with one less resource (with the sacrifice of a worker for the round) seem incredibly powerful. The elimination of a resource required on buildings gives you a tremendous benefit, and I personally think this level 2 power is better than the level 3 power of using both the primary and secondary benefits of your own buildings. It provides flexibility that greatly exceeds that of the resource cards, for example, saves the player time collecting the resource they no longer need which they likely would have had to collect a previous round, and saves money because they didn't have to pay a coin to make that worker earn the resource, as they would have if they collected the resource the traditional way (such as using a quarry). Faster, cheaper, and more flexible such that you can decide at the moment you build what resource you need?? That specific power is overpowered, and that makes the decisions a little too easy and too automatic.

In Conclusion

Though not as perfect as the base game, which I readily give a 10 out of 10 and recommend to everyone, I still find the expansion a great addition, particularly the fifth player option and the different way to enjoy the game in general. I would rate the expansion an 8 out of 10 and say it is definitely worth grabbing if you can get it by itself or if you want the other expansions in the Ystari Box as well.

Review: Borderline:: Thrifty Review

Meat — Sun, 08 Nov 2009 05:55:21 +0000

by Meat
The Thrift Report
This game was pretty much a afterthought the day I bought it. Who can blame me for not thinking too much of it the day I found it? After all, I picked up not one, but two, copies of Blood Bowl second edition at the same time. But as it is a two player abstract, a particular weakness of mine, I snagged it as well. Truth be told I didn't have high expectations of this one. Would this borderline purchase be destined to be rethrifted?

Overview

In this perfect information two player abstract game, you are trying to move any one of your pieces across the board to your opponent's home row. The first to do so wins. You can also win by eliminating all your opponent's pieces, but this is rare.

This review is being written after a small number of plays against my eight year old son.

Components

In your sturdy rectangular box you get

- 24 player pieces for each player, 12 each in blue and red
- 1 folding board
- The rules

The playing pieces are plastic and trapezoidal in shape. A sticker is affixed on the top face. There are two kinds of pieces -- those with the number 1 in the white on a white field and those with the number 2 on a white field. The numbers from 1-4 are printed clockwise, one per quadrant.

Ah, the heck with it -- here's a picture that shows you exactly what I'm yammering about:

]]>

They're fine pieces, but nothing special.

The board is a grid, with nine rows and six columns. The first and ninth rows are the home rows for the players. The board is quite a bit longer than it is wide, and it folds once along the short edges. This leads to a rather awkwardly shaped box. Yeah, it's a rectangle, but it's a rather narrow and long rectangle, in such a size that it matches absolutely none of my other games. And I have a LOT of games, so this is no small feat. I would have preferred a more squarish configuration by folding the board along the longer edges. Or possibly a smaller yet form factor by having a quad folding board. The pieces don't take up much room, so the box is only as large as it is so as to accommodate the board. A better board configuration would have served them well, in my opinion.

The rules come on a single sheet of paper, folded booklet style. The actual rules take up the inner leafs of the booklet while play examples are on the back leaf. The front leaf is dedicated to the Title Page. While it's possible to learn the game from the rules, and the play examples are particularly useful, there are some glaring problems with the presentation. The least of which is a sentence that

Just like that. It dies in the middle. How that passed proofreading is impossible to know. Luckily the rules of the game are very simple, and the game intuitive enough that you can figure things out just from looking at the pieces and seeing the examples. But with this kind of shoddy quality control, is it any wonder that the publisher is credited with no other games in the entire BGG database?

As you can tell, I was quite underwhelmed by the components.

Game Play

The pieces are set up such that all your '2' facing units are in your home row and all your '1' facing units are in next row. Just like this picture:

]]>

I'm going to refer to the pieces by the number on their white quadrants, which face toward your opponent's side of the board.

Look at the pieces again -- you will see a number in each quadrant on the top face. This is the number of spaces the piece can move in that direction. So your 1 pieces can move one forward, two to the right, three to the rear and four to the left. I'll leave you to figure out how the 2 pieces can move. You have to move the exact number -- you can't move a 1 piece to the left, say, unless there are four squares on the board to the left of the piece. If there are three or fewer squares between this piece and the edge of the board you cannot move the piece to the left. Nor can you land on a piece of your own colour. You can jump over them, but can't land on them.

You capture enemy pieces by either jumping over them or landing on them. This will allow you to capture a maximum of four enemy pieces, if your enemy was silly enough to line up four pieces to the left of one of your '1' pieces, for example. I don't think that's likely to happen, in all honesty, but it's good to have a dream.

On a player's turn, he will move a single piece, possibly capturing an enemy piece but more likely not. Or not immediately, anyway. In the early part of the game players jockey for position and try to force an exchange from which they will gain an advantage. At this point you are likely to see a flurry of capturing. The end game sees a bit more space on the board (relatively speaking, of course) and the victor will find his way to his opponent's home row.

It all takes about 20 minutes or less.

Thoughts

My expectations for this game were quite low. Lack luster components, awkward rule book and, at first impression, simplistic gameplay all counted against this. As I said in my thrifting report, I almost didn't pick this up. It was basically an afterthought -- after I picked up two Blood Bowl boxes I thought about this one. There were a few reasons I picked it up: its price ($2), it's game type (2 player abstract) and its 'oddity' factor -- I had guessed that this would be an obscure game with little information on the Geek. And since I was right, I felt duty bound to add content, including a review.

So that's why I brought it out recently, so I could get an impression of the game based on more than 'gut feel from the rules', which was, in all honesty, 'do not want'.

Well, I gotta tell you, my gut was dead wrong. I'm not surprised that the game exceeded my expectations -- they were so low as to be almost non-existent -- but I was surprised with how much my expectations were exceeded. I'll say it simply -- this is a really good two player abstract.

Is it great? No. It will never raise to the level of the classics, obviously. Nor will it threaten the great modern abstracts. But if you like two player abstracts, I can say with almost perfect certainty that you will like this one.

So, what did I like about it? Well, there's a certain level of elegance in the rules -- they're just as complicated as they need to be to make an engaging game. With only two types of pieces you would think that you are overly limited -- I had at first. The first impression is that the game would be much more interesting if you had different configurations for the pieces. And while that would lead to more variety, after playing the game I can safely say that this is unnecessary.

As it is, the two configurations lead to some interesting limitations for your pieces, as you're limited to the exact number for each direction. Look at the pieces again -- you will notice that the '2' faces are opposite the '4' faces. Big deal, right? Well, it actually is, since your '2' pieces, starting on row 1 can only move to other odd numbered rows. Likewise, half your '1' pieces will be restricted to odd numbered columns and the other half to even columns. This may not seem like a huge deal, until you actually need a piece to be in the other configuration. It's like the bishop in chess -- you don't think it's a big deal that it's restricted to white, until you need it to be on a black square.

So, what is a game like? Like with many abstracts I see three distinct phases. The early game sees players positioning their pieces in formation. Pieces will move toward the center and occasionally near their enemy's side. Here you are usually keeping your advancing pieces protected by supporting pieces. Frequently the advancing pieces will be forced to retreat

Soon, the middle of the board will be quite cluttered and the middle game begins. At this point, one player is likely to force a situation where a series of captures is inevitable, and in such a way as to give himself a numerical advantage. A flurry of captures is likely, leaving a somewhat depleted board.

Which brings you to the end game, which is all about maneuvring your remaining pieces to score a victory. It's usually at this point that you regret not having a piece that can easily move to a particular column.

Is this a game that can stand repeated plays? I think so. I don't think you can play it into the ground and still be surprised by it, like you can with, say, chess and go. But if you've played it enough to get bored of it you've gotten your money's worth, I think.

Playing with children

The game is recommended for ages 8 and up. This is probably just about right. Younger kids who play other abstracts could easily pick this one up, though.

Against kids, you can handicap yourself by playing with fewer pieces. Or you can do what I do and allow 'take backs' for the kids, where they can undo a move after you show them how truly disastrous it was.

Who will like this game

Fans of two player abstracts.

Thrifty Details
Cost: $2
Value: High

Summary:
Intended Audience: Kids and their parents
Components: Underwhelming
Game Play: Very Good
Luck Factor: None
Skill Level: High
Fun Factor: High

Recommendation:

At thrift prices, fans of two player abstracts can't go wrong with this one.

About Thrifty Reviews
These reviews are for games that are not well represented on the Geek and are most likely to be found only in thrift stores or other second hand sources. The intent of Thrifty Reviews is two-fold: First is the desire to document under represented games and second is to help fellow thrifters gauge potential purchases. Anyone is welcome to write a Thrifty Review, and all thrifters are encouraged to write reviews for their finds.

Review: Toxic Crusaders Card Game:: Toxic Crusaders, Reviewed By a Troma Fan

RyanStrong — Sun, 08 Nov 2009 01:56:35 +0000

by RyanStrong
I bought this for a few bucks on Ebay in 2004, and I just got around to breaking the shrink (!) and actually playing the thing. I was a fan of this show when it was on nearly twenty years ago, and became a lifelong Toxic Avenger fan a few years after that.

So there's a fair bit of nostalgia involved, here. Is it enough to make this game worthwhile? Not really.

This is an exceedingly simple game. One part War, one part Memory, with a few interesting new mechanics thrown in.

It basically goes like this: Two decks of mini-cards (imaginatively labeled 'Pollution' and 'Pollution Solution') are laid out Memory-style. Each player is given an even number of 'Good Guy' and 'Bad Guy' cards, (strangely) numbered 6-10, which are kept face down in front of them.

On a player's turn, he or she flips over a 'Good Guy' card, while the player on their left turns over a 'Bad Guy' card. If the Good Guy wins, they get to flip one card from each Memory deck, trying to match up colors--to find a 'solution' to each 'pollution' if you will. If the Bad Guy wins, the Good Guy's turn is over, and the Bad Guy gives the spinner a flick. If the spinner points at Toxie, he gets a chance at a match. Play continues to the left (with the former Bad Guy becoming the new Good Guy). Play continues until all memory cards are matched, with the player who made the most matches being the winner.

A simple game, indeed. Playable even by small children, who would probably enjoy the cartoony monsters and environmental theme. Speaking of the art, it's bright and well-done--fun to look at and highly serviceable. The same could be said of the components, though they're a little on the cheap side (I'm guessing this game was probably in the $10 range).

Ultimately, this game wasn't much fun to play as an adult. Then again, I bought this as a Troma novelty, and not as a board game, and I'm actually impressed by how solid the rules are. Most of the tie-in games I've played have been a lot worse than this.

The Good: great theme and artwork, a glow-in-the-dark spinner (which serves almost no purpose, but is cool nonetheless), good for kids, cheap if you can find it.

The Bad: overly simplistic, not much fun for adults.

Review: Machtspiele:: Impressions after 7 plays

jsnell — Sun, 08 Nov 2009 01:17:51 +0000

by jsnell
I don't usually write reviews, but after each game of Power Struggle (7 times in the couple of weeks since Essen) I've been more and more impressed with the game, and it's been a massive hit locally. And yet it seems to have mostly been ignored in the post-Essen buzz in favor of titles that were hyped more. So here's some disjoint impressions of my experience with the game so far.

I won't explain the rules: they're not complex, but there's a lot of them, so you're better off just reading the rulebook if that's what you're looking for. Have a look at Tim Harrison's review ( http://boardgamegeek.com/thread/460891) for a rules overview.

Summary:

This is an absolutely fabulous game that has not yet fallen flat on any playing. Everyone we've played it with has liked it a lot, whether they're from the Dominion or Age of Steam part of the gamer spectrum. It's pretty rare for us to play anything except fillers multiple times in a row, but for Power Struggle playing a couple of games in a row seems to now be the norm.

It's a game with a great theme that rewards skilled play, has massive amounts of player interaction, and has just about the right level of luck and uncertainty for me. And better yet, it's a game where those with less skilled seem to be having lots of fun while losing. It even plays very quickly after just a little practice. What's not to like?

More details:

Part of the charm of the game is the theme of office politics. I play mostly with a group of people from work, so a game that allows making snide comments about office politics certainly works much better than a generic medieval eurotheme. And the theme really does support the play: it seems obvious that the game was built around the theme rather than having a "funny" theme slapped on top of some generic resource optimization game.

The basic mode of gameplay is that each player takes one action per turn. There's about a dozen actions to select from (e.g. hire more workers, buy shares, found new departements in the company). Our experience will only last around 10-15 turns, so the number of actions in a game will actually be very small. You need to make each one count, and probably have a good plan from very early on. Sespite there being so few decisions in the game, there's still a lot of depth since there are so many perfectly valid options on every turn.

The game ends when somebody gets 4 VPs. The main way of getting VPs is to reach a certain threshold on one of the 5 scoring tracks (e.g. influence, which you get mainly by having your people on the company board or as the chairman, or corruption which you get by accepting or offering bribes). Additionally you can get one extra VP by achieving a secret goal: each player has a randomly chosen nemesis whom they need to beat on a randomly chosen set of 3 VP tracks.

The BGG description of Power Struggle claims it's an area control game. I'm not sure it really counts as one, but if it does, it's certainly the most devious implementation of the idea I've seen. The basic idea is that players can found new departments in the
6 divisions of The Company, or merge or shuffle around existing departments. At the end of each round the player with the most managers in each division gets to be the new division head, and gains a modest special power.

The sneaky part is that you don't really win the game by controlling the divisions, it's rather that you win the game by *losing* control of the divisions that you usually hold just for a short time. This comes up in a couple of different ways:

First, other players can give you bribes to get the special power away from you. This is usually good for both the briber and the bribee (both will gain steps on the corruption track, the briber gains access to a more powerful version of the original power, and the bribee gets a little bit of money). So you'd usually like to take over the divisions whose special power you don't want, but somebody else does. This ensures that you can bribe somebody else for the powers you really want, and somebody else will be looking to bribe you.

Another way in which it comes up is that the best way to get steps on two of the score tracks is to either resign or get booted out of the position of division head, which will let you retire to either the board of the company (for influence) or become an external consultant (for experience). And really it's a waste of actions to spend an action retiring, you'd much rather just ensure that somebody else feels compelled to spend actions taking over the division instead. But of course you want to control some divisions, so you'll be doing somebody else the same favor elsewhere.

So if you're burnt out on the terms "area control" or "area majority" (I know I am), don't let them scare you. This is a very different take on the idea.

The main concern I had after a couple of plays was that the secret goal mechanism would be unbalanced. Based on those games, it seemed like some of the goals should be a bit easier than others, and being your own nemesis should be easier yet. And in a game where every little bit counts, having a secret goal that can be achieved one turn earlier is actually a huge benefit. Likewise there were concerns that if two people end up as each others' nemeses and have overlapping goals, they've lost.

But it just isn't working out that way, the goals seem to be beautifully balanced in practice even if not on paper. And we've had a 5p game where a pair of players with 2 out of 3 overlapping goals were each other's arch enemies, with what we had previously thought to be the weakest goal sets, and still were 1st and 2nd.

Given the secret goals are well balanced, the main effect is that you usually don't know exactly who is winning, or even how far away from winning somebody is. This is a nice feature, as it keeps the mid game from bogging down in endless analysis of who needs to be blocked from winning. Of course at some point in the end game somebody might need to tip their hand, and if they're close to winning, can expect others to collude to delay the victory, but that isn't the norm. Since I don't really enjoy games of ganging up on the leader, this is a great feature.

The rules are a bit hairy (it's a 16 page rulebook), and you can expect to have some trouble with explaining them the first time around. That said, we seem to be able to explain the rules pretty quickly now after doing it a few times.

Likewise you should expect the first game to be pretty slow as people struggle with all the available options and play inefficiently, and then to speed up as they understand the system. The BGG game description currently suggests 90-120 minutes for a 3 player game, and longer for more players. This hasn't been our experience after the very first game. We can get a 5p game in at under 90 minutes reliably even with some new players in the mix, and the latest 4p game I played was over in an hour.

But other than those couple of issues with the first game, there isn't a lot to complain about. Do yourself a favor and try this twice.

Review: Ici, c'est la France! The Algerian War of Independence 1954-62 :: Fighting for Algeria

wifwendell — Sun, 08 Nov 2009 00:24:22 +0000

by wifwendell
[thing=29379][/thing] is the first game released by Legion Games, and (as far as I can tell) the first game published by Swedish designer Kim Kanger. I think it is a fine debut for Kanger and Legion. Ici is a wargame, but a wargame with a twist: the conflict it covers (Algeria’s war for independence from France) was an insurgency, not a conventional war. It attracted me because I knew relatively little about the Algerian war of independence, and because of the increased attention being paid to COIN (counter-insurgency) because of the wars now underway in Afghanistan and Iraq.

Components

Ici is an attractive game. The 22"x34" paper map depicts most of Algeria (all but the extreme south, which is Saharan desert) and a little bit of its neighbors Morocco, Tunisia, and West Africa. There are several kinds of terrain - coastal regions, where French troops operate most effectively; mountains and dry mountains, where mechanized French units are less powerful; and the Sahara, with few people and little reason to operate until oil is discovered. The map has seven "wilaya" (the FLN name for the military districts it divided Algeria into for operational purposes), each of which is subdivided into regions. FLN can only move limited forces between wilayas. In addition, there are three major cities (Alger, Oran, Constantine) that are regions unto themselves, and several towns and cities which are separate from the regions, and (along with the major cities) can give the FLN greater mobility and operational points. The non-Saharan regions have symbols to denote how heavily populated they are, ranging from 1 (least) to 3 - the more populated ones are harder for the FLN to control, but the FLN can recruit more forces.

]]>

On the map are several tracks and charts - tracks for the size of the French police forces/static garrisons (troop density), French public opinion, the effectiveness of the FLN (lower is better), and the Population Track (0-20 where 20 is pro-French) which shows the attitude of the populace in each of the 25 non-Saharan regions with significant populations (none for the Saharan areas). Here I have a minor gripe - the population track gets a bit crowded, particularly early in the game where nearly all are grouped around the 11/12/13 positions. I ended up pulling some of the markers down into the Sahara and using Post-Its to keep track of the level. Each of the regions will be in one of four political states: (from most to least friendly to France) Support, Activist, Purge, and FLN. There is also a chart showing the attitude of the Pied-Noirs, the ethnic French residents of Algeria, and a Government Crisis Scale which keeps track of how things are going back in Paris.

The 344 attractive 5/8" counters include French regiment-sized units and the units of the FLN - the strong zonal commandos, moudjahidine fighters, and moussebiline irregulars (FLN units collectively are called faileks), and various game markers. They really are attractive - and as advertised, easy to remove from their cardboard frames. Also included are charts describing French and FLN political events, a player aid chart with sequence of play and other info, and a 16-page rulebook that includes designer notes and hints. Oh and four six-sided dice.

]]>

Gameplay

Turns in Ici are three months long, beginning with winter 1955 and ending in fall 1962, though the game can end earlier; there is also a scenario that begins in 1959. In each turn, both players must if possible play a political event, each of which can only be played in certain years, and only once per chit. Drawing the event chits is random but before the game each player can select four events to include in his hand. Events will variously affect some or all of: French popular support; Pied-Noirs attitude; and the attitude of Algerians in some or all of the regions. Keep an eye on French popular support. When it reaches zero, there is a referendum, where the odds of winning depend on where each region is on the 0-20 scale of the Population Track. After the first referendum, French popular support resets to 20; if it hits zero a second time, there is another referendum and the game ends.

After playing political events, the FLN player recruits new units, and the French player brings in reinforcements if any, replaces dead units (mandatory), and rebuilds damaged units to full strength. The FLN player then can move his units and conduct "structure attacks." France moves his units, and searches for and attacks faileks. Then the FLN followed by the French player conduct insurgency and counter-insurgency actions respectively. Move the game turn marker, and continue.

