Recent additions | BoardGameGeek

Review: Niagara:: [Video Review] - His lip beaded with sweat as they strapped him in....

UvulaBob — Tue, 24 Nov 2009 07:35:42 +0000

Here's a review I threw together after playing this one at a party last weekend.

Enjoy, please!

Youtube Video

Review: World Without End:: [German Review] Die Tore der Welt oder Das Leid armer Bauern zu Zeiten der Pest

toerck — Tue, 24 Nov 2009 04:13:49 +0000

Die Tore der Welt ist der Titel der offiziellen Fortsetzung des Romans Die Säulen der Erde von Ken Follett. 49 Millionen Euro Vorschuss hat er dafür kassiert. Ob der Roman dies Wert ist, vermag ich nicht zu beurteilen. Das Spiel ist dementsprechend gewissermaßen natürlich auch eine Fortsetzung von Die Säulen der Erde und ein erster Blick auf das Spielbrett und die Spielmaterialien erinnert einen auch sofort an den Vorgänger. Jedoch ist der Spielablauf und das Spielgefühl ein anderes, und die Spielfortsetzung hat auf jeden Fall ihre Daseinsberechtigung und ist weit davon entfernt, einfach nur ein billiger Abklatsch, und ein Aufspringen auf den Goldeselzug zu sein.

Gespielt wird das Spiel in vier Phasen, die aus sechs Ereignissen bestehen, die durch Karten ermittelt werden. Da in jedem Spiel zufällig die Hälfte der Karten aus jeder Phase aussortiert werden und nicht mitspielen, spielt sich jede Partie ein wenig anders und man kann sich keine vorgefertigte Strategie zurechtlegen, mit der man das Spiel sicher gewinnt. Wenn die Karten zu einer eigentlich funktionierenden Strategie nicht im Spiel sind, kann sie einfach nicht funktionieren.
Auch in Die Tore der Welt baut man wieder. Diesmal sogar verschiedene Gebäude in Kingsbridge. Das bauen steht aber nicht im Vordergrund des Spiels. Man kann bauen, hat aber auch Siegchancen, wenn man nicht einmal im Spiel an einem Bauwerk gebaut hat.
Im Zentrum des Spiels stehen die zwei Mechanismen, die den Reiz des Spiels ausmachen, und die es in meinen Augen deutlich besser als den Vorgänger machen. Wier erwähnt besteht jede Phase aus einer gewissen Anzahl an Karten. Wer am Zug ist, deckt die oberste Karte auf. Jede Karte verursacht ein Ereignis, dass entweder alle Spieler trifft, sei es im positiven oder negativen Sinne, oder aber nur Spieler, die einen bestimmten Einsatz bringen wollen. In den vier Ecken der Karte finden sich je ein Symbol für die Gunst des Königs, Geld, Siegpunkte, Getreide, Frömmigkeit, Baumaterialien und Medizinisches Wissen. Diese Karte muss nun auf einem Feld auf dem Brett abgelegt werden, so dass eine Ecke der Karte zu jeder Seite des Spielbrettes zeigt. Man selbst bekommt entspechend des Symbols das auf einen zeigt entsprechend Geld, Punkte, Materialien. Jedoch bekommen die Mitspieler auch die entsprechenden Dinge, deren Symbol auf einen selbst zeigt. und als wäre das noch nicht genug, sind neben der Ablagefläche auf dem Spielbrett auch noch Zahlen aufgedruckt, von null bis drei. Am unteren Rand des Spielfeldes gibt es auch wieder eine Aktionsleiste mit einem Spielstein. Auf jeder Spielkarte befindet sich genau ein Pfeil. Je nachdem auf welche Zahl der Pfeil liegt, wird der Marker auf der Aktionsleiste vorgesetzt und der Spieler bekommt die entsprechenden Vor- oder Nachteile. Manche davon sind zu einem gewissen Zeitpunkt des Spiels sehr hilfreich, andere erst später oder früher, wieder andere sind nur negativ. So muss man sich also beim Ablegen seiner Karte sowohl überlegen, ob man das Material, dessen Symbol auf einen zeigt benötigt bzw. ob man damit seinen Mitspielern mehr hilft als sich selbst, und zu gleich muss man auch noch darauf achten, dass man nicht durch den Fortschritt auf der Aktionsleiste von negativen Ereignissen getroffen wird, wenn man ein Symbol wählt, dass einem eigentlich Vorteile bringt. Oder aber auch noch schlimmer, wenn man durch das Vorrücken auf der Aktionsleiste den Gegner nah an ein Feld bringt, das ihm auf Grund seiner Taktik viele Aktionspunkte bringen würde.
Durch diesen Mechansimus ist man immer in einer Zwangslage und hilft sienen Mitspieler in jedem Fall mehr mehr, mal weniger. Ein Mechanismus der mir außerordentlich gefallen hat.

Weiterhin hat jeder Spieler 12 eigene Aktionskarten. Diese sind bei allen Spielern gleich und jedesmal nachdem eine der oben genannten Ereigniskarten ausgepielt wurde, darf jeder Spieler eine seiner Aktionskarten spielen und die Aktion ausführen. Jedoch muss man nachdem man dies getan hat auch immer eine Aktionskarte ablegen, die einem erst in der nächten Phase zur Verfügung steht. Das bedeutet dass man sein Vorgehen sehr genug planen muss, und durch manche Ereignisse können Karten, die man auf der Hand behalten hat, funktionslos werden und bereits abgelegte Karten können enorm an Bedeutung gewinnen. Ebenfalls wieder ein sehr interessanter Mechansimus, bei dem man sich selbst ständig in Bredouille bringt.