Operation points (OP) are used for every action except playing political events. The number available per turn varies; France begins with 10 OP, and gains an additional OP each turn until a maximum of 20 is reached. However, this number is reduced if the FLN has units in Tunisia, Morocco, and/or West Africa. The FLN gets a base of 10 plus 1, 2, or 3 (depending on the population level) for each region that France does not control, minus the FLN level (remember, low FLN level is better), max 20. Movement requires relatively few OP; a failek only expends an OP to enter a French controlled area, and the French only burn OPs when passing THROUGH an FLN-controlled area - and mechanized units don’t even have to pay that.

Combat is pretty simple. The French player spends 2 OP and searches for faileks in the designated region; this is easier in coastal regions, harder in pro-FLN regions. If he finds, French units pair up with whatever faileks were found (not necessarily all of them) and both players roll die, hitting on 5-6. The French units though usually roll two or four dice each AND add the difference in the quality of the unit. Most full-strength French units are quality 3 or 4, while only zonal commandoes are quality 3. French units have two steps and faileks only one, so combat if it happens typically favors the French.

]]>

But the FLN, if it successfully checks against its FLN level, can conduct its own structure attacks. From the French perspective these were acts of terrorism. Kanger describes structure attacks as bombings of cafés, farms, and the like "to promote fear, make the country ungovernable, and to increase the antagonism between the Pied-Noirs and the Moslems." The game effect is to make the region more hostile to France - and if it is in one of the three major cities, it will reduce French OP by 1-3.

Remember the regions can be in Support, Activist, Purge, or FLN level. Both players use OP to move regions their way politically (this is a bit abstract but represents propaganda, assassinating pro-French activists, building local cells, infiltrating/purging FLN cells, etc), and the French can resettle Algerians to make it harder for faileks to concentrate in a given region. Which brings up an interesting mechanic - troop density and control of a region. France controls a region if the population level of a region (1, 2, or 3) plus troop density (zero at game start, maximum 4) is at least two times greater than the number of faileks in the region. FLN controls if the number of faileks equal or exceeds population level + troop density. If neither has control, the region is contested, which is usually good enough for the FLN player. Control can change at any time such as when the FLN rplaces a new unit, in the middle of combat, or during FLN movement. French military units do NOT influence control directly. Troop density (which can be raised by various French political events) is an abstract representation of police and local security forces; the units you move around are the ones actively trying to defeat FLN faileks, as opposed to providing security for the populace.

Although French troops alone cannot improve attitudes (in fact, if too successful military action makes the locals more resentful), it is important for the French to chase and defeat faileks - France can only play counterinsurgency actions to make the region more pro-French if it CONTROLS the region. And the FLN can only play insurgency actions if an area is FLN-controlled or contested. Because of turn order, the FLN can move (or recruit) enough faileks to a region to make it contested or FLN-controlled before the French can respond.

At the beginning of the game there are very few French units on the map, and troop density is zero, so it is relatively easy for the FLN to contest/control regions, and therefore to make more areas pro-FLN through insurgency operations. But throughout 1955 and 1956, new French troops come on. At first, this HURTS the French player because bringing in reinforcements (mandatory) costs OP. But once they are on, the French can start trying to strike the FLN in key areas. Then the FLN may begin to emphasize structure attacks to reduce each region on the Population Track, thus making an FLN victory more likely in a referendum.

There are a couple of ways to win. One is for the French to control every non-Saharan region. It can be done - the French achieved this in my one solo play in 1959. The FLN wins as it did historically by driving the French government level to collapse. Either player can win by the second referendum, which will happen on the last turn in 1962 or when French popular support drops to zero for the second time.

]]>

Conclusions

[thing=29379][/thing] is a very different creature compared to most wargames. Objectives are not geographic, although control of regions is important. But the action focuses on attempts to influence the population, and combat is abstract and one-sided in favor of the French regulars. That is appropriate for a game on an insurgency such as this. Ici has several elements that reflect modern thought about insurgencies and COIN operations. The real center of gravity is the attitudes of the Algerian people, and secondarily in this case of the significant Pied-Noirs minority. Combat plays a role, but only to the extent that it helps improve security (i.e., prevent FLN structural attacks) to allow France to control a region and conduct COIN actions to make the people of a region more pro-French. Police and security forces (abstractly represented in this game by troop density) are critical. Resettlements if done correctly can make it harder for insurgents to operate by isolating them from the people; this wasn’t successful in Algeria (and IMHO failed badly in Vietnam, where it was not done well), but the Malays and British employed population control with great success during the Malay Insurgency.

I’ve played this once through (I has another solo play where I screwed up a couple of rules and had to restart) so take this with as many caveats as you like. From this one+ game, I like Ici very much. The rules are simple, but the interactions between them are complex, and I found the FLN and French both faced difficult decisions about what to do next. This is not a short game (Kanger estimates the 1955 scenario to take 8 hours although I think one or two experienced players could do it quicker), but I find it immersive, informative, and entertaining. Thumbs up.

Review: Darwinci:: Intelligently designed game

Danjell — Sat, 07 Nov 2009 23:02:39 +0000

by Danjell
I was able to get my hands on one of the first copies sold at Essen and have since played a couple of games. The lack of activity in the forums surprises me a bit, because this is a really nice game when you want something quick but above the level of a filler.

Components
You get some great pieces with this game. The gems used for bidding are naturally what catches the eye first and they both look nice and feel good to play with.

Then there are the Leonardo squares that you don’t really need in order to play the game but there’s nothing wrong with them.

You also get a cuboid dice which you use to keep track of bidding rounds. Mine even has metal inlays as I got my limited edition copy in Essen

The game is played with paper money that has good artwork on them (along with the motto: We trust in modern science) but it is still paper money.

The counters, both the bones and jewels, are par for the course.

Then there is the Darwin counter that acts as a reminder of who gets to make one additional gem placement. This one is a letdown. There is a picture of Darwin (the famous monkey caricature) on one side and a rules reminder on the opposite side. This should have been a small playing piece instead if you ask me.

Gameplay
The game consists of three basic elements. Bidding, set collecting and (a hint of) push your luck. First, the players offer bone pieces to the market. All pieces are then bought through a clever bidding system. Every player gets to allocate the gems in their possession. It is allowed to play both opponents gems and your own.

In phase one you have to play opponents' gems if you have them and then you may place one of your own gems. In the subsequent phases you get to place two gems of any kind. The player who had the fewest number of tiles in his Leonardo square gets to place one additional gem during phase two. After all three phases the player who has the most gems on a tile gets to keep it. He pays the original supplier of the tile all his gems but one.

Then the players place their tiles in the Leonardo square forming a 3x4 (or 4x3, this can even be changed mid-game) playing field. Finished creatures score points according to number of tiles and extremities (please see my question at: http://www.boardgamegeek.com/thread/459197). To make things interesting there are also some rotten bones that award their owner negative points.

Every turn there is also the option to score one of five jewels that are sometimes printed on the tiles. The longer you wait the more points you’re likely to score but you then run the risk of not scoring a jewel at all.

The game ends as soon as one player has played twelve tiles. The player with the most points win.

Summary
The rulebook is bad but manageable. The examples are unclear and some rules are a bit ambiguous. This is acceptable in heavier Euros or wargames but a light game like this ought to be delivered with a better set of rules.

There is also an "advanced" version that simply consists of substituting one of your gems for a gem worth twice as much as a normal gem.

The theme, though pasted on, is good and a game can be finished in 30 minutes after spending 10 minutes explaining the rules.
The game is playable with three players but becomes a bit more asymmetrical and fun with four or five players. I recommend it as a game to play before everyone has shown up or after half of the game group has left.

Review: Villa Paletti:: Gaming with 3-year old: Villa Paletti (versus 3 other kid games)

kochamkinie — Sat, 07 Nov 2009 21:56:39 +0000

by kochamkinie
To quickly remind the context of this review: I recently came back from working abroad, and in a weeks time I introduced my kids to 4 games at almost the same time: [thing=6351][/thing], [thing=37196][/thing], [thing=17329][/thing] and [thing=2596][/thing]. I tried to review all for of them separately, but with comparisons to each other to better show their advantages and disadvantages. This is the last installment of the series, Villa Paletti; previous reviews may be read here:

[thread=447756]Gulo Gulo review[/thread]
[thread=448042]Sorry Sliders! review[/thread]
[thread=450704]Tier auf Tier review[/thread]

Contrary to previous three games I bought this one having in mind some of my friends playing Jenga, rather than my kids. I simply thought that it will be too challenging for 3-years old kids. Well, apparently I was mistaken ... but let's start from the beginning.

My kids immediately like the colorfull box and its artwork. I think they were slighlty dissapointed that the inside included only blank wooden pieces instead of small figures of people (as depicted on the cover, I have the Wigggles edition of the game). This is an obvious disadvantage of the game from kids perspective, since they'd rather play with animals/figures (see Tier auf Tier) than columns with no drawings on them. Anyhow, they liked the components and were anxious to give it a try.

]]>

The rules are again straightforard and explaining them even to younger kids takes no time. We usually play the variation where we don't use the dice and don't care about the colors - we're just trying to build the highest tower possible. However, have recently tried playing the one-color per perspn rule it also went smooth.

]]>

The biggest surprise for me this time was the relative ease of the game for my 3-years old daughters. I was expecting the pulling out the columns would require a super-steady hand + some tactical thinking. To my astonishment it looks like it is easier for my kids to play Villa Paletti than stacking the tower from animals in Tier auf Tier. Well, even in the first game we managed to build a 4-level tower and both Iga and Lilla were playing without any help from me.

The hook is such a great thing in this game that it warrants a separate paragraph. My kids didn't notice it at first, but after I intriduced the hook to them they only wann play with it. It's interesting, since it makes pulling some colums easier, but others are definitely easier to get using bare hands. It also adds additional dexterity skills to be learned by kids.

]]>

My kids play this game very competetively and on a high level. Sometimes they overuse the hook; they also tend to stick to the column they have initially chosen, even if it is clearly a bad choice. In this respect they sometimes need a bit of guidance, but in most cases they are able to build a really high tower. The time needed for a single game is around 15-20 minutes, again perfect for kids this age. They are usually playing just one game and rarely requesting a rematch.

Do I like this game? Definitely yes, I believe it can be a lot of fun both for kids 3+ age as well as adults. It's easy enough for kids but can be also quite difficult and competetive when playing with original rules - even for adults with steady hand. I've yet to play it with adults only but I'm really looking forward to it.

Do my kids like the game? They like it enough to never refuse a game when I ask them to play, but rarely suggest playing it on their own. I believe it's a similar case to Sorry! Slider, which is also a lot of fun, but looses with Gulo Gulo and Tier auf Tier due to the abstract (at least for kids) theme. Anyhow this game is so versatile I would recommend it for families with kids of any age.

To sum it up: my ranking of these 4 games based on my games with kids:

1. Villa Paletti
2. Tier auf Tier
3. Sorry! Sliders
4. Gulo Gulo

But I believe my kids would rank them:

1. Gulo Gulo
2. Tier auf Tier
3. Sorry! Sliders
3. Villa Paletti

Review: Intrigue:: [Video Review] - "Go for the gut. He's soft there. "

UvulaBob — Sat, 07 Nov 2009 21:46:17 +0000

by UvulaBob
Here's a mini-review I threw together while bored at work.

Please to be keeping it clean and coming out boxing!

Youtube Video

Review: Super Munchkin:: : A Super Munchkin Review

Focuscoene — Sat, 07 Nov 2009 20:37:29 +0000

by Focuscoene
There is a place for Super Munchkin, it's just not often found on my game table. There a couple friends that attend my game nights who swear by the Munchkin series (and Steve Jackson in general), and actually it was their enthusiasm for this game that got me looking at the world of board games more closely to begin with.

Super Munchkin, especially when compared to other light card games I have like Bohnanza, Eco Fluxx or Apples to Apples, is totally arbitrary and requires very little strategy. You basically draw cards that add to your power level (pretty much every card does this), and you either have a power level high enough to kill the monsters power level or you don't. If you kill a monster, you gain a level (not a power level, more like an experience level like in RPGs). The first to reach ten of these experience levels wins. That's it. It takes a while to do, and it doesn't take much thought to do it.

There's an added element of being able to "team-up" with another player to combine power levels to defeat a monster. You can say, for example, I'll give you this card that has plus 3 to your power level and one random card if you help me kill this monster. The player can then bargain with you, accept, or decline entirely. That's the only part of the game that gets interesting, really.

I'll admit that the cards are nice, they're colorful and sport funny themes like "Too-Much-Coffee Man". And sometimes at a game night, you get sick of thinking and just want to draw cards and play them (usually once everyone has had a bit to drink). But honestly, most people would rather play Apples to Apples if they don't want to think too much, or Eco Fluxx, since at least those don't require you to do any math. Unless you or your gamer friends are serious Steve Jackson fans, I don't see any reason to add this one to your collection.

On a side note, I've also played Munchkin Cthulu and found that that was even worse, we ended up taking out the cultists entirely, which was the one thing that set it apart from the others design-wise (though we enjoyed the theme).

Review: Citadels:: I Knew You'd Go For The Architect: A Citadels Review

Focuscoene — Sat, 07 Nov 2009 20:14:56 +0000

by Focuscoene
There's a lot of hullabaloo surrounding this game on the geek (I've noticed a lot of "Citadel Fan" microbadges), so naturally I had to seek it out. And I must say, I'm pleased I did, though I don't think this one is necessarily for everybody.

One thing I can definitely say about Citadels is that it does get better with every play, as you learn the different ways the cards interact with one another, and the different ways different people might go about this. Citadels is the type of game where you really have to try and guess what the other players are going to do, while trying to lead them to think you're going to do something you're not. For those of you who prefer what my girlfriend calls "strategy you can see", meaning things like Carcassonne, Samurai or Chess, this game may not be for you.

The idea in Citadels is to build districts using gold, each district is worth the amount of gold you spend on it, and the first player to get eight districts played concludes the game. Points are then added up, with bonuses going out for things like being the first to finish or having one of each color district, and a winner is declared.

For every round in Citadels, the players get to pick which character cards they are going to use in order to either accomplish something in their own district or thwart something in someone else's (for example there is a character who can destroy an opponent's districts, and there is also one that can build three at a time instead of one). You also get to choose characters to discard, so no one really knows who has what. And that's where the heart of the game lies: figuring out who has what and playing things accordingly.

This bluff-calling, play-to-the-other-players style of play really appeals to me, especially when playing against people I know really well (though I imagine playing against people you don't know at all would be equally as interesting). My girlfriend, however, did not find this enjoyable. She'll still say yes to a game most times, but prefers games with a more even playing field. What I'm saying is: games that use this kind of sometimes arbitrary mechanic can be a turn-off to some gamers, maybe even be frustrating because it was a guess that caused your loss, not a poorly placed piece.

I also will say that the fantasy-heavy theme could turn some people off initially, a lot of folks see that and think Dungeons & Dragons right off the bat. An unfortunate stigma, but it exists nonetheless. (For the record, fantasy themed games don't turn me off personally in the least, I actually tend to prefer them.)

Before I wrap things up here, I want to point out two things. The first is that the two-player game is significantly different from 4 or more, and I found that 4 or more was much more exciting and complex, while two was just two people going for one of two or three characters and discarding the other. Still, 2 player is certainly fun enough as it is, but I'd rather play Carcassonne or an abstract strategy.

The other thing I want to discuss is the Dark City Expansion, which came with the version of Citadels I bought. This expansion is fairly weak, I feel. The original character cards are intertwined so nicely, while the Dark City characters are more just good. There's a character that lets you not pay to build a district, for example. This isn't strategy, it's just a free district. Why replace the Merchant (which you would have to do), who allows only one extra gold, plus extra for green cards? The other problem is the purple district cards that come in the expansion are way too useful, especially when compared with the original deck.

So that's that. Personally, I love Citadels. I think it's intelligently designed, and would rarely turn down a game. The negative things I've said about it aren't for me, they're for other gamers, and when writing a review I believe one must consider gamers of all types (minus the age demographic). I would love to see another expansion, one with perhaps more strategic characters to offer.

Review: Samurai:: Shogun Your Stuff: A Samurai Review

Focuscoene — Sat, 07 Nov 2009 20:03:09 +0000

by Focuscoene
Last night was my first play-through of Samurai. I played with my girlfriend and another couple, thus playing with the maximum number of players allowed to play. It seems to me that playing with four would be ideal, though I'm going to be playing a two-player game tonight so I may need to retract that statement.

Samurai is a tile-placing, area control game with different tokens that have different numbers, colors and symbols on them. The numbers correspond to the level of "influence" that token has, the colors correspond to the player, and the symbols correspond to which piece the token is influencing.

That right there about sums up the way the game works. Your goal is to surround pieces (there are three different types) with your influence. If you and the other players have a piece completely surrounded, that piece is awarded to the player who has the most influence (meaning the highest number that corresponds to that type of piece).

What makes it more interesting than simply "surround and collect" is that the player with the most of a certain type is more likely to win, though a tie-breaker is included that spices that up. If two players each have the most of a certain type, the two of them both remove the pieces of that type, and add up THE REST of the pieces they have. Whoever has more in that department is then declared the winner. This creates a wonderful balance of trying to claim one certain type, while simultaneously making sure you're getting enough of everything else.

The mechanic, while relatively simple, comes with an enormous amount of depth. I, and the others, were reminded of Carcassonne, which is the most commonly played game in my collection.

There are also tokens that serve as "wild cards", which can influence any type of piece it is touching, as well as a couple of special tokens that enable you to move pieces or tokens.

The game did not take us very long to figure out (we were unclear as to whether or not you get your tokens back after a piece has been surrounded because it looked like we wouldn't have enough tokens. I have yet to play enough to see if this ever becomes a problem, but I can safely say that it did not become a problem for us during the four-player game), and once we did we all immediately fell in love with it. I think it says something extra that the people playing were a good mix of regular gamers and occasional gamers.

I am also inclined to say that the game will likely be different every time, like Carcassonne, because different people are going to place things differently which shifts the flow of what you are trying to do.

All in all, I have to say I recommend this to any and everyone. It's light enough that my friend's girlfriend, who had been drinking and rarely plays strategy games (she loves Pandemic, though), loved Samurai just as much as I did, and I play strategy games as often as other people in the room will let me. I will be sure to pick up Through the Desert next.

Review: Machtspiele:: POWER STRUGGLE on the Brain

GamesOnTheBrain — Sat, 07 Nov 2009 16:35:39 +0000

by GamesOnTheBrain

Power Struggle

by Bauldric & Friends

First off, I'd like to mention that this is my very first review. I've been a member of this site since 2003, but I've never been much of a writer. So why, after so many years, am I writing my first one? Because no one else has, and this game deserves attention. So please be gentle.

Oh, and one more thing. I wrote the latter half of this review while suffering from stomach flu, so if I all of the sudden become incoherent, you know why. =P

OVERVIEW

In Power Struggle, players act as corporate puppeteers, pulling strings from the shadows of a big company. Players strive to increase their power and influence within the company by hiring and firing employees, creating new departments, acquiring the special services of division heads, investing in stocks, controlling the board of directors, and bribing other players. The first person to achieve 4 of the following 6 conditions wins the game:

- at least 7 points on the Influence track,
- at least 18 points on the Shares track,
- at least 4 points on the Main Department track,
- at least 9 points on the Corruption track,
- at least 1 counsel in 3 different divisions on the Counsel track,
- defeating your Archenemy.

COMPONENTS

Upon opening the box, you'll find an abundance of colorful, high-quality components: a large and lavishly illustrated board, a number of event and archenemy cards, gorgeous paper money, over 100 meeples (managers), 60 cubes (employees), player aids, bribe folders, and thick privilege tiles. Eggertspiel never seems to fail at delivering extraordinary components.

RULEBOOK

The rulebook, unfortunately, is the most disappointing part of the game. It seems to be organized well, but there are quite a few typos, errors, and unclear rules -- at least in the English translation. With divisions, departments, main departments, department heads, division heads, employees, members of the board, a chairman of the board, and many other terms that are sometimes not adequately explained, things can get awfully confusing.

I read the rules front-to-back twice and reviewed them a 3rd time before playing, and yet we still referenced the rulebook at least twenty times in our first game. This is not to say the game is terribly complicated. It isn't. Most of the actions available to the players make perfect sense. There are simply quite a few different actions available, and quite a few ways to score points, and wrapping your head around it all can be tricky.

On the positive side, the designer has gone to heroic effort to highlight these errors, in threads such as this one:

http://www.boardgamegeek.com/article/4171617#4171617

GAMEPLAY

Power Struggle is primarily an area control game -- complete with variable player powers and frequent backstabbing -- played in a series of rounds. Each round consists of a directors' meeting followed by 4 to 7 department turns.

A directors' meeting is simply a preparation phase for the round, where the players elect a new chairman of the board and determine new division heads (both based on majorities), assign privilege cards to the chairman and division heads, score influence points, and sort the event cards.

The player with the most members of the board of directors becomes the new chairman, and the players with the most department managers in a division, become division heads; the same player may hold one, none, or several of these positions. The chairman and the division heads each offer unique special powers. Obtaining them is crucial.

So what are these privileges?

- CHAIRMAN: At the beginning of the directors' meeting, you may create 1 new department with 1 employee.

- ACCOUNTING: If you buy shares, you may receive a larger number of shares than you pay for, depending on the current motivation
value.

- CONTROLLING: You may receive more money for each of your departments and during the payment event, depending on the current motivation value.

- DEVELOPMENT: You may entice 1 employee away from another player's department and add it to one of your own.

- HUMAN RESOURCES: You may receive additional employees from the general stock during the actions hiring employees and founding departments actions, depending on the current motivation value.

- LEGAL & PATENTS: You may dismiss 1 of your own employees in order to score 1 influence point.

- COMMUNICATIONS: At the end of the directors' meeting, you may sort the 8 event cards for the current turn.

In one of the more unique elements of the game, the head of the communications division next takes 6 random event cards, along with the payment card and the directors' meeting card, and creates an event deck with them in any order he wishes, with two restrictions: the payment card (where players are paid for holding certain positions and owning shares) must come before the directors' meeting card (an end-of-the-round card), and the directors' meeting card must be in the bottom half of the deck (the 5th, 6th, 7th, or 8th card). The events and their order are only known by the head of Communications.

The events and their order impact the game in a number of ways. Many of the event cards raise or lower the motivation level, which in turn affects several of the privileges offered to the division heads, as shown above. Other events immediately penalize or reward players holding certain positions.

Next, there are 4-7 department turns, depending on how many event cards precede the directors' meeting card in the event deck. At the beginning of each department turn, the top card of the event deck is first revealed and resolved. Then, beginning with the communications head and proceeding around table, each player takes one action.

There are quite a few different actions available to the players, so I'll summarize:

Hire Employees, Found New Departments, and Restructure Departments involve adding or moving employees and department heads (henceforth called managers). The player with the most managers in a division will become the new division head during the directors' meeting. The number of employees is the tie-breaker.

Resign as Divisional Head: When the division head resigns, he may do one of two things: 1) move both the division head and all of his managers from that division to the board of directors, where they will score influence points during each directors' meeting and may become the chairman of the board, or 2) turn his division head into an external counsel -- one of the victory conditions. Either way, the division is closed, and all other employees and managers of the division, including those belonging to other players, are fired!

Bribe Other Players: A player can make a secret bribe (by placing cash in the bribe folder) to obtain a corruption point and a privilege card from another player. A privilege acquired through a bribe has a stronger effect than the standard privilege of a divisional head. If the bribed player accepts the bribe, he too gets a corruption point, but if he rejects the offer, he has to fire one of his employees!

Use a Privilege Card: See the Development privilege and the Legal & Patents privilege above.

Buy Points: A player can dismiss employees or spend money to advance on the competence (victory point) tracks:

- Influence: dismiss 3 of your own employees for 1 influence point

- Shares: pay an increasing amount of cash per share to buy stock, which counts towards a victory condition and pays out from the payment card event

- Main Departments: pay cash to create a main department (a department with 2 managers that can never be removed from the board -- due to resignations, for example) and score 1 point on the main department track

- Counsels: pay cash to place a manager on one of the counsel tracks

There are several other ways to get points, too. Influence can be obtained during the directors' meeting by holding positions on the board of directors. Main departments can be created and scored with the Found New Department action. And Counsels can be acquired with the Resignation action. On the other hand, Shares can only be bought with cash with the Buy Points action, and Corruption only comes from making or accepting bribes. Some of the privilege cards give bonuses to these actions as well.

Ok, so now that you understand the basics of obtaining points on the tracks of influence, shares, main departments, corruption, and counsels, you may be wondering, what is the 6th condition, defeating your archenemy?

At the beginning of the game, each player is given a secret archenemy color card and a secret archenemy competence card. The color card identifies one other player color, and the competence card lists 3 of the 5 competence tracks. This victory condition is fulfilled by leading the named archenemy at any time during the game on all 3 of the competence tracks listed. If you happen to draw your own player color as your archenemy, then you can fulfill this condition by leading *all* of the other players in 2 of the 3 competences listed.

If a player has at least 4 of the 6 conditions fulfilled on his turn, he may declare it. The remainder of the department turn is then played, and if he remains the only player with 4 conditions fulfilled, he wins. If any other player is able to meet 4 of the 6 conditions on the same department turn, then the player with the most money wins.

For the sake of brevity, I've left out many of the more finer details of the game, but you should now have a basic idea of how the game works.

MY THOUGHTS

So what do I think? Power Struggle is a mega-hit for me. It very well may be my game of the year. The game offers a number of fresh twists on standard area control mechanics, multiple paths to victory, and plenty of room for crafty play. The variable (and unknown) length of each round due to the order of the event cards and the enhanced power of bribed privileges are both ingenius.

I'm not the only one who loves the game. Says Eggertspiele's Wolf Wittenstein, "As far as I am concerned this is one of the best games for a party of three players that I have encountered in the last decade. The game usually holds the tension up to the very last minute." It's no wonder that the game won the Hippodice 2009 award for best full-length game, and it's also no wonder that Eggertpiele raced it to market within a matter of months. The freshman designer deserves a wild round of applause.

I can hardly wait for my next game of POWER STRUGGLE!

COMPONENTS:
RULEBOOK:
THEME:
STRATEGY:
LUCK:
INTERACTION:
GAMEPLAY:

OVERALL:

Review: Power Grid - Factory Manager:: Factory Manager Initial Review

Eisley — Sat, 07 Nov 2009 13:55:46 +0000

by Eisley
As someone who likes Power Grid, the idea of Power Grid: Factory Manager was very intriguing. I wondered if it was like Power Grid, or would it be too like Power Grid?

The goal is to earn as much money as possible in a limited amount of turns. Each player has their own factory and buys machines (to produce goods or improve efficiency) and warehouse space. Each manufacturing machine uses power and require workers if they’re not automated. Income is based on the lower of your manufacturing capacity and warehouse capacity, so you need to keep these two factors as balanced as possible and plan for expanding evenly too.

Your limited amount of workers are under great demand as workers are not only needed to run machines but are also used to bid on the turn order cards. The turn order cards that mean you take your turn towards the end of a round come with a discount on every purchase, so they can have quite an impact and going first may not be your priority. Workers are also used to buy new machines as well as remove old ones (which is important later in the game when you want to add machines but don’t have space).

Interestingly, the machines that will be available for purchase are selected each round by the players who each, and in turn, select a number of machines to be available for purchase (based on how many workers they have available).Any player can buy any available machine and any machines not purchased in a round will be available for selection for sale again next round. This is a very interesting mechanic as you want to bring out the machine you want to purchase but ensure there are other options too in case someone else buys it before you. Your turn order in that round plays a very important part in your decisions.

Each round you pay for your power usage which is simple and energy prices rise as the game continues. In our game, the price didn’t rise by much, and we all had machines that meant our power use was low anyway, so it didn’t seem that important. However, in hindsight, I can see that every Electro (the currency) counts. Twice I wanted to purchase the perfect machine for my round but was just a few Elektros short. If I’d saved 2 or 3 Elektros on power cost, things may have been very different for me (especially if the energy price had risen more rapidly as it can do).

I never bid any workers to get a turn order tile as most of my workers were committed to manufacturing, or would be needed for purchasing machines. I didn’t find this too much of a hinderance as the turn order cards seem well-balanced - going early in a round means paying full price, going later gets a discount. As a result, I mostly ended up being 2nd in turn order with no purchase discount. This didn’t bother me as the machines I wanted were always available (although I didn’t always have enough cash for what I wanted to purchase). Once again, what was critical though was for me to plan according to my turn order.

Overall, Factory Manager is an efficiency engine game (like Power Grid) but it is not a Power Grid clone and the gameplay is different. Working out which machine would best maximise profits but still be good for expansion later is tricky. Working out where manpower should be used is interesting. It’s all good, thoughtful gameplay. Even with all the thinking, I felt it played more quickly than Power Grid. The aspect I found most interesting was that you weren’t necessarily trying to be first or last in a turn - your game didn’t rely on it. Instead, you would adapt your strategy to suit your place in that round’s turn order, and that aspect was very nice. I own Power Grid already and, whilst I doubt I will buy Factory Manager, I certainly want to play it more.

James.

[Played with 4 players]

This review and other reviews of Essen Spiel 09 games on my blog at http://thegameofgaming.wordpress.com

Review: Dominion - Black Market Promo Card:: Black Market Review (Not Strategic but Fun)

thequietpunk — Sat, 07 Nov 2009 09:02:13 +0000

by thequietpunk
My wife and I recently purchased Dominion. As is the norm we quickly became addicted and played mulitple times a night. When we saw the promo cards here on BGG for $5 we couldn't resist.
Envoy has terrible card art and has yet to see any play.

Blackmarket however is a bit of a paradox. It has been stated that Blackmarket is in many ways more work than it is worth and buying one copy of a card really has no affect on your deck. This is in many ways true. When playing with a gaming group it would be mostly unused.

However, after playing with my wife and family (all of which are only casual gamers) Blackmarket adds some goofy amount of fun for a low price. It allows players to get fun or advantageous cards that in the long run don't change the game drastically, but add fun. It is fun to have the only witch or theif. Even Library and Village have been cool cards to get.

CONCLUSION:
Blackmarket is a card that is not generally going to change the outcome of the game. With an intense gaming group it will probably seldom be purchased even if it is in the supply. However, with casual gamers it is a very fun addition which adds a nice random factor.

I give it a 7/10, the best of the two promo cards.

Review: Lost Cities:: Hmmm, Knizia, I fear the veil has been lifted.

Anjohl — Sat, 07 Nov 2009 04:36:46 +0000

by Anjohl
Lost Cities was actually the second game I purchased. The premise sounded intriguing, and I liked the fact that it was a quick game for 2 players. Myself and Jay have logged at LEAST 30 games of LC in now (Only 2 of them are logged...we lost our complete scorecard which listed every game we played ever), and our most recent session was very telling.

I decided, in our games, to deconstruct the game. I wanted to try to play the optimum move on each turn. To do so, I decided to weight each possible action. For example, of 8 cards, each has two possible actions, play or discard. The methods I used to accomplish this weighting were divided into two categories: the card's real or potential use to me, and the card's real or potential use to my opponent.

Each category was further subdivided into cards I would likely discard as a play versus cards I would play. I also gave consideration to risk/reward, for example, if I had a White 2 on the board, a White 3 in-hand, as well as a Blue 4 which neither myself or my opponent can use, and wanted to try to draw Yellow or Red cards to flesh out my hand for a future expedition, it makes more sense to play the 3 than to discard the 4,

In my opinion, I played a very good game. Because of the risk factor, it's hard at times to calculate exact "pot odds" as in poker, since you are not aware of what your opponent has. So for example, if I want to decide if it's better to play a White 8 on a White 5, instead of discarding a card, I have to wrestle with how likely it is that I will get a White 6 or 8 without losing tempo (more on that later). Therein lies my biggest criticism of the game. I will elaborate on that later.

The problem that I keep seeing come up is that for the first 5-6 turns, you are basically a fool to play a card at ALL most of the time. If you play it safe and lay a 2 or 3, you give your opponent free discards of investment cards, along with making your expedition likely no more than a 10 score. If you play an expedition, your opponent will actively begin denying you those color cards. Then, the game devolves into tempo-screwage with random chance determining the winner. What ends up happening is the optimal strategy is to spend 5-6 turns "calibrating" your hand, to set up a 3-4 turn tempo run where you have predetermined card plays, while being able to draw off the deck instead of a discard pile. This is interrupted of course in situations where you must discard a useful card out of fear of discarding a card more useful to an opponent, retrieving it a turn later. This results in dramatically fractured tempo, and tends to lead to backups.

So in essence, the game is about chance's intersection with tempo. What cards you CAN discard can be clearly valued by any rational person, and that calculation becomes more exact as the board/discard piles fill. Because of that, the real strategy a player uses in LC is simply risk/reward, and monitoring tempo. Any player who realizes that the optimum play is to deny as often as possible, while drawing off the deck whenever possible, will do as well as chance will allow. As such, I cannot in good conscience give LC more than a 6. I am sorry Knizia, your game has elegance of design, but it ultimately fails as a serious strategic contest in every sense of the word. Blackjack or Draw Poker is likely less reliant on chance.

Review: Bolide:: Fetch the Car, Jeeves, I Want to Haul

VixenTorGames — Sat, 07 Nov 2009 02:02:31 +0000

by VixenTorGames

I like racing games, especially games that let me really feel like I'm hurtling through turns, barely in control of a super-powerful racing machine, shredding the tires and smoking the brakes in a neck-and-neck, hell-bent-for-leather contest of wills. In other words, I really like Formula D.

But this review is not about Formula D. Tonight's game is called Bolide, which probably means something if you're from Italy, and just confuses me because the only Italian I know, I learned from Sopranos, and so most of the words I know have to do with things you might do in the bathroom. It's a racing game very similar in theory to Formula D, in that you're driving race cars around a really big race track, trying to go as fast as you can afford without flying off the track and into the stands, where you can make some unlucky woman an instant widow.

However, aside from being a racing game, Bolide really doesn't have much in common with Formula D. Rather than rolling to see how many spaces you move, Bolide pretty much lets you decide how far you want to go, and then penalizes you if you do something stupid, like hit the gas going into a hairpin turn. It uses a rather ingenious method of simulating physics - you move your car, tracking which direction you went, and then you make the exact same move with a little pawn that tells you where you can go next turn. So if you went seven spaces forward and two to the left, then on your next turn, your pawn will be seven spaces ahead and two to the left.

The pawn indicates the center of a bunch of places you can end your next turn, but it's actually kind of a small area, especially if you're really hauling ass. Completely understanding how this works would require you to read the rules, play the game, and then read the rules again (at least, it did for me), so I'm not going to spend half an hour trying to figure out how to explain all the ins-and-outs. Instead, I'll just say that Bolide does a better job simulating the physics of speeding cars that any other game I've ever played. It's not just clever, it's downright brilliant.

That pawn thing is the heart and soul of Bolide, but there are several more rules that help to make this a really cool racing game. Sharp braking lets you juice it hard into a turn and then slow down fast when you need it, and you can hit your boosters now and then for a little extra kick, if you're feeling lucky. There are enough rules for this to be a whole game, though the poorly translated rulebook does a Godawful job of explaining them. There are even advanced rules for customizing your car and driving in the rain. It's a good game.

However, I don't think I'll probably play it again. It's terrifically smart, but it's not the fast-paced burning rubber that I love about Formula D. There's a lot of counting off spaces and calculating your move, and while it's absolute genius, it makes what should be a game about roaring engines and gutsy drivers into a careful series of calculations and long-term planning. If I didn't already have Formula D, and love the bejeezus out of it, I would probably want to play Bolide all the time, but I do, so I won't.

Plus it's a total bitch to work through the rules. As far as I can tell, the rulebook is translated into English from Italian by a Bolivian living in Japan who speaks Urdu as a first language. There are words in there that I don't even think exist in English, and if they do, I'm pretty sure he's not using them correctly. If it weren't for the pictures, I don't think I could even have played the game. I've seen some pretty bad translations, but this one is the worst.

And while the little plastic cars are cool, the tracks really fail by comparison when you put them up against the gorgeous art in the new Formula D. It's like the designers of this game wanted you to be bored. It doesn't work - I really did enjoy Bolide - but it's not for the art, I'll tell you that.

Now, to be fair, I want to be clear that I like my racing games with a heaping helping of kick-ass, with the careful planning in a cup on the side. If you really like to think about what you're doing, and you're good at working out your moves in advance, you'll probably love Bolide. I do like it, and I think it's really smart, but when I head into a turn, I don't smell the overheated engines and feel the tires slipping on the asphalt as I push just a little harder to overtake the one lucky bastard who hit a lucky upshift. Instead I smell the scented candle we just lit to try to compensate for having dogs, and wonder if I set a timer for Dexter. I just can't get into it like I do with Formula D, so I'll keep playing the game I know I love.

I like my racing games fast and crazy, and on that front, Bolide doesn't deliver, no matter how stunningly brilliant it might be.

Summary

Pros:
A physics simulation mechanic that is absolute genius
Good, well-rounded rules that let you test your technical aptitude
Virtually no luck - the best driver will win, just about every time

Cons:
Translation is hilariously bad
Substitutes realism and smart play for speed and thrill factor

Review: Chinatown:: My Third Review..

JasonDragon — Fri, 06 Nov 2009 21:21:34 +0000

by JasonDragon
I know, I know, my title..doesn't say much about ChinaTown, but it lets you know a little more about the review..that' me. This is my third review..Alchemist and Big Eyes, Small Mouth Card Game were my others.

--

The Game

]]>

--

The Contents

The Game Board

]]>
The Building Card Deck

]]>
Money

]]>
Player Markers

]]>]]>]]>]]>
Shop Tiles

]]>
A bag to hold the shop tiles.

Rules are also included.

Gameplay
Everyone starts off with $50,000. The goal is to have the most money at the end of the game. The game consists of 6 years(rounds.) Step one is to draw building cards. Step one is to draw building cards. Depending on the number of players, you draw X cards, discard 2 and keep the remainder. Step two is to draw shop tiles, this again is based on number of players. Step three is trades. This is an open market. We put no restrictions on our trades. The only restriction is that you can not move shop tiles that have already been placed. You can change ownership of the shops, but you can't move them to a new location. Step four is to place your shop tiles. Step five is to earn income. You are paid for your shops that have been placed.

The max size is on the side of the tile. You look the incomplete column unless it is at max size, then it is complete. If you have 5 photos, then you have a complete photo and a photo of 2.

The game ends at the end of year six. If there is a tie, the player with the most shop tiles on the board wins.