Am Ende jeder Phase muss man Abgaben leisten, so dass man eigentlich das ganze Spiel über damit beschäftigt ist, die Rohstoffe für diese Abgaben zu sammeln. Erst wenn man diese sicher gebunkert hat, kann man sich ans Werk machen, Siepunkte zu sammeln. Denn dies Auswirkungen wenn man nicht in der Lage ist, seinen Tribut zu entrichten sind absolut fatal und können einen im Spiel sehr weit nach hinten werfen.

Fazit:
Die Säulen der Erde gehört zu den wenigen Spielen, die ich wieder verkauft habe. Man hat Runde für Runde mehr oder weniger für sich selbst gespielt, die Interaktion mit den Mitspielern war auf ein Minimum beschränkt, und wirklich langfristig planen konnte man bei dem Spiel in meinen Augen nicht wirklich. Auch dieses stumpfe abhaken der einzelnen Stationen auf dem Spielplan fand ich ziemlich dröge und weniger preisverdächtig.
Wirklich weit planen kann man in die Tore der Welt auch nicht. Man versucht einfach in jeder Phase, die benötigten Ressourcen zu bekommen, um am Ende die Abgaben leisten zu können, und veruscht dies so effizient zu tun, dass man sich noch darauf konzentrieren kann, Siegpunkte zu erwerben. Aber das Spielgefühl ist viel dynamischer, frischer, lebendiger.Jede Runde läuft ein wenig unterschiedlich ab, und die Spielmechansimen, die Interkation mit sich bringen, haben mir außerordentlich gut gefallen. Man kann seine Mitspieler ganz schön auflaufen lassen, wenn man ihnen permanent den Zugriff auf bestimmte Ressourcen verbaut und sie selbst nicht die entsprechenden Karten ziehen (so hatte ich in einem Spiel drei Phasen lang keinen Zugriff auf Tuch, was meine Planungen komplett umgeworfen hat). Passiert so etwas, kann man schonaml auf die Idee kommen, dass man eigentlichw wenig Siegchancen hat, aber man hat jederzeit die Möglchkeit seine Taktik entsprechend anzupassen, so dass wir am Ende punktemäßig alle recht eng beeinander langen.

Abschließend lässt sich sagen: Wem Die Säulen der Erde gefallen hat, der wird sicher auch seinen Gefallen an Die Tore der Welt finden, welches für mich das eindeutig bessere Spiel ist. Fans sollten also definitiv zugreifen. Wer mit Die Säulen der Erde jedoch Probleme hat und es nicht sonderlich mochte, wie ich, dem könnte Die Tore der Welt trotzdem gefallen, da der Spielablauf wesentlich angenehmer gestaltet wurde, und das Spielen an sich nun einfach Spass macht, obwohl man ständig kurz vor dem Ruin steht. An der Unplanbarkeit des Spiels hat sich nicht viel geändert, länger als eine Runde ist eine Planung immer noch nicht wirklich möglich. Aber anders wie bei Die Säulen der Erde tut das in Die Tore der Welt nicht wirklich weh.

Review: Tobago:: SdJ? Not quite...

stormseeker75 — Tue, 24 Nov 2009 04:07:55 +0000

by stormseeker75

Tobago sounded like a really interesting game to me from the start. I was really intrigued as to how this game could possibly work. I was both excited at the possibility and concerned at how well it could be implemented. What I discovered is that both of those views had merit. Most of the reviews and opinions on BGG focus on Tobago as a family game or something to play with non-gamers. After a couple of plays, I think I can safely disagree with that opinion. So if Tobago is not for a family, then who does it cater to? Is Tobago a hidden treasure or just another false idol?

Rules

If you would like to read the rules, they are posted here on the Geek.

The basic gameplay revolves around playing cards to help find the treasures. There are always 4 treasures to be found (black, brown, white, and gray). On a player's turn, he can play a clue card into one of the treasures which will help narrow down where a treasure may be found. Once there is only one spot left, the treasure can be dug up and awarded to the players that helped find it.

That's the basic mechanism that moves the game. There are some additional rules such as moving your car or picking up/using an amulet, but those can be read about in the rules.

Components

Tobago starts off with a nicely illustrated map that is made of 3 interconnecting pieces. Each of the 3 pieces is double sided so there's a huge amount of variety in the board setup. Additionally, there are 4 wooden huts, 3 wooden trees, and 3 stone statues to put on the board. The statues are especially cool as they are made out of some kind of resin and have a nice texture and weight. Each player gets a small wooden Jeep to move around the board as well. The whole setup looks great.

The cards are small Euro sized and are nicely coated. The illustrations are very clear on the clue cards so its very easy to tell the different terrain types.

Gameplay

Clue cards - narrowing down the treasure location
The main crux of the game is playing your Clue cards to narrow down where a treasure is. Be warned: The first time you play this, its tough to figure out exactly how the cards work together. It gets easier with repeated plays, but expect new players to make many mistakes in interpretation. As I said, this gets easier, but for a new player it can be really hard to visualize the effect a card will have on the treasure's location. As such, expect your first game (or any game with new players) to take longer than it feels like it should.