Scores

Game Design - 7/10. Overall good design. Card stock money is a plus. Good gameboard, plain bag for the shop tiles, though. Year markers are neat, too.
Game Play - 8/10. The only thing that hurts this are certain players. If everyone is playing for fun, then it's no problem. Some people are inherently evil and trade like Nazis..(EW.)
Game Concept 8/10. You are building your businesses in Chinatown in 1965. You try to have the most money by 1970. Chinese year calender and total game idea..pretty sweet.
Fun - 9.5/10. I love it, I think it's fun.
Overall - 9/10. Fun, easy game. Easy set-up. Takes about an hour. Easy to clean up. The only problem are inherently evil people.

jd

Review: Pandemic:: Guy with a Girlfriend: Pandemic Review

Synnical77 — Fri, 06 Nov 2009 18:40:40 +0000

by Synnical77
Introduction:
Earlier this month I purchased the highly acclaimed game 'Pandemic' by Z-Man Games. It's a game where two to four players move about a visually appealing representation of the world to try to cure and eradicate four strains of Viruses. One of the more unique aspects is that the players collaborate with each other during each turn to collectively try to save the planet before time runs out. Thus, either everyone wins or everyone loses.

Each virus strain propagates by having “city" cards drawn at the end of each player's turn and having cubes of the associated colour placed in that city. If a single city gains too many cubes an "outbreak" occurs which infects all connected cities with the same strain. Players lose if any of the following happens:

1. You run out of cubes representing one strain of virus.
2. You have 8 outbreaks happen.
3. Players run out of cards to draw.

My Thoughts:

I enjoy this game because it's a distinct change of pace from most other games. Everyone is working together to solve the "puzzle" that is the game. A nice feature is that the difficulty can be tweaked through adding or subtracting the amount of epidemic cards that are placed in the player deck during setup or even by changing the amount of players (Note: More players = harder game).

The GF Factor:

My girlfriend, as I, was immediately drawn to the game board. Being former fans of the game "Risk" the board held a nostalgic vibe to it. She totally got into the theme as well as the general art direction of the whole package. Her biggest comment was "Oooh, we get to play on the same team?!".

Our Shared Experience:

We were both absorbed by the game right from the start. Each turn had us discussing the various possibilities and trying to forecast when and how we might get into trouble late in the game. I've read other reviews of this game criticizing how this can lead to a single player controlling the game but we've had a completely different experience. We've always discussed the situation at hand and weighed the effectiveness of each other's plans. We haven't played a game that's had this level of communication yet.

At the end of our first game we had failed and the world was awash with an unstoppable plague. And then I heard those three words that warm my heart: "Let's play again." And so we did. And did again. And again.

The next weekend we took the game to another couple's house and had just as much fun and just as many play throughs.

Conclusion:

To say that we like this game is an understatement. This game has engaged us for the twenty or so plays that we've had. I'm fully aware that the magic won't last forever but for the time being Pandemic gets my highest marks as both a two player and a four player game.

Review: Tobago:: A Great Family Game

sodaklady — Fri, 06 Nov 2009 17:44:24 +0000

by sodaklady
Tobago arrived yesterday and you can’t imagine how gorgeous this game is. The wooden palm trees have details on the leaves, trunk and base; the ATVs have the windows and grill/headlights painted on; the huts are large and squat so they aren’t easily knocked over; and the statues... wow, painted and textured just like stone. You want to set it up just for the pleasure of it.

]]>
Picture by LucyJo

The board is sturdy and brightly colored, and the seven different terrains are easily distinguished. I like the way the 3 reversible board pieces fit together to give you so many island variations, and the locking pieces fit tightly to keep them from shifting. And all of this fits nicely in the specialized box insert in such a way as to keep the cards and tiny bits from sliding around.

The rules are easy to read and understand with lots of illustrations. An additional sheet is included which shows you how to set up the game on one side and how to read the Clue cards on the other. The is very handy for new players.

To set up the game, assemble the board and place the objects anywhere you like as long as 1) each hex has only one object, 2) two of the same object are not less than 4 spaces apart, and 3) the statues are not next to the ocean. The Treasure card deck is prepared by placing the 2 Curse cards in the bottom 27 cards and topped with the remaining 12. This ensures that no curse will come up right at the beginning of the game before anyone has the opportunity to pick up an Amulet to protect themselves. The players place their ATV anywhere they want and take their 15 Compass Rose markers in their color. The Site markers (grey, brown, black and white cubes) are separated and placed beside the board leaving room to lay the Clue cards beside each pile.

At the start of the game, each player draws one Clue card from the deck and places it face up next to one of the piles of Site markers, and places one of their Compass Rose markers on it to show that they helped decipher the Treasure Map for that Treasure. Then each player receives their hand of cards: 4 for a 3-4 player game; 6 for 2 players.

On your turn you can either play a card to one of the Treasure Maps or move your ATV. You may also forego either of those actions to turn in your whole hand of cards and draw new ones. At any time during your turn you may retrieve a Treasure, pick up an Amulet, or use an Amulet’s special powers.

PLAY A CARD: The cards have clues on them that narrow down the places that a Treasure could be such as “in the jungle”, “on the biggest beach”, “not next to a hut” or “in sight of a statue”. Each Clue card placed must narrow down the possible locations by at least one hex. They also cannot contradict a previous clue, or leave no possible locations for the Treasure.

MOVE YOUR ATV: You may move your ATV up to 3 legs, a leg being anywhere within the same terrain that you’re on, or a move from one terrain to another. There are two special cases to keep in mind: 1) retrieving a Treasure ends your movement no matter how many legs you’ve used, and 2) collecting an amulet ends that leg of movement. This keeps you from popping over to collect an amulet in the terrain you’re on, then pulling a u-turn and heading in the opposite direction all in one leg. My daughter tried this, to the accompaniment of screeching tires sound effects, but we slowed her down before any harm was done.

When a Treasure’s location is narrowed down to a single hex, it’s available to be picked up by anyone whose ATV is on, or stops on, that location. When a Treasure is retrieved, everyone who has a Compass Rose marker showing their cooperation in finding the Treasure gets a portion of that treasure. Everyone gets one Treasure card (with 2-6 coins on it) for each of their Compass Roses, looks at it secretly, then hands it face down to the player who dug up the treasure. That person shuffles all these cards plus one more drawn blindly from the deck and then begins the process of handing out the loot. One card is turned over and offered first to themselves since they dug up the treasure. If they decline it because they’re waiting for a larger card, which they KNOW is in there from their sneak peek, then the next person in line from the bottom of the row of cards on up is offered the card. This continues, one card at a time, until all the cards are taken or discarded. If one of the two Cursed cards is turned over, the remaining Treasure cards are not distributed and anyone with a Compass Rose still on the map must discard an Amulet. If he has no Amulet, he loses his most valuable Treasure card. OUCH.

Now that this treasure has been found, all of the Clue cards for it are discarded and a new Map is started in this spot by the person who claimed the last Treasure card. Also, whenever a Treasure is raised , a mysterious force from the statues triggers the appearance of Amulets, which rise in the ocean and are swept ashore to the spot where each statue is facing. After placing the Amulets on the shore, the Statues turn their face on hex side in a clockwise rotation.

The Amulet can be used to remove a Site marker, narrowing down the possible locations by one hex, play a Clue card, an addition ATV move, as protection against Cursed treasure as already stated, or to exchange your hand of cards without losing a turn action.

The game ends when the Treasure card deck runs out. Players count their Treasure coins and, of course, the one with the most treasure wins.

FIRST IMPRESSION
My only play so far has been a 2-player game with my daughter, Cori. You would think that the map is very big for just 2 ATVs on the island but with careful card-play, this is still a fun game for 2 players. At least twice, the location of a treasure was narrowed down to a handful of locations, some near her and some near me. The correct card each time helped us manipulate the location of the treasure to our advantage. With more players, I think the game would be more oriented toward ATV movement, racing to get to the treasures first, giving it a little bit different feel and strategy.

The method of dividing up the treasure is a bit odd sounding but once you’ve tried it you see that it works very well. I wouldn’t call it brilliant but it does beat simply drawing cards and taking whatever comes up, or having the player who retrieved the treasure hand out cards after looking at them, or anything else I can think of quickly. The addition of the Cursed cards was a very good idea, adding a little uncertainty and a bit of push-you-luck if you happened to draw it for your sneak peek. They also add a degree of importance to picking up Amulets. All of the extra actions are nice to have and I can see using them to string together a nice combination of moves, but losing a 6-point Treasure card is painful - I know, I had to do it!

Cori and I had a great time narrowing down the prospective locations, it’s just a fun idea but also a clever game mechanic. You have to be careful not to narrow it down to a place that is too near your opponent (especially with just 2 players) but sometimes you just need to get your token in the lineup so you can get a share of the goodies no matter who digs it up.

For me, this is a very good game. It’s what I think a game should be: fun, easy to explain, interesting, and FUN. Yes, I said that twice. I like fun. I can’t imagine a game collection that was nothing but a bunch of mathematical exercises or logistical problems. This game will make you ponder the correct card to play, decide when the best time is to move, agonize over picking up an Amulet or heading for the Treasure, but in the end, it’s simply one of the best family games in my collection.

Review: Clio:: A Review No One Will Read of a Game No One Will Play

Kaffedrake — Fri, 06 Nov 2009 17:04:11 +0000

by Kaffedrake
Clio is a somewhat obscure Swedish trivia game. I have a faint notion that it was commissioned as part of some drive to promote interest in history in the early 90s, and expect it was sold in a limited edition in bookstores and such places; the copy I have was purchased at a local museum. Having played it back-to-back with Trivial Pursuit, this seems like the perfect ~~opportunity~~ ~~excuse~~ opportunity to compare and contrast the two.

]]>Seriously, no one will play this.

First to describe the game. The production values are curiously mixed. The box is spartan but functional; the board (which doesn't fit in the box) is thin cardboard but otherwise clean and stylish, as are the three pawns that come with the game. On the other hand, the question cards seem rather cheaply designed and show no signs of proofreading. The rules sheet admits that not all answers have been stringently sourced, but then neither has Wikipedia. If you have a resident Plato expert who claims that some answer on Plato's beard is actually a popular misconception you'll have to decide how to handle it; then again that's probably the case with every trivia game ever involving Plato and/or beards.

Clio being the muse of history, that's what the game is about. This can be a strength or a weakness depending on circumstances. In Trivial Pursuit, things will be kept varied because you have these different categories cropping up. Problem is, there's probably some category you cannot stand (in my case that would be sports), and you have to get at least one question from this category right in order to win. (Prospective house rule: everyone gets to begin with one or two wedges of their choice to avoid getting caught in hate category limbo near the end of the game.) In Clio, it's all about history, the categories being different time periods: ancient, mediaeval, 1500s, 1600s, 1700s, 1800s and 1900s. If you like history, there won't be a lot of questions that will sound like "jargon jargon babble babble strange words", so that's a good thing. Of course, if you don't like history, or mythology or warfare or engineering or social sciences or any of the countless subjects that are mixed up with history, an hour of playing may see you reduced to a pile of dry bones, a cactus and some tumbleweeds, which is probably a bad thing.

]]>Here lies a player who only liked sports, his bones are now more bleached than his shorts. Er.

The structure of the game is roughly as follows. The board has three concentric circles surrounding a central location. Players start in the outermost circle and move along it, answering questions as they go. If you get a question right while you're on a square with a symbol, you get a token. You need three tokens per circle to move on, although these can be collected anywhere (e.g. you can collect four tokens while still on the first circle and would then only need two more to reach the third once you get in position). You win by collecting nine tokens, reaching the centre of the board and answering one final question. Other players try to do the same. Most of the time pawns move clockwise around the board, but a player can choose directions in one of two cases: if they already have enough tokens to proceed to the next circle, or if they just stole someone's question.

]]>Pretend it's a space station for added random flavour.

So how do you steal a question? Well, here's the second big difference. In Trivial Pursuit, each player's turn is their own. You're racing the other players, but you can't trip them up or exploit their shortcomings except by not making mistakes of your own. This is of course family friendly, and the satisfaction of knowing the answer to a question that stumped someone else will often be enough. Clio blurs the boundaries between player turns and adds another layer of competition by allowing players to answer the questions triggered by other players and rewarding them for it. Once a question has been read out loud, everyone around the table gets to provide a unique answer in turn. For instance, say a question asks for the name of a monastic liqueur that has been produced somewhere in France since the 17th century. The current player may guess for "Grand Marnier", the next player has no idea and says "Marco Polo" (which was the correct answer to the last question), the third player provides the correct answer of "Chartreuse", and the last player passes knowing that the correct answer has already been given. In this scenario the turn would pass to the third player, and if a token was at stake the third player would get that as well.

Needless to say the ability to potentially score from any question by knowing just a little bit more than the other players will grant a big advantage to those who are comparatively well versed in history, and this can seem unfair in the long run. (Prospective house rule: an adult or very strong player cannot gain tokens by stealing questions from children or very weak players. Good luck trying to officially label people as "weak" before you begin.) Another potential pitfall is that rounds can drag out if one or more players need to think a lot before giving their answers. The rules say you can't have any time at all to think, but this is unrealistic and hard to enforce. In practice, a round will often stop after an answer known to be correct is given, although the most interesting questions are usually the ones where no one quite knows the answer but anyone can form an idea of what it might be.

There is another interesting consequence: a strong player will benefit greatly from having a weaker player seated directly on their right. Oh no, you say, how does such a thing even happen? In this case, of course, it happens because with weaker players to your right, more questions will be passed to you that have not yet been correctly answered. If on the other hand you're unlucky enough to have the Plato's beard expert on your immediate right, you can pretty much forget about the beard questions unless they pop up on your turn. As a slightly balancing factor, since a strong player will take more turns overall, the turn will more often be passed on "normally" from there (i.e. after no one got a question right). I'm not sure if there is an optimal board placement, but the best I can think of (assuming you want to get down to sorting players in the first place) is to put the weakest player to the left of the strongest player, then filling in the remaining space with a clockwise ascending progression. Imagine the players as pawns of varying sizes and you can picture the nice aesthetic end result. If you're playing with your kids, you can also force them to dress up as pawns so you don't have to picture it.

]]>A picture like this seldom conveys the raw brutality of the proceedings. Here we see green and yellow teaming up to bash red for saying "Marco Polo" just a few times too many.

The basic variables of the game are somewhat customizable. It is officially for two or three players, and only three pawns are included. Probably the main reason for this is that some questions are multiple choice and offer no more than three options. But then again, some of them are yes/no questions and thereby offer only two options anyway (typically the first two players will grab "yes" and "no", with the third going "maybe" and I'm not sure about the fourth). Adding more players is mostly a matter of making sure a round of answering doesn't drag out endlessly; at the very least, adding a fourth player using a score token for a pawn is completely harmless. If you want a shorter game, or if players aren't too well read on historical matters, easing the token requirement to two or even one per circle is the obvious thing to do.

In summation, Clio is an interesting trivia game that is perhaps too generous towards knowledgeable players on an uneven field, that demands at least a passing interest in the subject of history, and that can probably not be very easily acquired. There's nothing wrong with the questions themselves although as usual, determining whether a given answer matches up with the printed one will on occasion take a little friendly moderation between players. The answering mechanic deserves further exploration but could do with some safety valve to stop one player from steamrolling the others. The game seemed to drag out just a little coming after a round of Trivial Pursuit, but would probably not feel too long if played on its own.

Review: Hollywood Blockbuster:: Jim the Janitor's Sweeping Review

Superhawk2300 — Fri, 06 Nov 2009 15:23:47 +0000

by Superhawk2300
Hollywood Blockbuster:

A light game that is based on auction mechanic. Players try to score points by completing movies. Every player has storyboards that need to be filled in with the missing components - hollywood components like a director, actors, special effects, sound tracks, etc. The strategy in the game is prioritizing which movies you are trying to complete first and when to make a play for the roles you need to complete the movies. You need to be a bit flexible as your needs change throughout the game and you also will end up with some components you didn't plan on getting and of course you will fail to get some you wanted to. Adapt or fail.

Score is generated by finishing movies and each movie has a different point value. The components you add to your movie also have different point values and you also can augment the value by adding certain extra components (guest stars) . There are also awards that are worth bonus points that are awarded during the game and at game end; First Movie Finished, Best Comedy, Best Drama, Best Film, ect.

The game mechanic is simple but the rules manual itself is hard to follow for the few pages it is. It is like the pages were assembled in the wrong order or something.

If you like auction games you should enjoy Hollywood Blockbuster. It is light enough that I have introduced it to non-gamers with pretty good results; people like my in-laws, young and old. There isn't a ton of strategic depth here but there is "overall sweeping "strategy. Just trying to win the auctions for the best pieces won't ensure a win. We pull it out anytime there are non-games around.

Rating:

Review: Jambo:: Jim the Janitor's Sweeping Review

Superhawk2300 — Fri, 06 Nov 2009 15:21:04 +0000

by Superhawk2300
Jambo:

Part of the Kosmos Two-Player Collection, Jambo is a set making game with the "african tribal business" theme, Oh no, not ANOTHER African tribal business themed game!

The componets are some currency chits, some wares chits, some action markers, and some cards. The cards are played from a single deck comprised of wares cards, utility cards, people cards, and animal cards.

The goal of the game is to be the first player to earn a specific amount of currency.

The main mechanic revolves around drawing a cards into your hand, playing wares cards to obtain the wares on the cards (paying the cost), and then later playing wares cards to sell the wares you've collected on your market stand for a profit.

The other cards in the deck, as usual, break the rules of the game to provide some advantages. Utiltiy cards are played face-up to the players play area and their effects are possible to bring into play as long as the card is in play and the player spends an action to activiate the card. People cards generally allow the player a one-time action or bonus and the card is discarded after being played. Animal cards also are a one time use card, but those cards generally focus on affecting the other player in a negative way, as opposed to the helping the person who played it.

Some things to consider: Each turn consists of actions being taken, with pretty much everything costing an action token. When the current player is out of action tokens it is the other players turn. This way the forward-thinking player can plan to chain actions together, so there is a timing factor to the game. Also there are limits on the amount of utility cards in play and the number of wares one can store. You can increase your ability to store more wares by buying more market stands; there is some strategy on when to do this.

There is a fair amount of player interaction with the use of certain cards, not limited to some form of attack and defense. Things like choosing which wares to trrade come into play as well, so it is not an overly aggressive game. As with most Kosmos Two-Player games, this is a bit lighter, but I am not sure it qualifies as a gateway game. Play time seems to aveage 45 mintues for casual play. Overall Jambo is a OK game for two people looking for something that is heavier than watching a movie together, but not as involved as a "full-featured" Euro. In fact this game can be played while watching casual TV with no harmful effects on gameplay as the turns are quick and there isn't anything that can catch somone off guard that could have been prevented.

There is a couple of expansion decks and the first one is actually comprised of three different expansions. So far the game has been fine by itself, so we have not cracked the expansion deck open yet. That being said if I feel like gaming, this is something that I usually overlook. I have to be in the mood for this, or perhaps I might pull it out as a warmup to the nights main feature.

Rating:

Review: Midgard:: Missing the Secret Sauce for My Group

mattx — Fri, 06 Nov 2009 13:59:18 +0000

by mattx
This review is adapted from my group's blog http://www.metroburbgamers.com.

Jump to the Review heading to skip component and rules discussion.

Overview
Midgard is an often overlooked but pretty highly rated game from Eric M Lang. Eric is the creator of Chaos in the Old World, a new game from Fantasy Flight Games, as well as a creator of several Fantasy Flight CCGs and LCGs I believe.

Productionb
The game is produced by ZMan Games and came out in a period where they were just learning how to make a really nice euro-style game. Check out Endeavor to see that they have indeed learned. The component quality of the game is decent. The counters have a linen finish as do the cards and the box. The board is smoothe like the Pandemic board. The pawns are the wooden bowling pin pawns similar or identical to those used in Pandemic as well. All of the cardboard and paper components of the game have a plastic sheen to them that I don't love but that doesn't offend me at all.

Components
So what are all these components? Well there are viking pawns for 5 players. This includes lots of small vikings (bowling pins) and one viking leader (big bowling pin). The board shows a map of three kingdoms each divided into several provinces each of which contain village icons. The board also depicts two heavens regions and a Valhalla region as well as boats for each player's vikings. There are doom tokens with the names of each of the provinces on them and tokens for each of the three kingdoms. The only other components are the cards which are the heart of the game.

Game Play
The game is a classic area majority game very much in the vein of El Grande. You start with 5 vikings and 1 viking leader in your boat. The rest of your vikings start off the board. This should sound familiar to those who have played El Grande. You need to dominate provinces to get points at the end of each round. You do this by deploying your vikings using cards.

So far this sounds exactly like El Grande so where do the differences come in? The answer is primarily in the cards. There are three types of cards: bronze, silver, and gold. Not to go into too much detail but the bronze cards typically either allow you to enter new vikings onto the board or invade a particular region with your vikings already on the board. You can do this by moving vikings from the boats or any other area of the map. The silver cards are mostly attack cards which let you replace other players vikings with your own. This is important because the village icons in each province represent the only spots on the board for the vikings. This is different from a game like El Grande where you can have 20+ cubes in one spot on the board. The gold cards are special and do things like allow special scoring or letting you destroy all the vikings in a region of the board.

Hook
So it kinda still sounds like El Grande but the hook in this game is that you draft the cards. At the beginning of each round, and there are only three rounds, each player receives 3 bronze, 2 silver, and 1 gold card. The players look at their hand, take a card and pass the rest. In this way you build your hand for the round and also get some idea of what other people are going to do. In the first round you play 3 cards and have 2 left over. In the second you play 4 and have 3 left over. In the third you play 5 and have 3 left over. You get to use the cards you saved but they do not become part of the draft

Scoring
The scoring happens at the end of each round. You receive points for majorities in provinces in each kingdom. The more provinces in a kingdom you own the more points, 3 for 1, 7 for 2, 12 for 3, and 20 for 4. Only one of the three kingdoms has 4 provinces. You also get points for a majority in one of the heavens regions. Then you receive tokens for any province where you have a presence whether you won a majority or not. After this any vikings in a doomed region, based on placing out 5 doom tokens at the beginning of the round are sent to Valhalla. You get 2 points per viking sent to Valhalla. Then all the vikings in Valhalla are returned to you and you get an additional point for each one.

Do this three times, then cash in each set of 3 different kingdom tokens for 5 points per set and the winner is the person with the most points.

Review
The game has a lot going for it. First of all it is very quick. The book keeping to score each round almost feels longer than the rounds. The area majority mechanic is very strong and the card draft is damn near genius.

I think the game is highly strategic, especially the deck building which allows you to build your strategy for the round while learning about what other players might be doing. I also like the choice between placing your vikings into doomed regions where they will score extra when they are destroyed at the end of the round versus planting them somewhere where they have a chance of playing into a long term strategy.

Strategy
The main strategic choice seems to be that of trying to get points primarily from majorities in regions or by just collecting as many sets of kingdom tokens as you can. For example you could play the game only to get points from majorities. To do this you would try to build a deck to own an entire kingdom in a particular round and perhaps to set yourself up to do so in future rounds. Or you could play the game to collect kingdom tokens for the end game scoring. If you go this route you want a hand where you can spread your pawns across as much of the board as possible. You might go for a hybrid strategy depending on the cards that come your way. I did this in our last game and I managed to score well in one kingdom each round and still have vikings in place across much of the board to earn me kingdom tokens for the end game. Maybe different cards might have led me to a different strategy.

The card play actually reminds me a lot of 1960: The Making of the President. I found myself making a plan for the round and trying to set myself up for the next round the way I separate my debate cards, cards for events, and cards for campaign points in 1960. If things go horribly wrong you can always reconsider the division but I think this mechanic gives a good level of intensity. At one point in the game the other night I used two invasion cards, one attack card, and one special scoring card built from cards collected over two rounds to completely take over and score a kingdom. It was pretty great.

And??
The takeaway is that there's a lot of brilliant stuff going on here. But here's the weird part. This game fell flat again. Gauging the opinions at the table this is what I saw. Richard who despised it last time was annoyed by it yet again. He commented that there's too much going on and too much change in any given round and he feels out of control. Alex was fine with the game but said he just doesn't think it's much fun. Jake said he generally liked it but he likes everything, a good trait in my opinion!

I think I'm a bit more positive on the game than Alex but in the end I'm in his boat. I see what other people think is great about this game. I appreciate those parts of the game and yet the game just doesn't grab me at all. I WANT to love this game but I can't seem to convince myself. When I play it I feel like I'm listening to virtuoso guitar music. When I hear Joe Satriani I can tell it's amazing stuff but I'll take some alterna-pop hooks over it any day.

Hopes
I don't think it's hopeless though. The bare metal of this game is good stuff. I think what this game needs is a re-theming and a complete graphic art overhaul. I have been wracking my brain trying to think about what I would like better that would fit the mechanics but I have had no inspiration yet. Maybe something a bit more modern.

The other thing that would help is more card variety. I understand that part of the strategy in the game comes from the rather small, fixed set of options available but I felt like they were missing a serious opportunity with the cards.

Perhaps what I need is the card drafting mechanic on top of a different style of game. Notre Dame does this but I have never tried it. I like the area game and I like the draft. Like chocolate and peanut butter it seems like I should like them together.

In conclusion I hope someday someone either updates this game or steals all the good ideas and puts them in a game that really shins with me and my group. But as for now, with the size of my collection I can't see Midgard getting a lot of table time with the Metroburbs going forward.

Review: Peloponnes:: Peloponnes Initial Review

Eisley — Fri, 06 Nov 2009 12:59:54 +0000

by Eisley
Peloponnes was another Spiel 09 game that I pre-ordered based on reading the rules. I was also very interested because the designer created Maya, a game I really enjoy even though I tend to lose.

Peloponnes is a civilisation building game that lasts 8 short turns. Players bid coins to purchase land or buildings tiles which generate resource income each round, plus some give one-off instant income. If you exceed certain amounts of a single resource, you get luxury goods instead which can be used in placed of other resources and are an important game mechanic.

To bid for tiles, a player places enough coins to equal or exceed the cost next to the relevant tile. If a following player outbids them, the outbid player moves their coin pile to another tile they can afford without changing the amount, or they remove their bid and take a bonus coin. Some tiles are bid on like this and a few others are available for instant purchase (no auction) but these cost 3 more than their stated price. A player can also not bid at all and receive 3 coins.

Building tiles may need some resources to be spent to build them; however, a player can delay paying the resource cost for a turn but the building will be removed if they don’t pay up. So, it is possible to buy a building for cash without the resources and benefit from the income for a round. Land tiles give their owner income each round but new land tiles must be placed next to another land tile that has one of the same resources on it. This can be tricky as you can only add to a land tile to the end of the row.

Several disasters occur during the game and some building tiles can protect against the effects. Also, twice during the game a supply phase occurs where players must feed their people or their population goes down too. The final goal is to finish with the as many points as possible and points are based on the lower of either three times your population level or the points value of your buildings plus money.

Overall, the game plays very quickly and is simple. I played two 2-player games and we found that there wasn’t much interaction during bidding. This was a real shame as the game seemed almost straightforwards compared to how interactive it sounded in the rules (and from what I now hear from other people too). Without this bidding war, we just purchased tiles most rounds and we rarely wanted the same one. I think this would be very interesting with more players as it would necessitate careful thought in case you get outbid.

One mechanic we fell foul off was that the land tiles that give higher income each round only give income of one resource type. This is very important because it is much harder to place further land tiles next to those (as new ones must include one of the same resources). As I say, we didn’t notice this mechanic and my opponent who had one of these tiles found he couldn’t purchase a single tile during one round which made a big difference. Now we understand it, we’ll know the payoff between bigger income and potential problem.

There are some interesting mechanisms within the game that are quite subtle at first. Using the luxury goods in place of other resources (especially food when you need to feed your population or they’ll perish) means you can specialise in collecting a few resource types rather than need to collect them all.

In conclusion, I did really enjoy the game and look forwards to playing it again, especially with the lighter games group I play with. I want to play it with 4 players which I think will work well. However, if you try to play it without acknowledging the subtleties, you may well miss some of the parts that should add extra flavour. In a game where you only have a chance to buy 8 tiles, every purchase is important and, if there’s lots of bidding interaction, the game should be very interesting indeed.

James.

[Played with 2 players]

This review and other reviews of Essen Spiel 09 games on my blog at http://thegameofgaming.wordpress.com

Review: Macao:: No plan, no theme, no fun: macao

BudsBalkan — Fri, 06 Nov 2009 11:39:45 +0000

by BudsBalkan
Disclaimer: This is just a short impression after one game last night, with no further explanation of the rules:

I really liked Notre Dame for the nice elegant design and ItYotD for his deficit management. But this time I was very disappointed from the last Feld`s creation

Rarely was the theme so strong pasted on as here; really uninspired and with an astonishing lack of interest. If you want to fuel the bias of one Amerithrasher compared to ugly and boring Eurogames, Macao is the right one.

The "new" mechanic is nothing fancy here at all. Yes you have the decision more AP in future rounds or one AP directly. But earnest planning isn’t really permitted, as all depends on the dice rolls in the future rounds. E.g. for the activation of card x with the cost of 3 or 4 different coloured cubes, there have to come the appropriate coloured rolls for the same action round (There are six differnt coloured D6). A mate tried to activate one of his start cards from the beginning on and tried it hard, but couldn’t activate it the whole game. This was really frustrating; as others get there strong multi-coloured cards in the first rounds. But this had nothing to do with right or false planning; it was just the right dice with the right number available.

Another dropdown is that you must choose one card every round. This bogs the game down as the planning is again very limited and you will get minus points for unfinished ones. IMO it would have been a better design decision if you can choose to take one card or not. So it`s really unfunny to be agonized to choose from 3 or 4 cards which are all crap for you and are difficult to activate for you especially.

One more critical design decision is the huge swing of the VP currency. They can span from e.g. 2 gold for 5 VP to 8 gold for 10 VP. (You can only buy one time per round and if you have one AP left)
So you use your gold to buy at an average course and the next turn the player who had lacked one gold last time and just smiles as for his luck he had to buy for such a bargain. Planning is here again limited too.
What really worked for Notre Dame fails here strong.

The flow of the game didn’t succeed either. The game starts slow and then explodes with a lot of AP, to shallow down to the end. For the most time I guess you can imagine who wins the game after 3/4 of the game. This depends also on the snowball effect of some card combos.

Interaction is very low and indirect as often for Euors and will fit the Autism's Edge.
Further more the game is very fiddly and unclear. As the cards looking so similar with too much continuous text, which should had to be changed by symbols, e.g. GM=Goldmünze=goldpiece or PP=Prestige point. It`s very difficult to track another player`s use of his cards and leads to bored downtime.

So the whole game was no fun at all for me but I will give it one more try but can’t figure out how it could convince me that this game has a rushed and unfinished touch.

At the moment I rate Macao 4 out of 10.

Review: Mr. Jack in New York:: Early Impressions

unfathomable — Fri, 06 Nov 2009 08:42:58 +0000

by unfathomable
This is my first review posting on BGG, and it's not going to be a full-fledged review. I got the copy (signed by the co-designer Bruno Cathala!) just yesterday; I played it four times so far, and I don't think I have enough experience to give a complete review. As such, I'm not going to cover the rules of the game. For that, I would simply refer you to [thread=453543]Dean Ackles' excellent full review[/thread] of the game, or [thread=452967]Bruno Cathala's video presentation[/thread]. In this posting, I'm just going to focus on analyzing and evaluating the gameplay, rather than explaining it. Due to the nature of this posting, it may feel somewhat like a spoiler.

Also, I will assume that you are familiar with the original [thing=21763][/thing]. If you are not, well, there are plenty of reviews to look at. You may particularly enjoy this [thread=456974]cool little review[/thread] recently posted by Paul Springer. Also, I want to make clear now that I am a big fan of the original Mr. Jack (I gave it 8.5 on BGG), so this posting is coming from that particular perspective.

...

1. The components are very similar to the original game, which is a very good thing. I like how you can just flip the subway station/building/gaslight tiles to the park side. The only thing that I noticed was that, in the beginning, I kept confusing Alfred Ely Beach and James H. Callahan, but seriously, this is not really going to persist as a problem.

2. I did not have much trouble understanding the rules. Maybe that was because I was reading all the previews and reviews being posted here, but I do feel that an experienced player of the original game should pick this up really quickly. Also, for the new players, I suspect that the rules are not any more difficult compared to the original.

3. People have already said that the new game is more balanced in terms of winning percentages compared to the original, and it definitely feels that way; in my four games, inspector and Jack both won twice each. Part of the reason seems to be that the basic setting has 6 characters visible and 2 invisible, as opposed to 4 and 4 in the original. This seems to help the Jack player in keeping many characters visible in the early rounds, and I like this. In the original, playing Jack can feel stressful (at least for me), especially if the Jack character turns up in Round 2, but I did not feel that way in this new game.

4. Of course, another reason why the new version is supposed to be more balanced is that, as has been said, it is now easier for Jack to escape. This certainly feels true; in my four games, the Jack player actually did not win by escape, but in every game Jack has been so close to getting away, and that rarely happened in the original game (at least in my experience). I see at least three contributing factors to this. First, there are now five potential exits instead of four in the original. Second, there are "two Lestrade's" in this game. By Lestrade, I mean a character that can open up a previously blocked exit, and in the new game Edward Smith and Callahan both can do the job. So there's a greater chance that the Jack player can get hold of either character and open up escape routes as he/she sees fit. Third, the Jack player can place subway stations right near the exit, and this helps tremendously. I really enjoy this new aspect of the game, as it adds a lot more tactical options.

5. Although I wonder if this will change after more plays, it seems to me that no new character is as powerful as Goodley. Again, I like this. When I play the original, most of the time I picked Goodley first, if only to prevent the opponent from using him, and I think I'm getting just a bit tired of that. So the new game feels definitely fresh in this regard.

5. I noticed that the alibi cards may not be as big of a factor as in the original, although I'm not sure. Alibi cards are most powerful in the early rounds, but in our four games I think no one got to Liberty Island in Rounds 1 amd 2. I do not know whether this is an established feature of the new game, but if it is, I am not sure what to make of it. On the one hand, it seems to reduce the luck element of the game, and I'm fine with that. On the other hand, I really enjoy playing Jack with an early Alibi card to maximize the bluffing aspect of the game, but I didn't get quite the same feeling in the new game. Of course, there is still plenty of bluffing remaining in the new game, so it's not really a big deal.

6. I first thought that I would miss Bert; I enjoy using his ability to use the manhole and then covering it up so that no one can approach him, but you cannot do the same thing with Beach. However, I realized that you can pull off a similar feat with Mrs. Emma Grant. In fact, if you're using two characters in a row, you can first pick Grant to create a park and then place another character in it, so one can argue that the previous ability of Bert is now expanded in some sense. In general, I find Grant to be the coolest character, and I thoroughly enjoy how the new element of park adds a whole new tactical layer to the game.

7. As you can guess by now, as a fan of the original [thing=21763][/thing], I'm really satisfied with this new stand-alone version. I tried to come up with possible reasons that a fan of the original might have for not enjoying the new version, and I think I just cannot come up with anything significant. The only thing I can think of is that the new version may be even more of a brainburner than the original, as there seem to be more scenarios to keep in mind. So if the original version hits the absolute threshold of the amount of brainburning that one is willing to tolerate, then perhaps one may not like the new version. For me, it really is not a problem because the game is short. Plus, the fact that I came up with such a convoluted reason in this section probably speaks favorably of the new game.

8. Will those who were not so enamored with the original game like the new version? Well, this is tricky because there can be many different reasons for not liking the original game. All I can say is that I seem to like the new version better "so far." I like the better balance among the characters, and I am in favor of most of the new elements, especially the park. I also get great satisfaction from just seeing how the board keeps changing. For me, it's the kind of game that arouses the feeling of appreciation to the designers.

9. My rating: 9.5 (#3 on my Top 10)

Review: Six:: Hive + Exago = Six? Almost, but not quite

Liko81 — Fri, 06 Nov 2009 01:33:37 +0000

by Liko81
Talk to someone who's played Six, [thing=2655]Hive[/thing], and [thing=15121]Exago[/thing] and the parallels from the first to both of the others are bound to be mentioned:
- It's an abstract strategy game like both,
- a "boardless" board game like Hive,
- where players place and then move pieces around each other like both,
- where the object is to form a winning shape with your pieces like Exago,
- movement is restricted by a "one-group rule" in the basic version, like Hive,
- while in the advanced rules, pieces are removed from the board like Exago.

Having drawn these parallels, the GAS (Game Acquisition Syndrome) for this game was almost immediate in my case. I love abstracts, boardless games even more, and I have both Hive and Exago in my collection. I picked up a copy of the FoxMind version (most common in the US/North America), and here are my opinions after about a month with the game and a few serious sessions playing it.

The FoxMind game comes in a roughly cubic box with 19 hexes of each color, a beige and red broadcloth drawstring bag, and instructions/promotional brochure. The box is good for long-term storage or house moving, but for the most part you'll just use the bag to cart the game around (it's big enough to slide the rulebook into as well). The pieces are roughly an inch along their widest diameter (corner to opposite corner) and made of plywood, painted red or black. The pieces are decently executed, with beveled edges and rounded corners, but when you look at the edges it's obvious they skimped on materials. However, if they'd made the game in metal or Bakelite it would be three times as heavy (and three times as expensive), and if they'd done it in plastic or lightweight resin it'd look cheap from any angle. Pick your poison.

The manual has pretty clear instructions (in English, French, Portugese and Chinese) and the basic idea is pretty clear to begin with. You start with one hexagon of each color placed adjacent to each other. The first player places the next hexagon of his color adjacent only to the opposing piece, and from then on pieces may be placed anywhere as long as they are adjacent to (touching face-to-face) at least one other piece. The object is to form one of three winning shapes using six of your color hexagons; a line, a pyramid, or a ring (the hex in the center of the ring can be either color or empty; it doesn't matter). If all pieces have been placed and no one's won yet, the players take turns moving a single piece of their color from anywhere in the layout to anywhere else, with the same object. In the basic rules, a move is not permitted if it would divide the layout into two groups of pieces, in effect "trapping" pieces that form a bridge to outlying pieces. In the advanced rules, such a move becomes legal, and the pieces stranded from the largest ("main") group are removed from play entirely. In this way, the advanced rules allow a player to win by reducing their opponent to five or fewer pieces, guaranteeing that they cannot form a winning shape.

One rule that is not clearly understood by my little gaming group is whether pieces can be moved when they are almost or completely surrounded, or if you have to be able to pull them out without disturbing the layout. The rules say "from anywhere, to anywhere" but the example pictures only illustrate moving pieces that can be slid out of their current position. Either way, as long as players agree, the game's mechanics are largely the same.

The first few sessions were played between my girlfriend and myself. I won all the games before half the pieces had been placed, illustrating the first tenet of the game; pattern recognition. A good Six player must be able to recognize what various smaller shapes can become as pieces are added, and bear in mind that there isn't a single winning form to defend against. Three hexes in a straight line can become a line OR a pyramid, while three hexes in a pyramid can be used to form any shape. I have found that a particularly powerful (or troublesome) shape is a line of three, plus one piece adjacent to two others in the line. This form is at least halfway to all three winning shapes, requires only two to form a pyramid, and is flexible enough that any move blocking one form still leaves plenty of options. Depending on how open the form is when created, an opponent must play several defensive moves to completely block all possibilities, so getting this shape can set your opponent on his heels, and being faced with it is not pleasant.