Amulets
Amulets allow players to break the rules in various ways. If a player collects an amulet, he can use it to take extra moves with his Jeep, play extra Clue cards, or even remove location markers from the board. Amulets come out every time a treasure is found by finding the last hex on the island in a Statue's line of sight. After the amulets are placed, the statues rotate. This is one aspect of the game I can do without. Placing the amulets and rotating the statues just slows the game down. I also don't like how the amulets are always placed on the shore hexes as it detracts from players trying to find the treasures, adding time to the game. The extra powers of the amulets can be really helpful, but they can also be quite confusing to new players. The extra options can overwhelm new players when they will probably already have a hard enough time trying to grasp the concept of finding the treasure.

I've played 2 games with the amulets and one game without them. In my opinion, new players should probably play without them for a game or two until the rest of the game is second nature. Then, add in the amulets to ramp up the strategy in the game.

Fiddly
Tobago is fiddly. There's no question about it. Constantly adding cubes to the board and then removing them is fiddly. Fidgeting with the statues and amulets is fiddly. Trying to fit a Statue, a cube, and a Jeep on one small hex is fiddly.

You're going to spend a lot of time fiddling with bits in this game. The nature of using the cubes to show where a treasure might still be means that you will often have a lot of cubes on the board. And then you need to make sure that you don't miss any when narrowing the location down.

As I mentioned earlier, the turning of the statues for amulet placement is also a bit fiddly and time consuming.

Downtime
There can be a lot of downtime in Tobago. Many times, a player will need to take their time to find a Clue card they can actually play and will need to recheck their options several times. Also, the placement and removal of the location cubes can take time. To me, it feels like the game is constantly stopped every time it gets going. The constant stop/start of placing the cubes kills the pacing of the game.

Choices
A player's turn can have too many options: Play a clue card and where to play it? Move the truck and where to move it to? Pick up a treasure? Find an amulet? Use an amulet? Which power to use? For a family game, it may be a bit too much to digest. Most good family/gateway games offer simpler choices on a turn and I think Tobago may have a few too many options.

Player numbers
I've played this game with 2 and 3 players. I think it works just as well with both of those numbers. I think 4 would probably work fine as well.

Compare it to...

Man, I'm not really sure what to compare this to. I suppose its a deduction game at it's heart so any deduction game fits the bill. Tobago however, goes well beyond simple deduction and combines several other mechanisms to make a fresh new design.

Overall

It may appear, based on the above words, that I don't like Tobago. That's definitely not the truth. I like Tobago! I really do. It's visually appealing, the mechanisms are fresh and interesting, and there is room for choice along with a fair bit of luck. Tobago is a really interesting package of mechanisms that works pretty well.

I rate Tobago a 6.5/10 because of the above mentioned flaws. It's a good game with some great ideas, but the points I made above take a lot of the shine off of this game. In the one game I played without the amulets, I felt like the game improved drastically and I would rate it a 7 or 7.5. As it stands out of the box, I feel it needs some work to truly shine.

The reason for the negative spin on this review is because this game is constantly being billed as a great new family/gateway game. I think it could work for a family, but you're going to have some major obstacles in your first game or two. People talk about this game as the first real SdJ candidate for next year, but I think the fiddliness and tough learning curve make this one a poor choice for the SdJ. I'm sure we will see something that is more fitting in the near future.

Review: a la Carte:: [German Review] A la Carte - Oder: Zu viele Köche verderben den Brei

toerck — Tue, 24 Nov 2009 03:44:41 +0000

by toerck

Das Spiel macht schon ein wenig neugierig, wenn man es so auspackt. In der Spielschachtel findet man kein Spielbrett, keine Figuren, sondern Pfannen (richtige kleine Pfannen, keine Pappfpannen), Gewürzflaschen, kleine Gasherde (die sind allerdings aus Pappe), und dann aber doch noch ein paar Spielmaterialien, die an ein normales Spiel erinnern, z.B. Kochlöffel, Sterne, Gerichte und Crepes. Worum es geht scheint also ganz klar zu sein: Wir sollen Chefköche werden, Sterne verdienen, und köstliche Gerichte zu bereiten. Auf den Punkt gegart und perfekt gewürzt. Doch wie wird da ein Spiel draus?

Zunächst gibt es Gerichte in fünf verschiedenen Schwierigkeitsstufen, durch unterschiedliche Farben symbolisiert. Jeder stellt seinen Herd vor sich, stellt eine Pfanne drauf, bekommt eine Ablage für fertige Gerichte, man wählt sich ein Gericht aus, legt es in die Pfanne, stellt den Herd auf Null, nimmt sich eine Kaffeetasse, stellt die Gewürzflaschen in die Mitte, platziert die Sterne auf dem Tisch, gibt dem ersten Spieler die drei Kochlöffel und platziert die Spüle in der Tischmitte direkt neben dem Müll.
Dann gehts los. Jeder hat drei Aktionen, die durch die Kochlöffel symbolisiert werden. Jedes Gericht hat einen idealen Temperaturbereich, in dem es zubereitet wird. Kalte Gerichte müssen auf Stufe Null zu bereitet werden, Crepes können von 0 - 6 alles vertragen, und manche brauchen Werte zwischen 3 - 4. Möchte man als den Herd auf die richtige Temperatur bringen, würfelt man einfach. Dabei kann man die Werte 1, 2 und drei Würfeln, außerdem kann man noch eine Kaffeetasse erwürfeln, oder eine 1-3 so das man sich den Wert selbst aussuchen darf und schließlich gibt es auch noch eine Würfelseite, die jeden Herd um eine Temperaturstufe ansteigen lässt. Das kann fatal sein, falls ein anderer Koch sein Gericht gerade auf der idealen Temperatur hat. Verlässt man den Idealbereich nämlich und lässt den Herd zu heiß werden, ist das Gericht verbrannt, und muss in den Müll entsorgt werden, sobald der Spieler dran ist.
Außerdem kann man die Gerichte noch würzen. Die meisten Speisen muss man sogar würzen. Wie man sie zu würzen hat, steht auf dem Gericht selbst, welches vor einem in der Pfanne liegt. Möchte man würzen nimmt sich ein Gewürzglas, darf es vor dem Öffnen nach belieben schütteln, und muss es dann ein einer konstanten Bewegung vertikal einmal über die Pfanne schütten. Dabei können dann unterschiedlich viele Gewürze in die Pfanne fallen, aber auch Salz, von dem sich in jedem Gewürzfläschchen füfn Stück befinden. Hier ist Vorsicht angesagt, wenn man ein Gericht mit drei Salz verwürzt, kommen die Gewürze in den Abwasch und das Gericht in den Müll. Aber auch bei den normalen Gewürzen gilt: Sobald man drei Gewürzsteine in der Pfanne hat, ist es verwürzt und damit ungenießbar und wird entsorgt. Das entsorgen bringt keine Strafpunkte mit sich, allerdings hat man Zeit verloren, in der die anderen Chefköche leckere Speisen zubereitet haben können.

Würzt man ein Gericht übrigens perfekt, hat also kein Gewürz zu viel in der Pfanne, und hat man es dann noch auf der richtigen Temperatur, so ist dies wahrlich eine Meisterleistung und der Koch wird mit einem Stern belohnt. Hat man zu einem Zeitpunkt des Spiels drei Sterne gesammelt ist man in der Tat der Chefkoch und hat automatisch gewonnen, egal wieviele Punkte die Gerichte wert waren.

Da war da noch was? Genau die Kaffeetassen. Kochen ist ein hartes Geschäft, und da gönnt man sich während seines Zuges doch gerne mal eine Pause, bei der man keinen Kochlöffel abgeben muss. Hier darf man seine erwürfelten Kaffeetassen einsetzen. Da kann man beispielsweise nochmal drei zusätzliche Züge ausführen, oder aber acuh mal etwas interaktiver und gemeiner sein und beim Konkurrenten einfach mal nachwürzen. Verwürzt man bedauerlicherweise sein Gericht, ist es wertlos und wird entsorgt. Außerdem kann man noch Pfannen tauschen. Das ist natürlich toll, wenn ein anderes Gericht viele Punkte gibt und fast fertig ist. Die Lorbeeren von anderen ernten ist nunmal die einfachste und schnellste Möglichkeit zu Ruhm und Ansehen zu kommen. Außerdem ärgert es die anderen Köche .

Wer gerade einen Crepes zubereitet, ist vor solchen diebischen Kochkonkurrenten zum Glück geschützt. Crepes bereiten sich auch etwas anders zu, als die anderen Gerichte. Sie vertragen eine Temperaturspanne zwischen 0 - 7. Man würfelt vor seinem Zug einmal und stellt den Herd entsprechend hoch. Dann hat man zwei Versuche, um den Crepes einmal in der Pfanne zu wenden. Natürlich ohne etwas anderes als den Griff der Pfanne zu berühren, sprich durch schwenken der Pfanne, hochwerfen des Crepes und wieder auffangen des Crepes. Das bringt immerhin fünf Punkte mit sich (das "beste" Gericht gibt sechs), ist jedoch auch ziemlich schwierig. Im Endeffekt eine Glückssache. Wobei geübte Spieler sicher hier im Vorteil sind.

Und sobald ein Spieler dann fünf Gerichte zubereitet hat, oder aber Chefkoch geworden ist, ist das Spiel vorbei. In letzterem Fall steht der Sieger sofort fest, im zweiten Fall werden die Punkte gezählt und somit der Chefkoch ermittelt.

Fazit:
Wer die Beschreibung gelesen hat, weiß ganz klar: Hier handelt es sich um kein anspruchsvolles Spiel, keins dass einen länger beschäftigt, sondern einfach um einen einfachen No-Brainer, der prima als Familienspiel für jung und alt geeignet ist.Für Vielspieler ist es ncihts, was einen auf Dauer reizen wird, Kinder könnten allerdings sehr begeistert von diesem Spiel sein. Es ist nett zu spielen, besticht vor durch die Aufmachung und vor allem das Material (die Pfannen sind toll, und die Herde auch). In Anbetrachts des Materials ist das Spiel noch nicht einmal wirklich teuer. Gerade das Würzen könnte in einigen Runden etwas problematisch werden. Wann hat man noch eine durchgehnde, geradlinige Bewegung, und wann ist es zu abgehackt, und gezielt. Hier sollte man auf jeden Fall nicht versuchen auf Teufel komm raus Sterne zu erreichen und einfach drauf los würfeln. Wirklich kontrollieren kann man das Würzen eh nicht, manchmal verhaken sich die Gewürze auch, und es kommt gar keins raus, so dass man eine Aktion verschwendet hat. Hier sollte wirklich zugunsten des Spielspasses darauf verzichten, zu gezielt und bedächtigt vorgehen. Das Spiel ist auf jeden Fall eine Abwechslung vom normalen Spielealltag. Ich würde nicht sagen, dass es zwingend in jede Sammlung gehört, und das man etwas verpasst hat, wenn man es noch nicht gesielt hat, aber es ist eine lustige Alternative, und wenn man mal die Möglichkeit hat, das Spiel auszuprobieren, sollte man diese auf jeden Fall nutzen.