The second session of games was played between me and my brother. We work in the same office, and are fairly evenly matched intellectually (a three-game session of Hive more often than not results in a win, loss and draw apiece). Regardless, having the extra experience in pattern recognition, I won three out of four. The one loss illustrates a second key point; like in many games where the object is to form a shape, there exist many situations where a player has two winning moves available. The most obvious one, illustrated in the instruction booklet, is an "open five"; five pieces in a row with both ends unblocked. Usually, though, the multiple winning moves result from the multiple winning shapes; in my scenario, if I blocked the pyramid my brother could still make a ring, and vice versa. Such opportunities can creep up on an unwary opponent, even a skilled one, and similarly can be missed by a player who can make them. Such is the nature of a game with so many options.

The game of Six is aptly named; six sided pieces, six pieces in the winning shape, and 19 pieces per player (Catan fans will recall from setting up the board that 19 hexes form a larger "perfect" hexagon), which after you place your first into the opening form, leave 18 (six times three). All in all, it's a very well-thought-out, multi-layered, "minute to learn, lifetime to master" abstract.

Review: Dungeon Lords:: Dungeon Lords review

dougadamsau — Fri, 06 Nov 2009 01:33:18 +0000

by dougadamsau
This review was first posted to Kulkmann's G@mebox...

Designer: Vlaada Chvatil
Publisher: Czech Games Editions / Z-Man Games
Players: 2-4

Are you ready for heroic deeds that win you fame, wealth, and the hearts of beautiful maidens? Well, then go play another game!

Introduction
Picture this, you are Sauron's lieutenant at Moria. You like your job, dealing with the day to day problems and responsibilities. It's not a hard job... today we are patching some cracks in Durin's Bridge. Suddenly, a group of hooligans comes blundering through, wounding a cave troll, destroying the Chamber of Mazarbul, and putting out the pilot light of your favorite Balrog. How would you feel? Play Dungeon Lords and find out.

Dungeon Lords is the latest game from Vlaada Chvatil. In the past three years, Vlaada has produced three amazing games that sit firmly amongst my favorites. Through The Ages, Galaxy Trucker, and Space Alert - all very different games, and all superb. Dungeon Lords has just turned up, and it has got some pressure on it. How does it stack up?

]]>
The game box.

At the moment, it stacks up very well indeed, but it's not a light game. In a way, this is a similar game to Through The Ages. Mechanically, it's quite straightforward, but there is a lot of game to explore. Vlaada has again provided a game with lots of levers to pull and buttons to press, and again there is a lot to talk about. There is a bit of everything in Dungeon Lords, reading your opponents, blind bidding, bluffing, resource management, construction, .. and that's just half the game. The other half is a tactical combat puzzle that you have to solve quickly, or see the stuff you've built up in the other half systematically destroyed!

You may be expecting Dungeon Lords to be a traditional "dungeon bash" type game. You know the kind ... grab a character, say a warrior or a cleric. Arm yourself with the +3 Sword of Smiting, go have a great time below ground slaying beasties, and emerge a few hours later with great gobs of treasure and the new improved +4 Blessed Sword of Smiting.

Dungeon Lords isn't like that. Instead, you are an aspiring dungeon master, only 150 years old, and wanting to obtain a permit for running a little plot of evil to call your own. The Ministry of Dungeons has given you a couple of years to plan and fit out your dungeon, then they'll return with clipboard and checklist to assess your efforts. While you are establishing your dungeon, bunches of "heroes" are in town getting drunk and planning their next bash. Guess what, you're the target.

Dungeon Lords is played over two years. Each year consists of four seasons of applied dungeon contruction and management. At the end of each year, your dungeon will be attacked by a party of three adventurers. Highest score after that second attack will win the game.

]]>
Opening the game box.

Components
I tend to get a little blase these days when opening a new game for the first time, but Dungeon Lords made my jaw hit the floor. This is a superbly presented package, inside and out. David Cochard and Filip Murmak get the credits for the illustration and graphic design, and they've done an amazing job. You can spend an hour perusing the game box and various game boards, drinking in the visual detail. From the cute, sniggering monsters on the game box to grandpa imp telling tall tales to the young-un in the Imp Room, it is brilliantly done.

]]>
Some of the detail.

The game box for Dungeon Lords is the standard 11 inch square Euro box, a departure from the rectagular CGE boxes of the past. It's quite heavy too, thanks to the cornucopia of bits inside. There are seven game boards, four sheets of cardboard tiles, bags of plastic (imps and damage cubes), wooden pieces, decks of cards, and a rulebook.

The rulebook is 24 pages long and appears quite daunting when you first flip through it. Although the rules appear dense, it follows on from the CGE games of the past and steps through the game in a very clear and concise fashion. The rules are very well written. The book includes a combat tutorial, a one page introduction, and the last two pages are a reference sheet. The rules text is broken up by very funny comments from two characters - a demon and an imp. They flip between jokes and reinforcing important rules points. This style of presentation has been used before in Chvatil's games, to great effect. Here, they are an excellent device to prevent the rules from becoming too dense. If you stripped out the comments and extras, you're left with around twelve pages of rules to absorb.

]]>
One of the player dungeon boards.

There are seven game boards included in the game. Four of these are player boards that each dungeon lord wannabe uses as his dungeon. The boards are two sided - the front side is the actual game play board. The dungeon consists of a 4 by 5 grid where the lord places his tunnel and room tiles, as the dungeon is constructed. There are also handy spaces for storing the various bits that make up a nice, healthy dungeon. We have rooms for food, gold, imps, monsters, heroes that have been captured, and so on. There is even room for the heroes as they begin their advance on your dungeon, as well as the orders cards that you need to play every season. Not an inch of space has been wasted, but it doesn't look too crowded. Excellent piece of design.

]]>
Game board for 2-3 player games.

But that is only the front of the player boards. The boards can be folded in half, and on the reverse side we have two different features. One half is for games of Dungeon Lords not featuring four players - you use these boards as dummy players, and store their bits here. The other half are game tutorials, each one simulating a different attack by heroes on a dungeon. They can be used as examples of play when teaching the game. New players are encouraged to set up the pieces and work through some sample combats so they can see what's coming for them when the game commences in anger. Great idea.

]]>
The central main game board.

Four boards down, three to go! The next board in the game is the central board. This is used to store most of the extra game bits. It is also used to record the outcome of the orders the players have issued for the current season. It is extremely colourful with the same gorgeous, detailed art. Along the right hand side of this board is the "Evilmeter", which ranks just how dark each of our dark lords are!

The next game board is the progress board, which tracks where the game play is up to. You simply advance a pawn along it, and use the handy icons as visual reminders about what happens when. It is also two sided, with one side showing the four build seasons of a year, while the reverse side tracks the four combat rounds that take place at the end of each year. Again, it's very attractive, detailed, and well designed. Every step of the game is present on this board, both the four seasons and combat.

]]>
The combat board, and distant lands board.

The last game board is called Distant Lands - it's simply a holding area for any game components not currently in use, such as monsters, traps, card and so on.

It may seem like we have a lot of game boards (and we do), and it does take a large investment in table space. But when you set up the game and get ready to play, you realise not one game component is sitting on the table. Apart from your hand of orders cards, everything has a storage space. Marvellous.

Dungeon Lords has a lot stuff to punch out. I know gamers who love punching games, and Dungeon Lords will have them at elevated levels of punching pleasure. Be careful though, it doesn't punch as cleanly as it should, and I tore a few tiles in my haste to get up and running.

]]>
Lots to punch, but be careful.

We get 24 monster tiles - these are the guys and gals who are recruited to defend your dungeon. From lowly imps, through trolls, ghosts, slime, golems until we reach the lofty dragon, vampires and witches. The art on the tiles is great - you just want to give those furry, goofy trolls a hug. Even the green slime looks cute.

Opposing the monsters are the hero tiles. These come in four classes - thieves, warriors, wizards and priests. There are also a couple of terrible paladins, who do a lot of stern stuff sternly, apparently. Heroes are rated in strength using several visual cues - a glyph icon, the tone of the tile, a strength factor, and how well the hero is dressed! From barefoot novice priests to experienced wizards with long, flowing beards. In constrast to the monsters, these heroes have a more faceless, generic look. I assume because these are the anonymous invaders, they've been deliberately presented this way. You bond with your critters, not the heroes. I like it.

There are around 40 tunnel tiles to punch out. These are cross shaped tiles that are fitted into your dungeon grid when you construct new tunnels. They are flipped over to a "sunlight" side when conquered by the heroes. You also get several room tiles that replace a tunnel tile when built.

The remaining tiles are a few troll counters that you can recruit, events that are set up on the progress board, and 20 mysterious tiles that there are absolutely no rules for. I'm not sure what's going on here, but I assume from the contents on the back of the box, these are "Item Tiles" - perhaps an expansion that was included for reasons of economy, with no rules yet? From the look of them, they appear to help the heroes, not the players!

]]>
Trap cards, and scoring summaries.

The game comes with 94 cards that are broken down into four different types. 24 of these are the traps that a lord can obtain to install into his dungeon. Traps are the first line of defence in a dungeon, hurting those pesky heroes before they close with your pets ... I mean monsters. 18 of the cards are combat cards, that give any invading wizard heroes a spell to cast. You can commit resources in the game to spy on the heroes in town to see what they are up to (a peek at the card). Nine of the cards are special events that can come into play during the seasonal rounds of the full game. Finally, the 40 remaining cards are the four sets of player orders cards and scoring summary aids.

]]>
Player order cards, as well as the combat (spell) cards.

Finally, we get lots of bits to play with. Each player gets a set of three wooden "minions" used to mark various game tracks during play. They are vaguely imp shaped. There are 30 food tokens which look like green pizza boxes, and 30 gold coins - standard yellow wooden disks. Lastly, there are about 40 plastic pink/orange imps - these are custom sculpts for the game and look great. If you thought the astronauts from Galaxy Trucker were cute, check these guys out.

]]>
Bags of bits.

So, slap the evil smiley face on the start player disk, and let's begin playing!

Game Play - Overview
Dungeon Lords is a resource management game. You spend two years building and running a dungeon, only to have it attacked at the end of each year. The Demon in the rules summarises the game very well ... "Build, fight, build, fight, score ... that's it".

What this means is the game will be played over two years. Each year is four seasons long, and during each season you get to work on your dungeon. Working on your dungeon means mundane stuff - getting food and income, recruiting a workforce, maintaining your evil reputation, adding tunnels and rooms to your dungeon, and so on. But... no matter how hard you try to keep a low profile, heroes in town hear about you. Sure enough, a party of slightly drunk adventurers will invade your dungeon at the end of each year and smash up bits of it, rendering it worthless. As well as the day to day minutiae of dungeon running, you also have to defend it from the two inevitable invasions.

At the end of the second year the official from the Ministery of Dungeons come by and score your efforts.

Game Play - Four Seasons of Building
Lets look at the game play in a little more detail. This is not a difficult game to play, and the rules are terrific, but there is a bit to explain. When first teaching or learning this game, allow 30 minutes to go through the rules.

During the Building part of the game, players take four turns (or seasons) to work on their dungeon. What this means is they pick up their hand of orders cards, and assign 3 of them secretly face down on their dungeon boards. These orders represent sending your three minions out to do your dark bidding for this season.

Players have eight different orders they can issue. These are: Get Food, Improve Reputation, Mine Gold, Dig Tunnels, Buy Traps, Hire Imps, Hire Monsters, and Build Rooms. When placing orders, two of them will be unavailable to you. The two that are locked out are usually the second and third orders you played on the previous season - this is quite nasty.

Once orders are placed, they are revealed and resolved one by one. Each order has a matching track on the main game board - a minion of a player playing a matching order is placed here. There are only three spaces on each track, so there is a real chance a player may miss out. The helpful imp and demon in the rules are quick to point out you can see what orders are unavailable to others and assess your chances of getting in on the tracks. There is also a bit of polite jostling on these tracks, as each position on the eight tracks is slightly different. For example, the first space of the Recruit Imps track allows you to recruit 1 imp for a food. The second space is two imps for two food, while the final space is two imps for a food and a gold. This pattern is repeated across all eight tracks and 24 spaces - there is a definite timing and bluffing element as you try to land your minions on the best spaces for your needs. You issue the order, but are never quite sure how it will be carried out - dark lords don't care about that stuff!

This is where the main player interaction is to be found in Dungeon Lords, in the order selection. Here is a sample of the thought processes you should be taking when thinking about your orders. You scan the other player's dungeons, see their unavailable orders, assess their on-board situation, and try to second guess their upcoming orders. How evil are they? Do they need to fix that? Do they need food, gold, monsters, etc? What is more important to them? What order would they like back next turn, and what two orders can they do without? Can I use this information to hit the generally desired second positon on one of the eight main board tracks? Player position is vital in this phase, as minions go out in player turn order - you need to factor this into your decision making.

But that is only half the problem, because as you are reading their intentions, they are reading yours! It becauses a I know that you know that I know what you know dilemma... and they know you know! Some players will give up on this and simply slap down their orders, but deep thinkers will really bog the game down here as they ponder the variables.

After all the orders are revealed, and minions deployed onto the main board, the orders are resolved. The eight different tracks are worked through in sequence, and the good dungeon stuff handed out. The general rule is first in gets the first choice, but monsters and rooms work in reverse (last in gets first option). As monsters and rooms are the two most important places to send your minions, this creates some genuine agony. You want to be third there to get first pick, but you don't want to be fourth and get no pick! Go too early and you may end up first, which isn't much better. It feels like blind bidding, but you can make good guestimates of your opponent's intentions.

]]>
A 3 player game in action - the first year.

Lets take a quick look at what is handed out, and how it is used.

Food - this is picked up from the village. The first dungeon lord pays for his food, but then it's simply taken from the villagers and reputation suffers. Reputation is tracked on the "Evilmeter", and the more evil you are, the more powerful heroes you will attract. The village is almost the only place to get food, and food is needed for a variety of things. This is a popular spot for minions to visit.

Improve Reputation - you minions head into the village to spread the word - you're not such a bad dude. You get to reduce your ranking on the Evilmeter, and perhaps spy on the heroes to see what tactics they're plotting. You get to peek at one of the upcoming combat cards used in the end of year battle. Handy.

Tunneling - you minion sets your imps to work extending the dungeon by 2, 3 or 4 tunnels. The more you build the more imps you require to do the work. Tunnels are important, as you mine gold in them, and they get converted to rooms.

Mine Gold - gold is required for all sorts of things, and you send your imps into your tunnels to dig some out.

Recruit Imps - the more imps you have, the more mining and tunneling options you have. Imps also do stuff in rooms to produce output for you. We love imps. Notice how you only get more imps after resolving the rooms you need imps for?

Buy Traps - always worth purchasing. These are used to damage the heroes when they attack your dungeon. Traps either cost gold, or you can get one free if you land on the second space.

Hire Monsters - everything is important, but this is really important. Monsters defend your dungeon against the heroes, so you want to recruit early and often. Monsters come at a cost - you have to pay the recruitment cost on the monster tile. This payment is typically food or advancing your evil reputation, but the demon consumes another monster!

]]>
A dungeon board at the beginning of a game.

Build Rooms - this is the nasty bit. There is room for three minions on the Build Rooms track, but only two rooms are available each season. Someone will probably miss out as rooms are one of the main sources of victory points. Like Hire Monsters, rooms are resolved in reverse order, so first in gets last pick. A lot of the rooms have location restrictions on them, meaning they can only be built in certain areas of the dungeon. A common rookie mistake is to commit to building a room and realising you can't place it. Player three on the build room track silently chuckles, as that build room option will fall through to them.

End of the Season
Players pick up their minions that carried out orders at the end of the resolution. A subtle point is orders are optional. If you see a minion that ended up on an undesired space, you can simply pull him back and not carry out the order. These minions are placed on their orders card on the player's dungeon board. Why is this important? Well, players now return one of their played orders cards to their hand, available for the next turn, while the other two cards go to the unavailable spaces. The unavailable cards from this season returning to the hand. The played card returned is usually the first card played in the phase, that is the card that probably earned you the least amount of "stuff". However, this first card can be replaced by an order card with a minion on it - i.e. a minion who didn't carry out his orders this turn and returned from the main board to the dungeon board. I know it sounds confusing, but it's a clever rule. You can forego an order to get that order card back and try for a better result next turn.

After the orders are resolved, a few simple steps finish off the current season. First, any player that has built a production room gets a return from it. This is where your imp work force shines again - you send unemployed imps to the room to get a return, such as gold, food, traps, or even print the local Pravda - nothing like media bias to improve your reputation!

Events
Then we have an event - there are three of these a year and you see them coming a season ahead. Taxes are a levy imposed by the ministry for every two tunnels or rooms in your dungeon. You have to pay gold or take a damage counter and place it in your Dead Letter office. This is essentially the Begging Card from Agricola - minus 3 points at the end of the game. Pay Day simply means you have to pay the recruitment cost of your monsters again, or they leave you. If you don't keep them happy and fed, they move out and rampage the countryside, earning you a point on the Evilmeter. The third event is a special event - you flip a card up off the event deck, but only in the full game.

]]>
Blue has attracted a Paladin.

The very last step of the season is the heroes are assigned to your dungeon. Everyone gets a hero, and you can't avoid it. The strongest hero goes to the most evil player, the weakest to the least evil player. If you have become too evil and reached the Paladin threshold on the Evilmeter, the Paladin comes to visit you. He's basically a serial pest who will be all over your dungeon like honey on crumpets. He can do everything and you usually don't want him in your dungeon. Well... perhaps you do, if the timing is right.

Game Play - Your dungeon is invaded by pesky heroes
At the end of each year, up in town, the heroes get smashed on mead and ale. In between drunken songs and grabbing at wenches, they vow to come and visit your dungeon to do a little B & E followed by a little P & P (pillage and plunder). You can't avoid it, but with good tactics you can tune your game play to get the three heroes you want.

What does this mean? Well, you see what heroes are up in town each season, and you know you'll get one of them. The most evil player will pick up the strongest hero, and so on. You can try to manipulate the Evilmeter so you pick up a hero that's suited to your dungeon - a hero you can quickly capture before he creates too much havoc. For example, if you have a nice collection of traps, you don't want a lot of thieves in the party of heroes coming for you. Thieves love disarming traps.

Managing your Evil rating with respect to the other players is one of the critical things in Dungeon Lords. It's quite easy to get carried away and pay for it later. For example, an wannabe Lord, let's call him "Doug", in his first game happily recruited a vampire and a witch during his first year. "Doug" was a happy lord, and gurgled contentedly to himself. But... then had to feed them. A pillage or two in town sent him over the edge and he attracted the Paladin to his dungeon. Of course, being uber-Evil he had the strongest heroes as well. Carnage ensued and "Doug" had no dungeon left after the first year... but he did capture the Paladin! Meanwhile, dark lord "Janet" wasn't so evil, had the weaker heroes, and finished them off in two rounds of combat, and kept her dungeon fresh and smelling sweetly of fungus. Evil is fun, but being the least evil has benefits too.

Combat takes place over four rounds, each round consisting of several steps. Players work through these steps at the same time, but on their own player board, battling their own set of invading heroes. Resolving combat could almost be considered a separate "mini-game" to the building component of Dungeon Lords. Here players get to make tactical decisions, trying to defeating the invading heroes as quickly as possible. The steps are worked through in order - planning, battle, conquering. It should be noted that nobody dies in these combats - heroes are captured, traps go off, and monsters are knocked out. Warm and fuzzy.

The heroes invade your dungeon and try to conquer tunnels and rooms. Each round, they target the tunnel or room closest to the dungeon entrance. If any survive, they succeed in conquering it, and that dungeon piece will be flipped over to a "sunlight" side. It is considered destroyed... useless to you for the rest of the game.