Review: Castle Keep:: A fun light game

boffotom — Tue, 24 Nov 2009 01:39:22 +0000

by boffotom

I got a copy of Castle Keep for Father's Day this year. It was an immediate hit. My kids wanted to play this game every night for about two weeks. Its rules are simple and easy to grasp. It plays in a maximum of 20 minutes and is easy to reset for another game. The game involves building a castle with a keep in the middle. That's it. Well, almost.

The object of the game is to build your castle out of nine tiles - one keep and eight wall tiles. Consisting of three different shapes and three different colors, the wall are joined at the corners by towers. Wall and towers are matched either according to color or shape or both. The keep must match the color of one of the walls.

At the start of the game the tiles are shuffled, face down. Players are dealt 4 tiles each. The rest of the tiles are placed in the middle in two stacks. These are the draw stacks. On a turn a players draws two tiles from the draw stack. The player can then either build onto his castle, attack an opponent's castle or keep, or pass. At the end of the turn the player discards down to four tiles.

Castles are built by placing them next to each other based on color and/or shape. Red goes with red, yellow with yellow, blue with blue. Round towers match to curvy walls, square towers with straight walls, and diamond towers with jagged walls. Players may attack an opponent's castle by playing a wall tile that is an exact match for that opponent's wall tile directly on top of that tile. The attacking tiel and attacked tile are discarded. And any same colored tiles are also removed! This can be devastating. In one game I had my whole castle destroyed this way. To attack a keep players play two matching keeps on top of the attacked keep. Play continues until someone completes his castle.

The tiles are heavy thick cardboard and are easy to handle. The rules sheet is clear and concise. The artwork is good and it is easy to distinguish between each type of tile. This is a small game and travels easily.

As I said, my kids like this one a lot. And there is enough there to satisfy gamers as a quick filler too.

Check it out.

Review: Egizia:: 1st impressions from Essen 2009

Brokito — Mon, 23 Nov 2009 23:53:14 +0000

by Brokito

This review was initially posted in [geeklist=47966][/geeklist]

Egizia - a game about monument building in ancient Egypt

Each player manages a building company with 3 building squads. These can support the construction of the sphinx, tombs, the obelisk, a temple and the pyramid and will be awarded with VP by doing so. The game is played in 5 rounds. The player with the highest amount of collected VPs wins.

The board depicts the Nile and the different construction sites. During each round the players sail the Nile downstream and will stop at its shores to take actions. In order to do so, the Nile is divided into 20 sections. Each section is assigned with one action. Half of the actions are standard actions and they are available each turn (they are marked on the board). The other actions are assigned semi-randomly by drawing cards and putting those face-up next to the shore (semi, because the deck is semi-randomly constructed based on the round). Except for the construction sites, the actions can just be selected by one player each round. In this clever mechanism, the players can chose to stop at any unoccupied shore downstream. They can pass as many shores as they want (e.g. to reach a specific action first) - but will never be able to get back to one of the shores that they passed.

The actions can generally be divided into the following categories:
- agriculture: the players can select agricultural land cards. These depict a number of food resources that are available to them each turn to feed the squads. 3 different terrains are available: grassland (produces always), irrigated land (produces only if irrigated), highland (produces only at high tide)
- quarry: the players can select quarry cards which allow them to produce the indicated amount of stones each round
- squad development: additional workers are added to one squad (thus this squad can add more stones at once to a monument). However, the more people in the squads, the more food is required.
- construction sites: 3 construction sites are available and several players can stop at them (one less then players in the game). Here the players can claim to add stones during the construction phase.
- weather field: the player can change the weather/water condition by one increment and thus changing the type of terrains which are fertile.
- 2 different development tracks (stone, VP): the further developed on these tracks, the players will be able to exchange VP to food or stones to VPs)

Once all players reached the Nile delta, they have to feed their squads. Unfed squads will lead to VP reduction.

Now the quarries produce stones which can be used for construction afterwards.

Construction is then done site by site in claim order. The 1st construction site allows to add stones to the sphinx. For each stone, the player draws a sphinx card. These cards will provide bonus VP at the end of the game if the indicated requirements are fulfilled (e.g. most stones in the obelisk). The player can select to keep one of the cards. The remaining cards are converted to immediate VPs. The second site allows to add stones to the obelisk or to construct tombs. These constructions are directly converted to VPs. The 3rd site allows to add stones to the pyramid or the temple => VP.

After 5 rounds and the settlement of the bonus points from the sphinx cards, the player with the most VP wins.

Egizia is a nicely composed strategy game. All ingredients are well woven into one another and require an elaborated action selection by the players regarding size of squads, feeding of squads, collection of stones, selection of construction sites, achieving bonus VPs. The "Nile"-action selection process is innovative, effective and greatly incorporated into the theme. All in all a very sound design !

However, except for the innovative action selection process, it seems that all other ingredients were somehow recycled from other games and newly mixed together. Hence, I felt that playing the game was slightly boring and not adding a really new gaming experience.