Combat - Planning
The planning step to combat sees players pick up their trap and monster cards and commit some of them to the current round of battle. If the battle is currently taking place in a tunnel, you can put forwards at most one trap and one monster. The tweak here is ghosts aren't considered monsters, and you can toss any number of these into battle on top of your monster. If the battle is in a room, you can send in two monsters, any number of ghosts and one trap into battle. The traps in rooms are more elaborate, and cost a gold to install. Committing resources to defence is totally voluntary - you can just let the heroes rampage through if you like. However, if your dungeon is totally conquered, the heroes begin releasing their previously captured colleagues from prison, costing you precious victory points.

After planning, everyone flips over their cards, and the combat card for the round is revealed. The combat card is important, as it lists the amount of fatigue the heroes will gain at the end of the round of combat, as well as what spell any invading wizards are casting this round. Canny dungeon lords will have peeked at this card back in the build phase using the improve reputation track, and will have used the fatigue knowledge to plan their assault on the heroes this round.

Combat - Traps
Next, the any traps set in the dungeons go off. They are one shot opportunities to damage the heroes, then they are discarded - so it isn't good to waste them. Traps list the amount of damage done to the invading party, as well as who gets hurt. Traps hand out damage based on the position of heroes in the party - it may be the doughty warriors leading who take damage, or someone else. Some traps damage all members. Any thieves in the party reduce damage by the amount of icons listed on their counter. Players have to set their traps carefully - do you take out the thieves quickly so other traps are more effective in later rounds, or go for the wizard now to avoid that spell you know is coming up.

Combat - Spells
If the combat card listed a "fast spell", it's fired off now. Spells are only cast if there is a wizard or paladin in the party, and only if they possess sufficient magical prowess to fire the listed spell. The smart dungeon lord will have peeked at the combat card earlier, sees what's coming, and hopefully dealt with the threat. How? Well, possibly manipulating the Evilmeter to avoid wizards and paladins, or if that fell through, set appropriate traps to make sure the wizard is captured early avoiding the spell being cast. You do have options, and it can make ... head ... hurt. Some of the spells are amusing - especially the Fireball.

Combat - Monsters
The dungeon lord now releases his monsters previously selected this round. Monsters deal out damage to the heroes, and again the lord must use tactics to maximise the effect. Each monster has different attack options and abilities. Some, such as the goblin, can use both abilities, while most of the other monsters you only have the choice of one or the other. For example, Trolls just thump the first hero in line for three damage, but if you feed your troll some food, he'll do four damage. Slime drops from the dungeon ceiling and damages everybody, or grabs their feet and prevents them conquering the tile this turn. Monsters usually hit once per year and then get knocked out, but some can return and fight again. The mechanical Golem does this - attack, attack, attack - very powerful. Vampires also have this ability - they can do a large attack and leave, or a lesser attack and keep returning. There are many tactical options for your monsters, which you use in combination with your traps, to defeat the heroes as quickly as possible.

Combat - More Spells and Healing
The combat card for this round may have listed a "slow spell" - these are exactly like the fast spells described above, but they take place after the monsters attack. This means you have two chances to get rid of the invading spell casters before these slow but annoying spells can take effect.

Any surviving priests in the invading party can now heal their fellow party members, but only if an monster attacked them this turn. This is a subtle point that can be overlooked. Trap damage and damage from a previous round do not get healed. Dungeon lords can prevent this happening by capturing the priests through wise trap and monster selection.

Combat - Conquering
The final step of a combat round is conquering the dungeon tile. This costs the heroes some fatigue, in the form of extra damage. This is listed on the round's combat card, and represents the heroes efforts in attacking the dungeon. This fatigue may eliminate a character, or even with a bit of clever planning, finish off the entire party. If you've peeked at the combat cards during the year, try to remember the fatigue costs you've seen and plan for it! If any members of the party survive this fatigue hit, they automatically conquer that tile in your dungeon. It's flipped white side up and will not score for you at the end of the game. The Ministry of Dungeons will still tax you for it though!

Losing a tile means you become less evil. Your Evilmeter rating is reduced by one. Other aspects of combat can cause your Evilmeter rating to increase, such as ignoring the soothing Words of Peace spell. This can attact the goody-goody paladin immediately to your dungeon. Paladins can do it all - cast spells, disarm traps, heal and fight. They are also tough to defeat. Still, if another player has a damaged paladin on their dungeon, you can pull a trick or two to become more evil. This attracts the paladin to your dungeon, where he can be finished off by you! Paladins that get captured are worth a nice bunch of victory points - sometimes you want them dropping by!

Combat can last up to four rounds, but may end sooner if you can eliminate the heroes. Don't get too cosy though, as someone else may get beaten up by the Paladin, who them may roam over to your dungeon for the rest of the combat. Combat certainly gets easier to manage as you become more experienced with the game. You have four seasons, which are 12 orders, to tune your dungeon to meet the coming invasion. Tuning means hiring the right monsters to match your traps, constructing tunnels and rooms in such a way that tunnels are taken out before point scoring rooms, and managing your Evilmeter to get the heroes you want to your dungeon.

Second Year
Dungeon Lords is played over two years, so a second round of building and combat takes place. Most of the rules are the same, but the ante is raised. The heroes are a little tougher, and the paladin is a lot tougher. However, the dungeon lords get some extra muscle in the shape of better monsters such as demons and dragons. You get a better selection of traps, and your production rooms can be used twice per season, providing you have the imppower to work them. Trolls are handy here - as well as being as thick as they are tall, they are heavy hitters in battle and will also do the work of an imp for you. While basic game play is the same, it's uncanny how the game feels like it's escalating and getting tougher. You have more monsters, traps, rooms ... it all adds up to more options and deeper game play. The game feels very nicely paced.

]]>
Imps are tunneling.

End of the game - scoring your dungeon
After two years, the game ends and scores are tallied. You are rewarded with points for unconquered rooms, monsters you've managed to hang on to, and captured adventurers. If you've managed to capture a paladin, they are worth a huge five points. You lose points for conquered tiles, or cubes you've accumulated in your dead letter office because you couldn't pay your taxes. There is also a whiff of Puerto Rico in Dungeon Lords - some of the rooms you build may pay out bonus points, such as the Trophy Room or Cafe! Finally, the game awards titles worth three points for various aspects of the game, such as owning the most imps or having the fewest conquered tiles in their dungeon. If your final score is positive, you have defeated the game and are presented your dungeon lord licence. The highest score wins the game ... and for your first few games as you grapple with the game system, that hardly seems relevant!

Modes of Play - Basic and Full Game
There are two ways to play Dungeon Lords, basic and advanced. The rules advise to play the basic game first, before adding in the full game rules. The full game rules aren't that complex, but they do make the game more difficult. They add in special events to the game, which do things like have your imps leave, food rot, witches to be dismissed, and so on. Not really good, and it does make it tougher on the players.

You get to choose what orders are inaccessible at the beginning of the game, which is nice when you know what you're doing and have a strategy planned. The rule I like is that the Hire Monster order comes at an increased cost if you play it as your first order. This is nice... as recruiting monsters tends to be very popular, and if you rush into it, you have to have the finances to back it up. This rule takes some pressure off this very popular order, as the financial burden makes playing it over and over again less attractive.

Playing with 2 or 3 Players
Dungeon Lords is designed to be a four player game, but CGE have made an effort to support the game with two or three players. One or two of the non player dungeon boards are folded over to reveal a mini holding area for the orders cards. The idea of the non-player rules is to get some dummy minions out onto the dungeon board to get in the way of the players. The three player rules here are quite simple as the dummy cards are simply dealt out, and the three minions are placed on the dungeon board on the indicated tracks. However, the two player rules sees each player actually choosing one of the minion locations - it adds a bit of tactical depth to the two player game as you can try to work things to your advantage or to your opponent's disadvantage via your dummy minion placement. It shouldn't be too difficult to extend this to create a workable solitaire variant.

Dungeon Lords is quite a complex game. The rules are excellent, but require a couple of close read throughs to get up to speed. If you are teaching new players, allow 30 minutes to go through the rules, and the combat tutorials. It is strongly recommended you do the tutorials, or be prepared for a new player revolt when their dungeon is smashed up at the end of the first year.

]]>
One of the tutorial combat boards - use these to teach new players.

Once learnt though, the game is quite easy to play. There is a lot of game to explore here, and I can easily see this game getting around fifteen plays before it begins to feel solved. There is a lot of variety built into this design through the way the traps, heroes, monsters and rooms appear. I like the fact that we have the pieces for an expansion already included in the game.

Dungeon Lords is very resource tight, which is the sign of a good design. You will always have a crisis to manage - a shortage of food, gold, imps, monsters, traps ... and so on. You always want more, which is impossible as you only have 24 orders to issue during the game. Do the best with meagre opportunities.

Are then any problems with Dungeon Lords? Well, it's certainly not a game for casual gamers, or even fans of the one hour sessions. The box claims it's a 90 minute game, but I can see that blowing out to over 120 minutes easily. I can see paralysis creeping in when it comes to working through the orders and combat steps. To be fair, you should take your time selecting your orders, as it's critical and you have a lot of information to process when choosing them. Jumpy "fast" gamers may get frustrated by the ponderers taking their time. The game takes a good chunk of table space, so consider that. Some control freak gamers may get annoyed at some of the chaotic elements in the game - such as the "blind" bidding of orders, the random event in the full game, or the spells they didn't care to examine during combat. If chaos is a problem, examine the spells during the seasons, take a bit of time to assess your orders, and don't play with random events!

There may be a perception that player interaction is low. Well, it is, and it isn't. Player don't do stuff directly to other players, rather they try to read their opponent's intentions and try manipulate their pieces around that information. Pretty thematic dungeon lordy stuff. You should be constantly scanning the other dungeon boards to monitor their gold, imps, food, dungeon, orders, etc ... this should give you a good read on where they are at, and you can use that information to plan your orders. Of course it can backfire. This extends to the relative positions on the Evilmeter, which you should be paying very close attention to. You can also apply this to combat as well - you can juggle your resources to try and attract a damaged paladin to your dungeon where he can be quickly captured. It's tricky, but nice if you can get it to come off.

Dungeon Lords is a game of medium to heavy complexity, that will take 90-120 minutes to complete. It's really a game of two distinct halves. Firstly, you manage resources and construct a dungeon that will score points, that you can defend. Secondly, you solve a tactical combat puzzle as you defend your dungeon against an attack. It does feel strange to spend an hour constructing your dungeon, only to see bits of it ransacked by the game systems! Bravo for Vlaada Chvatil for doing something a little different.

So, does it stack up to Through The Ages, Space Alert and Galaxy Trucker? For me, no. It misses out on the "let's play again" factor of Through The Ages, and the breezy fun of the other two games. Dungeon Lords is a deap, meaty game I'll happily play, but I can see it won't be on the table as often as the other games.

Superbly produced game. Excellent for the heavier game fan.

Review: Steam:: "Comparison" review

zeroth hour — Thu, 05 Nov 2009 22:21:50 +0000

by zeroth hour
I had only played Railroad Tycoon before this (in terms of railroad games), and so did my playgroup. My friend recently bought this game and so we decide to play it (we like new things). So what do we do? Make comparisons to Railroad Tycoon all through the session.

NOTE: we played the simplified version of the game, not the full version. Your experiences may vary.

Setup:
Because our game night is on a weeknight, time is always a factor in our games. BSG almost always takes too long for me to finish (mostly due to analysis paralysis) and Railroad Tycoon takes almost too long to finish. Steam on the other hand is actually quite quick - we took less than 2 hours to finish a 5 player game, even though it was our first time playing _and_ we had to read the rules (meanwhile, the Dominion game at the other table almost finished when we finished reading the rules). I count this as a plus, because RRT does take a tad long.

Pieces:
We found a lot of player colours, which was a surprise - we kept thinking they did something else. Ditto with the black goods cubes. The rails were similar to RRT.

Money/Stock raising:
The nonpermanence of income track payment means that you can build a lot more freely. Even moreso in the starter version (which allows for income track lower at any time), which we played.

Actual gameplay:
Our eventual leader started by pulling an urbanize and getting 2 rails at the beginning of the game. He ran away with the game and won. It seems that grabbing initial routes is very advantageous, especially an initial double route. Having a fully connected track is very important too. And train upgrades.

We almost used all the city blocks to urbanize/city growth, so I'm pretty happy about that.

That and it seems nearly impossible to go bankrupt unless you totally screw it up, or everyone purposely screws you over.

Role selection:
This is one of the biggest differences between Steam and RRT (that and the permanence of stock in RRT). I agree with the rankings of the actions themselves - Urbanize is very strong even with the steep cost (remember every extra route you get is a 5 dollar bonus). Engine upgrade is also very important, as it gives you an automatic action you're pretty much going to need.

City growth on the other hand, is a little overranked. It's not easy to pull a set of cubes that other people don't also benefit from, especially in the end game.

I like the mechanism, and other than City Growth the other ranks seem balanced. Of course, I haven't seen a devastating City Growth, maybe I'll change my mind after that?

Endgame condition:
Without worrying about triggering endgame conditions, we could focus more on maximizing score. It's a plus and minus because it does pull a bit of strategy away.

We missed the endgame point score of number of links you build, so I think everyone would have built more short links if that were the case.

Summary:
Again, because of the turn cap and simplification of the roles/resources, it's a fast game. This means it'll probably see more play in my group than some of the "very slow" (RRT/BSG) and "slow" (Agricola/Power Grid) games in my group. But the changes in the rules pull the strategy away from something like RRT and something closer to, say, Puerto Rico, where a good investment will make you pull ahead.

I'd play it again, even though I'm very poor at railroad-style games (and most spatial games for that matter), so I ended up in fourth out of 5 players. I'd recommend it for people who want to get introduced to this style of gaming, because it does allow you to try and see the types of strategy in this style.

Review: New England Railways:: Better than Age of Steam!

photocurio — Thu, 05 Nov 2009 22:19:49 +0000

by photocurio
Ordered from John Borher, I received my copy of the [family=39]Early Railways [/family] last week. Since I'm from Boston, my clear first choice to play was New England Railways!

Since this is a review, I should comment on the components. They are pretty bad. The cards seem to be run off on an ordinary office copier, and not even on glossy paper, which would have helped. It seems mostly playable in terms of information design, except for one issue: player cubes and commodity cubes are the same colors. I just don't get that. If I mark my railway links by putting yellow cubes on them, and there are yellow cubes all over the board indicating commodities that may be shipped by any player, that just seems confusing. Especially for a complex game of color-coded routes and cities. I substituted colored paper clips for player cubes, and they worked very well - see photo below. The map is crude. I immediately began planning a re-draw.

I posted this image of the board (different from previous editions) I set it up with initial cubes and the two starting rail links (for a three player game) built:
]]>

I am not bothered about the quality of components. I knew what I'd be getting when I ordered it. You buy Winsome games for the polished mechanics and development, not for the slick graphic design. Its about the gameplay. Deal.

New England Railways is a good example of polished game development, and I think a far better game than its more famous descendent Age of Steam. Age of Steam is a headache of a game. New England Railways is similar in its core, but elegant, subtle and clean. It will give your head a workout, but without the hassle. (for what its worth, Martin Wallace' Steam, played with "basic game" rules, not standard game rules, is also pretty good - but New England Rails is far away my favorite in this family tree.) There are only two things going on in the Early Railways games: a very challenging auction for the best links, and an equally challenging competition to visualize the geometry of the board to make best use of the very limited number of profitable cubes. That's plenty.

Age of Steam muddied up an already confusing tangle of a game with a messy role-auction. This is completely un-necessary. There is plenty of game in the pick-up-and-deliver mechanic that Borher refers to as the "shiny pearl in Wallace's rough submission". The game that Borher seems to have constructed around it is lovely and elegant. There is lots of luck in New England Rails, but the luck is distributed in a various card drawing, cube picking and dice rolling mechanics so that it never gets tedious (like games with incessant dice rolling for example).

Since I am hopeless at explaining rules, and rules are dull to read about anyway, I'll make a list of things I like about New England Rails, and then some things I don't like, or that are awkward.

1. Money is tight. It shares this quality with Age of Steam, and thats a good thing. It does it in a simpler way though and I like it better. You can take out a $10 loan. But you immediately have to give back $2! You have to give back $2 every turn. This adds up, and you have to work to stay ahead of the debt curve. Later in the game, most players will have gotten themselves debt free, but the early game is a challenge. Of course you can forgo loans, but you might not win many links in the auctions. That would definitely lose you the game. You cannot know yourself out of New England Rails by not having enough money as you can in Age of Steam. You can dig yourself into a debt hole that you can't climb out of (that won't be much fun), but you will won't be out completely. Dollars are the same as victory points so you should always try to be tight with cash. I like this too - clean and simple, and typically Winsome.

2. I like the auction set up: every round there are one fewer railway links up for auction than there are players. Every round, at least one player will not get a link. Other players may also decline to buy a link, if the available links are uninteresting. As compensation, any player who did not buy a link will get to ship two cubes instead of one, and ship first. I think this a simple and elegant way to accomplish what the Ship First role does in Age of Steam. A very key element is knowing when to bow out of the auction to get to ship first.

On the down side, it seems awkward on the first turn. Assuming a three handed game, the first round two links will be sold. The player who did not buy will get to ship twice. Since the only links on the board belong to his rivals, it is doubtful that he would want to ship at all. In our game last night, the player who didn't get a link on the first round ended up losing by a wide margin. These two things may not have been connected, I'm not sure. Probably the point is that the player who does not buy a link the first round will not have to take out a loan on the second, which could be compensation enough.

3. I like the Market Changes (income reduction) mechanic. Although it involves rolling dice to come up with an income reduction factor that requires a certain amount of quantitative analysis (I exaggerate) it does seem to effectively slow down the leader in a fair and interesting way. If New England Railways has a problem, it is a run-away leader problem and the Market Changes phase addresses that. It is still possible for a player to fall way behind the leader(s) without hope of winning, or for a player to get way ahead, but that just means this is a Winsome game, not a nice-nice game. Try not to fall way behind.

4. The one rule that I have doubts about says "every round give the locomotive to the player whose RR is farthest ahead in income". The locomotive is just a token that signifies the player who goes first. I'm not sure I get it. In some games there is a go-first tactic, and an equally good go-last tactic. New England Railways is not such a game. Going first is way better than going last. And, if a RR (player) gets out in front in income, they can have effective control over turn order for a long time, or the entire game. It seems to be a pure positive feedback mechanic. It totally penalized the player who goes last, and has little means of changing that sequence. Why not pass the loco around the table every round? I think it would make a better game. But I have played it once, the Winsome folks played it a lot: they might know something about it that I don't. Its possible.

I'm thinking this game is an 8. I love how challenging it is. I am not sure if it has too much positive feedback (runaway leader issues). If I feel, on more plays, that it has balancing tactics for players behind in turn order, I think it will go up to a 10 for me. I really hope Borher can keep this one in print, so to speak, because its very good.

Review: Samurai: The Card Game:: Can a new and simpler version of a classic be any good?

lacxox — Thu, 05 Nov 2009 21:19:32 +0000

by lacxox
I love Samurai. It's simply the best designer game I know. It's a fine mixture of different oriental games: a little go, Dominoes, mahjong and a mechanism that most closely resembles traditional card games. And it has a great learning curve: you can learn new tricks and get better in the game even after your 100th play. Although it seems to be an easy game with random results, it's really a game of skill where luck has almost no role (or I can say, it has a smaller role than it does in the heaviest member of Reiner Knizia's so-called tile laying trilogy, [thing=42][/thing]). Still it's relatively easy to teach (even its ingenious final scoring system is not as hard to teach as it seems for some).
I was sure Samurai the Card game just can't be so perfect a game. Still I've been waiting for its release for more than a year now. So when I saw it in Essen I didn't want to wait a minute: I bought it.