Review: Coloretto:: Playing Coloretto Online: Marquand.net

MrScaryMuffin — Mon, 23 Nov 2009 19:29:29 +0000

by MrScaryMuffin

I love it when there is an electronic version of a board game available. It gives me a great distraction when I'm not in the mood to fiddle around with Minesweeper or Hearts and allows me to improve my game and prepare for the real thing: playing with my friends.

Even though most adaptations are of the solo/AI only variation, I still love it as I'm usually looking to just scratch an itching for a game. In fact, since I'm usually just looking for a distraction, the fast playing AI and the ability to drop a game guilt-free is very attractive.

If you are uncertain about the rules of a game or if you want to playtest a game first, these electronic versions are indespensible.

Marquand.net ( http://www.marquand.net/index.php?topic=coloretto) has an adaptation of Coloretto available and I started trying it out today and I thought I would share with you my findings.

The Adaptation
The version on Marquand.net is of the solo/AI only variation. You can play 3-5 players, practically any number of rounds, and the game has an "Original" and "Advanced" AI setting.

The rules are available on the page and the images used are similar, if not exactly, the same as the original. The game itself doesn't require that much monitor space, which may be a bad thing since the cards are fairly small and is hard to count some times. You are not able to adjust the size of the game.

The first player to play each round does not change in this version. You are almost always the third to play, which is neither good nor bad, but some variability would be nice.

The Interface
Don't worry about card counting, as the game will keep track of the number of cards left in the draw deck for you, which is great. The interface is pretty good and straight forward. You click on the truck you want to take or on the deck if you want to draw a card (and then the truck that you want to load).

The only thing that I can really fault about the interface is the terrible background image of rocks, which is a bit too busy and distracting. I would much prefer some sort of card-table velvet green/red instead. However, as you play, you can ignore the background a bit, so it does not really take away from the game at all.

]]>

]]>

The scoring card is there and a moving castle card keeps track of whose turn it is. The card are relatively easy to keep track of, despite their small size. Overall, the interface works.

The AI
The only thing I noticed about the AI is that the Original AI likes to take a lot of single cards while the Advanced one tends to pass up favourable trucks more often. I, myself, play a mixture of the two and managed to keep my score higher than the AI throughout all my plays, but did find that the scores were closer against the Advanced AI, so take from that what you will.

]]>

Neither AIs were terribly challenging. Then again, the game is simple enough, so I wasn't expecting too much. They focus more on themselves than on each other, so there are not that many screw-you type plays made and it allows for you to easily force them to take bad trucks. As well, they seem unaware of the disadvantage in taking the last truck and can be stuck with it throughout the entire round.

Overall
You will definitely not become world champ by training against this AI. But if you are looking for a quick 5-10 minute game to relieve some stress and are itching for some Coloretto, then this will give you that fix.

Review: Tier auf Tier: Das Duell:: Kid Game Review: Animal Upon Animal - The Duel

gamemark — Mon, 23 Nov 2009 19:20:51 +0000

by gamemark

I first saw [thing=17329]Animal Upon Animal[/thing] being played at Kublacon (a gaming convention in the San Francisco area) by four very excited adults... and over the next 10 minutes or so, the game (and the exuberant players) attracted a crowd of people. It would have #101 on the Kid Games 100 ( http://akapastorguy.blogspot.com/search/label/Kid%20Games%20...)... and if I were to re-do the list today, it would probably be there.

Animal Upon Animal - The Duel is a two-player version of the aforementioned [thing=17329]Animal Upon Animal[/thing]... with some similarities & some significant changes. First, the similarities:

•cool wooden animal pieces... this time around it's an octopus, a goose, a lioness & a squirrel.
•they're both stacking games
•all players have an identical set of pieces to begin the game
•dice determine how to place the pieces
•they're made by Haba (ok, that one's painfully obvious)

And the differences:

•The Duel is a race game - the two players both build in real-time, seeing which one can complete their assignment first.
•the big alligator is AWOL - you simply use any flat surface (which makes this a great restaurant game)
•there are two dice (of different sizes) rather than one

Game play is very simple - each player rolls one of the dice. The big die shows what animal has to go on the bottom of the stack & the small die shows which animal goes on the top. Question marks are "wild cards" (so to speak) and matching dice mean you can put the indicated animal at the top or the bottom.

As soon as the objective is clear, players begin building as fast as they can. No animal can touch more than 2 other animals & (just like the original game) they must be on their narrow sides. The first one to finish gets a gold coin (aka "wooden token"). The first player to accumulate 3 gold coins wins the game.

The stacking is trickier than with the original game - the octopus in particular can be difficult to get into position. And, of course, some combos are harder than others... it all depends on the dice.

I think the age number from Haba will work fine on a kid vs. kid level - but more than the original game, this game will reward better fine motor skills (aka "age"). When playing with adults, you could easily handicap it by requiring the older player to get more coins in order to win.

A number of folks here on Boardgamegeek have bought two copies of this to act as "Animal Upon Animal - The Expansion"... which is very cool if not a little pricey. Jeff Goris made some [article=3903838#3903838]really good suggestions[/article] on how to use a single copy to expand the game in a discussion over there that is worth reading.

Do I like The Duel more/better than the original game? No. Have we had fun with it & am I glad I own it? Yes.

For more kid game reviews, check out my blog: http://akapastorguy.blogspot.com/.

Review: Thunderstone:: What if You Took Dominion and Added...

banyan — Mon, 23 Nov 2009 18:55:26 +0000

by banyan

Wow it's been a long time since I've written a review.

First of, this is a review after one game. If this game is anything like Dominion (it is) then a large part of the appeal will come from variety between games, so there is at least that much missing from this review, but it looks like every other review so far is also only after one game, and I feel like I have some unique things to add. Also, none of the reviews go into much detail on how you actually play, so this one will. Finally, I'm going to go ahead and assume that you know how to play Dominion. If you don't, this review probably will not be very helpful to you.

The short and sweet of it is that this game is a much more thematic Dominion. Basically they took the central mechanic of Dominion and came up with a way to make it a genuine dungeon delve card game thematically similar to something like Cutthroat Caverns. This adds a lot to Dominion, but also loses a lot of elegance and some of the strategy.

Components
]]>

Thunderstone is a card game, so the components are mostly cards. The cards are fine; they're good quality and the artwork is excellent.

The box insert, however, needs work. Unlike Dominion which has a separate slot for each card type, this one just has a few big slots. They chose a more "innovative" way of separating the cards from each other. The game includes (I'm bad at estimate but I think it's about) five-thousand divider cards, which are just slightly wider cards that have the standard card back on both sides. You're intended to put one of these between each type of card. This makes set up and break down more annoying than Dominion.

The rulebook also has some issues. If you go through it slowly and methodically you'll pick everything up, but it's not presented in the most logical way. Some things are worded confusingly; for example one step involves "randomizing" the monster cards and one involves "randomizing" the hero cards. It tells you to shuffle the monster cards together, so we figured you probably shuffle the hero cards together too. It turns out you don't. I'm not sure what they meant by "randomize" with the hero cards, except maybe that you're supposed to choose which hero cards to play with randomly.

Gameplay
]]>

The central mechanic of Dominion is there and fully undiluted. You draw 6 cards (totally different from 5) play all of them that you can, discard everything, any gained cards go into discard pile, draw a new hand of 6, reshuffling as necessary. They even mention that "destroyed" cards go into a "trash pile." There are, however, some very important differences.

On your turn you have three options: a Village turn, a Dungeon turn, or Rest. Rest just means that you either have a crap hand or want to slim your deck a little bit; you get to destroy one card from your hand and otherwise skip your turn. Most turns will be Village or Dungeon turns.

Village Turns

Village turns are what you'll recognize as more typically Dominion turns. There are a bunch of cards for you to gain, you spend money to gain them, end of turn. One big difference is that you'll have another currency to spend in the form of XP. You gain XP during Dungeon turns and it doesn't go into your deck; it just sits out in front of you. At the beginning of a Village turn you can spend some XP to destroy a hero card in your hand and gain a better hero card of the same type (leveling up). You can only do this once per turn.

The other big difference with the Village turns is that there is practically no emphasis on Actions. You can use as many Village Effects (actions) as you want, but very few cards have any Village Effects on them. In the basic setup, there's only one. So your Village turn is really little more than a single quick Buy.

The card types are very important.
At the bottom you'll have the staple cards available every game. Those include Militia (the most basic hero), Dagger (the most basic weapon), Iron Rations (the most basic food), and Torch (the most basic item). Your deck will start out with a combination of these cards. They all have Dungeon effects, and all of them except Militias grant you some money.
At the top you have the four heroes. Heroes have no Village effects, but they're the most important thing to have for Dungeon turns. Each hero type has its own pile, like any other set of cards, but unlike other sets of cards, they get better as you get closer to the bottom. You can have as many of one type as you want, but after the level one heroes are gone for a certain type, you'll have to either level up the heroes in your hand or spend more for the level two (and so on) heroes that are left.
In between you have everything else. Some of them will be mostly Village cards, worth a lot of coins or granting you a Village effect, but most will be Weapons or Food or Spells or Items with Dungeon effects.
Note that you cannot buy any victory points during Village turns. This is where the game becomes unique...

Dungeon Turns

A Dungeon Turn has nothing resembling a Dominion turn in it. This is where the game takes your hand from the deck you've built and puts it to use in a different sort of setting.

During setup, you'll take three different types of monsters and shuffle them together to form the monster deck. Near the bottom of this deck will be the Thunderstone, which will mark the end of the game. Then you'll draw three monsters and set them out beside the deck and those are the monsters available to fight. If you kill a monster, you add them to your discard pile. They'll be worth some victory points, but sometimes will also be worth some money or have a Dungeon effect themselves, so they're almost all effectively VP/$ cards or something similar.

At the most basic, an enemy is just a target number you have to hit. Heroes will have some attack value and weapons and spells and whatnot will add to that attack value. Match the value on the monster and you win. The twists will include text on the monsters, so some will kill one of your heroes whether you win or lose, some can only be hit by magic attacks, and so on.

Also, which monster you attack will determine how much light you'll need to provide or suffer a big penalty. The monster on the right is near the entrance to the dungeon, so you only need a light value of 1 (a torch will grant this, for example). The one in the middle is down where the dungeon is darker so you need light 2. The one closest to the deck will need light 3. Apparently in this fantasy world, light filters through stone so that it's darker the deeper you go, like in water. When you kill a monster you slide the others into its space and then draw a new one and place it to the left.

The game ends when the Thunderstone hits the far right position (all monsters to its right have been fought). If you succeed in killing the monster that ends up sliding the Thunderstone to the right, you get the stone as a bonus, giving you 3 more VP.

Review
The simplest thing I can say about this game is that it feels like a variant way of playing Dominion. The two are so ridiculously similar that if the designer claims he came up with it prior to playing Dominion I would flatly not believe him. I didn't notice if it was in there, but I hope the designer credited Donald X. Vaccarino for coming up with the central mechanic. He certainly owes him something.