The Box and the contents
The box looks nice... and huge. I just don't know whose idea it was to publish a card game version that has a box which is thicker than the original box and still is quite large in size. There might be some marketing aspects that led Rio Grande to this stupid decision but seriously, this is my biggest complaint with the game. One week after Essen we spent the weekend together with my wife far from our home. I packed Samurai: The Card game AND Pickomino (not the mini version) AND Keltis:The Card game in one standard-size Kosmos 2-player box (see e.g. Catan: The Card game).
]]>
As for the artwork, Franz Vohwinkel's original numbers, cities and samurai drawings are kept
]]>
while the original forms are simplified to the abstract.
]]>
After all, they were always abstract symbols: a high stome with a triangular base (helmet), a small stone with a square base (rice field) and a medium stone with a round base (Buddha). I loved those bits (even their material which resembled go stones) but the wooden triangles, squares and circles work just as well.
When you look at the cards and/or read the rules you can already find a huge difference between the original and this one: there are no extra tiles - ronin, ships and changing tiles -, only samurais (3xvalue '1', 2x'2', 1x'1' for each player) and the usual 9 cards for collectible stones (values '2', '3' and '4' for each type). Now you can start to be afraid the game will be too simple, too 'dumbed down'. So you read the rules again and start to play.

How it goes
If you know the original game (you should) the new one is rather easy to learn. You start the game with one randomly chosen city placed in the middle of the table and a city card deck placed face up somewhere. Each player has 5 cards in hand and when it's your turn you place one of these cards next to a city and then draw one of your face-down cards to have 5 cards in hand again.
And how do other cities come into play? It's simple, but it is usual for Knizia games, simple ideas can make a game great; let's hope it will be good as well. So when you place one of your cards in a way that it forms an empty corner with a card of a different color, you take the card from the top of the city pile and place it in this corner, next to these two cards. If your card creates 2 of these corners, you place two cards and you can choose which corner to place which city. And that's it.
]]>
The game goes on as usual: if a city is surrounded (here it's always done by 4 cards) the majorities are evaluated and players get the symbols they won. In case of a tie no one gets the symbols (you don't do anything with these, they stay in the 'bank'). There are no player screens now so the often-despised memory element is gone. The game ends when players run out of cards or (more likely) all the symbols of one type are distributed to players. The scoring is just the same as in Samurai.

So... Is it good?
Hell yes it is. It might not sound that interesting first but it really is. It's very different from Samurai and at the same time it's very similar. It's really what its title says: it's Samurai - The Card game. By this I mean it feels more like Battle Line, Schotten-Totten or Keltis - The Card Game (or Lost Cities) now: it's more a game of tactics now.
Yes, luck has a larger role in this one than in Samurai (I'm not sure about its luck factor though yet as first I believed the luck factor of Samurai was also bigger). Yes, it's true that your possibilities for long-time strategy are more limited here. Just like in a card game.
But what makes it fun then? Those decisions can be really hard. Now it's not just 'If I place this card there then I win those' but 'If I place this card there then I win those AND have to place two city cards and it's more than obvious it won't be too good for me so maybe I should wait or place it somewhere else'
]]>
or 'if I place this card there then I won't win anything but I can place that delicious city card there and I will have a great chance to win those symbols shown there'
]]>
or even 'If I place this card there I don’t win anything now but my opponents will have to place their card there so they might place that fine city card next to my value 3 samurai' and so on.
]]>
You still have the possibility to count which cards your or your opponent may still have and base your strategy on this information. Did I say strategy? It's mostly a game of tactics, as you only know the next city card (and there are more city cards than you need) but still... there is a big difference from Samurai. In the original game you had a given board and the number of spaces available was less and less during the game. Here it’s the opposite: you have more and more options in the end, and quite often you have at least three spaces where you could score – but each of these spaces has its advantages and disadvantages so you have to find the best move every time when it’s your turn. And it’s just the same as in Samurai where in the last third of the game you really can feel your head will explode when you are trying to take all possible moves of your opponent into consideration, just to find the perfect move. So even with its simpler rules and fewer cards this game can get really brain-burning as well in the end. So in the end it’s not only tactics, you are starting to plan ahead for one or two moves – just like in the original, but in a more or less different way.

Size does matter
Be warned: even if its box is oversized, this game is big. I have only played it 2-player and 3-player and it seems obvious that if you play it 4-player an average table can be too small for you. Considering the card sizes a 4-player game might take as much space as Carcassonne with 4 or 5 big expansions and here it’s not reasonable to use the additional rule ‘the table is the playing area and it can’t reach further’. Even when we played it 3-player, a 1x1 m table was too small for us so you had to hide some cards partly. So play it on a huge board or play it on the ground. We played it this way with my wife (you don't have big tables in a hotel room); we like playing on the ground.
]]>
By the way, she liked it very much. She likes Samurai as well, still it’s not too often that I play it with her; she is not often in the right mood for a serious brain-burning. But she likes playing Keltis – The Card Game or Battle Line/Schotten-Totten and Samurai – The Card game feels a bit more like those. So it feels different from the original: it’s really a card game now. Even if – of course – it can’t reach the perfection level of Samurai, it’s a really good card game.

Review: Campaign Commander Vol I. : Roads to Stalingrad:: A breeze of fresh air in the way to Stalingrad

Oersted — Thu, 05 Nov 2009 19:00:29 +0000

by Oersted
Some days ago my friend and game designer [person=1767]Oriol Comas[/person] brought me Roads to Stalingrad from the gameboard convention held at Cordoba the weekend before Essen '09, directly purchased from the designer [person=11182]Francisco Ronco[/person].

This is the first installment of the Campaign Commander game system, which in the future will offer titles as different-themed as Coral Sea and Hannibal ad portas. Now, I've finally managed to play it, so here goes a review...

]]>

Components
Unfortunately for the purchaser, the first thing you see is perhaps the worst part of the game: its components. The box design is average, with a typical MMP box size, but it is a very weak box, which I fear it will be easily crushed if someday I don't remember that this game is under some other heavier and more sturdy boxes.

Now, let's open the box: inside you'll find:

1. A boardgame: A 80x65 cm map of southern Russia, Ukraine and the Caucasus, divided in areas. Maybe the best component of the game, IMHO. It is a functional and clear map. Nothing spectacular but I think it's quite elegant and not cluttered at all with info. I like it!

]]>

2. Cards: 70 cards divided in a Soviet deck and an Axis deck (plus some promo cards). They are good quality cards and perfectly functional. They are divided in operational cards, attack cards, battle cards and event cards.

3. Two d10 dice.

4. 176 5/8'' die-cut counters: For me, the worst item in the game. The main problem is the difficult in reading the info at a glance, especially for the Axis counters. You get accostumed, but bigger and more outlined numbers would help. On the other hand some counters are really bad die-cut. I don't mean the images are off-centered, it's the front and back die-cutting which is slightly shifted, resulting in counters in which the front cardboard is displaced relative to the back cardboard.

]]>
Some counters on the map. In the foreground, a supply depot (see below). Image by Lev Mishkin

5. A rule booklet. It includes the general Campaign Commander series rules and the specific Roads to Stalingrad campaign rules. The booklet is ok, although a bit cluttered and without a clear visual structure (titles of sections and subsections and the main text are all in the same font size). Nevertheless, as the rules are quite brief and without many exceptions, that's not a serious problem.

Well, let's go to the really good stuff...

How to play
I must confess I hadn't great expectations, but after reading the rules I was surprised by the mechanics of this game, which I think gives some fresh air with interesting ideas. I'll give here a very broad summary of the mechanics.

The game is played continously in a sequence of operational "turns" until one of the players completely depletes his card deck (or until some special "sudden death" cards are played). In each operational turn each player secretly decides wether he'll conduct operations on the map or he'll play/draw/discard a card. Here you get a typical "I think he thinks that I'm thinking that he will play...", because if both players decide to conduct operations on the map, only one of them will be able to act (both roll 1d10, the player with the initative having a +2 modifier: only the higher roll will conduct the operations). If one player decides to conduct operations and the other one to play/draw/discard a card, the operations player goes first.

]]>
Playing the game. Image by Lev Mishkin

Of course conducting operations is essential: it's the way of moving and reorganizing your units and of attacking the enemy. But the cards, on the other hand, beside some very interesting events, are key for having new supply depots, constantly depleted by the operations, and new reinforcements. And the supply depots are maybe the core of the game. When you decide to conduct an operation, you spend a supply depot located on the map and this gives you 6 supply points (SP), which allow you to move a stack (1 SP), stack units (2 SP), reorganize units (1 SP each) or replenish exhausted units (1 SP each). All units using these SP must be at most 3 areas away from the original location of the supply depot. Of course, after conducting some operations you are left with very few supply depots and you desperately need to use cards to get new supply depots. Note, as well, the high cost of stacking units in a zone, so be very careful with your movements!

Battles occur when, after moving, a unit or a stack ends in the same area as enemy units. It must be noted that battles occur immediately (that's not a "move all units first and then fight"), so it's important to think carefully about the timing of your operations. After the battle has ended you go on spending SP, if there are still SP to spend (so possibly moving other units after the battle, reinforcing a just won position, for example).

The battle system is the other interesting mechanics of this game. I suppose it won't be to the tastes of all wargamers, but I liked it quite a lot. The key to the battles are the battle chits (BC). Both sides have their BC in a cup or mug. When a battle occurs each side draws as many BC as the best tactical rating of his units. Then, alternatively, both players use their BC. These BC cause disorganization or hits in the enemy units, usually rolling 1d10 and comparing the result with the cohesion rating of the unit. When a unit is disorganized it must retreat immediately. The battle ends when all units from one side have retreated (or been eliminated, although elimination is very rare, only possible when a unit is completely surrounded).

]]>
Some battle chits (not published version). Image by Francisco Ronco

As I stated earlier, the game ends when one side has depleted his card deck or a player uses a "sudden death" card to end the game. Then victory points are awarded to each player as a function of the victory zones controlled and the losses inflicted to the enemy.

Overall impression
All in all, I was pleasantly surprised by this game. Although I should play more sessions to assess its balance and replayability issues, I think it's a very solid game, aimed at the "low-complexity, maximum 4 hours" sector of wargames. Maybe it's not as introductory and aimed at non-wargamers as the designer states (I don't see my eurogamer friends playing this one), but if you played some simple wargames this one could be your next step.

One thing I liked is that I can concentrate on the global picture of the campaign, without fiddling at each move with attack and defense values, just to get that point I need to go from a 2:1 ratio to a 3:1 ratio. Here it's much more important to focus in how to handle your supply and units, where to build up supplies to smash the enemy again and again in few turns, where to move my Panzer divisions to act as a spearhead without having to stop because I depleted all my supply depots of the zone, etc.

I hope this review will give you a good overall idea of this interesting game. Give it a try if you can!

Review: Le Boomb:: Le Fizzle or Le BOOOOM?

Walsfeo — Thu, 05 Nov 2009 16:36:20 +0000

by Walsfeo

Disclaimer - Mayfair sent me this game.

Components
One small plastic bomb
One six sided die with special characters

How does Le Boomb play?
The bomb starts in the center
Players roll the die

The die role results move possession of the bomb to the die roller or eliminate one player from the game. Last player in the game wins.

The review has already exceeded the rules in length and you already know if this game is of any interest to you; so if you are a busy person, you can safely ignore the rest of my review. However, if you are procrastinating at work - read on!

My opinion about game play
Le Boomb! is not my kind of game. It is as shallow as an activity can get and still be called a game, there are no decisions so it is really more of a ride than a game.

On the other hand - the bomb moving around the table while players roll and pass the die around the table is attention-grabbing and it plays very fast. But most importantly it starts fast - I could get even my non gaming family to sit down and play Le Boomb! before they even realized they were involved in a game activity.

This would be a fun game for elementary or middle school kids, if the violent bomb theme isn’t a problem. It is a problem for the home school parents that patronize my library. Maybe if Mayfair produced a water balloon version...

Some thoughts on the bits
The kids love the bomb. My son broke into the package and swiped it before I even had a chance to read the rules.

When I first saw the package I thought the bomb was a timer, or vital componant.It really isn't. The bomb comes apart and can hold the die once the form-fitting plastic clamshell packaging is lost or discarded. It will get lost. So will the game. That’s ok ‘cause you’ll find it years later when you have nothing better to do than go through that junk drawer or vacuum under the couch.

You can add your own fuse to the stem at the top of the bomb, which I’d suggest making a loop so you can hang this somewhere, possibly even turning it into a keychain fob.

The die, which is well made so the bomb pictures won’t rub off, is the only essential bit in the game; so you are basically paying $5 for a die and a bomb shaped prop/die case. However, I have played this with a substitute items, and saying "you will be removed from the game if you roll a 1" doesn’t have the same impact as the little plastic bomb and the appropriate die.

The rules are on the packaging/labeling card, and it's a shame they don't fit in the bomb. (Mine fit in the bomb, but scissors were involved and it looks like someone chewed on it.)

To sum up
Le Boomb! is a streamlined game experience with all of the actual decision making taken out of it. If you are looking for any depth of play, this is a red light and not the game for you. I will never, ever, suggest this game when hanging out with my gaming friends - even to kill time. However I will keep it handy to entertain my 10 year old son, his friends, and various non gaming relatives. The young kids love the bomb.

Le Boomb! would make a great ‘small gift’ or even travel purchase* because it is inexpensive, very small, and can be played almost anywhere**. If you ever make a game gift-basket for non-gaming friends, or have to fill in some extra space in a Christmas Stocking, this is just the thing.

Or if you need to kick your order up over a spending limit to get free shipping from an e-tailer, this might fill that gap nicely.

*A great travel purchase if you are travelling by car but not by airplane because one of the two components is a die with pictures of a bomb, and the other is a bomb.

** Except places where talking about bombs might draw the wrong kind of attention. Like perhaps airports, or the London Underground.

Review: Dungeon Twister 2: Prison:: Brief Solitaire Review

aimoned — Thu, 05 Nov 2009 16:11:44 +0000

by aimoned
First and foremost, I love Dungeon Twister. When I found out that they were relaunching the base game and introducing a solitaire version I was very excited and a little nervous. I didn't want them to change too much and I wasn't sure how they'd capture the challenge/surprise of a two player game in a solo game. I'm not going to go into great detail about the new characters/items, because I don't want to spoil it for anybody and everybody has their own preferences.

After reading through the solitaire rules and playing through it once on rookie level, I can honestly say that I have never been more impressed with a game's execution.

I'm not sure if I was most impressed with the amount of fun the solitaire game is; the fact that they captured everything I love about the regular game; or the ingenuity of the gameplay components.

Fun: The solitaire game is definitely extremely fun. It is challenging and exciting and the fact that there are 6 difficulty levels, plus options to include other new gameplay mechanics, makes me feel like I can enjoy it for a long, long time.

Capturing the regular game: They've done a very good job of handling the room reveal, placing the tokens, opponent actions, etc. Additionally, they have even improved on the base game, by randomizing your opponent's starting team.

New stuff:

First, the new characters. The relaunch contains 3 familiar characters (Wizard, Mekanork and Cleric) and 5 new ones. So far, I really like the new characters. They all have interesting abilities and even remind me some of the base game characters (which is good).

New items: Of the six items, three are new (rope, key, fireball wand remain). The three new items definitely work well together and with the "new" room mechanic.

New rooms: The new rooms are refreshing because they are similar to the baserooms in their simplicity, but add a "new" element (it is in a later expansion, so I've seen it before), that works really well with the new items and characters. It's nice to have new, simple rooms, since you don't have to worry about issues like darkness, ice, whatever, that becomes problematic without the appropriate objects or characters.

New cards/miniatures: The new cards are fantastic...really well done graphically and I love the individual cards for each character. Makes learning the new abilities much easier. Having miniatures is cool, but I might actually prefer the cardboard standups. Easier to see what's what, plus it would have been much nicer to incorporate characters from all the other expansions in a uniform manner (aside from just using the tokens).

Solitaire gameplay mechanics: All of this stuff is amazing. The item placement is done extremely well...when you reveal a room, there is a card that corresponds to that room with a grid system on it...you roll a die for each item/character you will place (which is drawn randomly out of a bag) and place it accordingly. Works really, really well.

The character selection is also extremely impressive. Essentially, you play with your 8 base characters. Choose 4 for your starting line...the rest go in the bag...all 6 items for each team go into the bag...then, from a deck of 32 cards, you draw 8 opponent characters and put their tokens in the bag. The 32 cards are 4 different characters of each character type. In other words...there are 4 different Wizards, each with different behaviors and abilities...4 different Clerics, etc. From there, everytime you reveal a room, 3 tokens from the bag are chosen at random and placed according to the above.

The opponent character actions are genius. The aforementioned cards are used and each one is different. Each card shows 6 or so preferred actions that the particular character would want to perform that turn, in ranked order. Additionally, each character has a preference on items and other characters. So, if the top preference is to engage in combat and you can do it in the number of allocated action points, you would perform that. If you couldn't, you'd attempt the next task. Overall, it works extremely well and it feels as if you are playing against an actual opponent. When I first played, the "game" was able to score a victory point (via escape) on its very first turn.

All in all, the game works incredibly well...when I figured out the way to use my wizard to carry a wounded character just to the escape line and then on the next turn, have the wizard use a fireball wand to kill an opponent and return to the wounded character and on the final turn, scoop up the character to escape, for the last 2 points I needed, I knew that it captured exactly what I enjoy about the base game.

Review: Monarchy: The Game of Kings:: Monarchy - A light review by Pe-ads

Peads — Thu, 05 Nov 2009 15:33:58 +0000

by Peads
Monarchy is a light card-game for 2-4 players, has similarities to Rummy-like games and lasts about 20 minutes.

The basic gist is this:

There are 42 (I think) cards in the deck. Each of these cards has the name of a British monarch, picture of said monarch, which 'house' they came from (surname), and how long they reigned.

Depending on the number of people playing players are dealt cards (8 for 4 players, 9 for 3 players and 10 for 2 players). The rest of the cards are placed face down on the table. These cards form the 'pool'. Each player is also given a scorecard.

On a players turn he picks up a card from the pool. If they wish to keep the card they add it to their hand and discard a different card (face up) back to the pool. However, if the card they picked up was already face up the player cannot discard the card. This is to stop players from skipping a turn, i.e. discarding the card you just picked up.

So much for 'basic gist', but oh well. Now you're probably thinking 'Where's the fun bit? Or do you just discard cards based on how pretty they look?' Ah ha, here's the rest!

Here's the rest:

Basically, the house name and the first name of the card show which sets it is in. If I have Charles 1st of the House of Stuart, that card is part of the Charles set and the Stuart set.

Each set is worth points (shown on the scorecard) based on how many years the monarchs in that set reigned. Some sets have 1 card in them (the 'Anne' set), and some have 8 cards (the house of Tudor). Cards can also be part of more than 1 set, e.g. the aforementioned Charles 1st of the house of Stuart could be part of the Charles set and the Stuart set. However, the sets only count for points if all the cards in that set are in your hand.

When you have a full hand, you may call 'Monarchy!' and end the game. However, this does not mean you win. The winner is calculated based on the point values of the sets they own. For example, John may cry 'Monarchy!' with 4 low-scoring sets, but Sarah may have 2 high-scoring sets, meaning Sarah would win because she has more points.

There are several other nuances of the game that are too small to bother going into here.

My view

Monarchy is fun, short, and simple, while offering some surprising brain-burning parts. While it does contain luck (it's a card game!), most of the time you will win or lose depending on how you (and the others) play.

My rating: 8.5

It is one of those rare games that offers depth of strategy and decisions in a small time-frame. Well recommended.