Does Thunderstone add something to Dominion? Absolutely, it adds a lot. However, in piling new stuff on to a game, you often find that you lose something too, and so the game is not strictly better. It's not strictly worse either; it's just a different feel. It really feels more like a thematic adventure card game, rather than Dominion which feels most like an engine building card game.

Engine building is mostly missing from this game. Getting powerful hands for Dungeon turns is straight forward: just get the highest attack values you can. After that you fight monsters until your deck is a little too clogged with them and you have to go back to buying more attack value. What's missing is that the monsters don't get any harder nor do they start requiring you to be more creative. Even when something tricky does come up, like a tough monster that only responds to magic attacks, you can just ignore it and go for deeper monsters. Having enough light pretty much stops being a problem about half way through the game.

There's also very little sacrifice when you buy a card that's good for something. With Dominion you really have to think whether you want another Silver or an action card that will let you do something more complex. In Thunderstone almost every card is worth money in addition to its Dungeon effect. There is very little that will let you manipulate your hand by drawing more cards or that sort of thing.

The role I expect this game to play for me is a nice diversion after several games of Dominion. All else being equal, I would prefer Dominion, but I play so much of it that I won't mind having something similar which nonetheless provides a little variety when I'm not in the mood for something heftier with a board. I had fun playing Thunderstone, and I look forward to playing it more and trying some of the variations.

Review: Dungeon Lords:: Fun Factor Review: Dungeon Lords (60% = 6 ranking)

maxo-texas — Mon, 23 Nov 2009 18:25:13 +0000

by maxo-texas

Fun Factor Review: Dungeon Lords (66% = 7 ranking)
As a long time D&D Player, I was looking forward to Dungeon Lords.

I played (and won) a 4 player game lead by an experienced teacher.

About the fun factor. This is a measure of the minutes of fun in the game vs the amount of time it takes to play the game. For example, I feel that Munchkin has about 30 minutes of fun crammed into 120 minutes of play time. On the other hand, Vegas Showdown has 50 minutes of fun and takes an hour to play. Ricochet Robots is 1:1 since you play as long as you enjoy it, and then stop.

Fun Factor does not completely cover games which I play for the experience rather than for fun (like Arkham Horror and Titan). I enjoy them on some other level--- but I play them rarely.

Parts of the fun factor will drop (Novelty) and rise (knowing the rules means I don't have to stop the game to refer to them) over time. Some parts of the fun factor depend on the number of players. Fifteen minutes of downtime is a little painful... 45 minutes of downtime is longer than many games.

Fun Factor Factors
1) Theme : Strong or pasted?
2) New Ideas : New ideas make your brain happy.
3) How much downtime is there overall? : Are you spending most the game waiting?
4) How long is a particular downtime? : Are there 15 minute chunks of nothing?
5) How quickly can you start the game? : Are the rules long? Is setup long?
6) How much of the game is productive activity? : Are there stalemates?
7) Rules Time & Frustration? Are the rules well organized with good examples and whitespace?

1) Theme
The game has medium strength theme. The game is really a series of 36, 3 bid auction interactive phase followed by a solitaire puzzle/roborally/space alert phase.

The meat of the game is looking at your opponents and correctly judging their positions and making the bid which strengthens you and cripples them.

The theme is well drawn and component quality is high - but this set of rules could be used for another game. As a long time D&D person, I never really felt like I was a dungeon lord so much as i was min-maxing numbers.

2) New Ideas
The game is a monge of many other games. I didn't see any novel concepts. That's not a negative as much as it is not a positive. Sometimes, novel ideals are new but painful.

I wasn't "intrigued" by some novel new concept and so I wasn't noodling around to see what it meant. I engaged parts of my brain developed for other games to deal with the particular subset of Dungeon Lords active.

3) How much downtime is there overall.
Overall, the downtime was balanced between players in the auction phase of the game and mildly imbalanced in the "space alert/roborally" resolution phase of the game.

4) How long is a particular downtime.
During the auction phase, there is almost no downtime. You simultaneously play your bid cards and then resolve the auctions for monsters, traps, rooms, new workers (imps), etc.
During the solitaire phase, downtime was about 6-10 minutes. You sit and watch other players resolve their dungeons. If you were clever and kill your adventurers quickly, then your percentage of downtime in this part is very high.

5) How quickly can you start the game.
It was easy for the teacher to go over the rules- about 10 minutes on the combat (solitaire) part using engaging puzzle examples and 20 minutes on the
auction (interactive) part. There were few questions or surprises.

6) How much of the game is productive activity?
Everything you do matters. Productive activity is about 75% to 80% of your time (with the downtime being in the area of watching others resolve their battles).

7) Rules Time and Frustration
Some games have short rules and are easy to pick up (Quirkle).
Other games have long rules (Star Fleet Battles)
Some games have well written rules (Stone Age, Thebes).

The rules for Dungeon Lord are well organized, have good white space, excellent examples and thought was put into the organization. For example, the combat (the last thing you do) is put first because it's important to understanding the meaning of the auction portion. During the session I played and the two sessions I listened in on while playing other games, there was little frustration with the rules.

Conclusion and Rating

I think that the game will generally take about 90 minutes to play once you get the rules down. I felt the game had 50 minutes of fun which would give a fun factor of 55% which would equate to a 6 ranking.

I enjoyed playing the game and would play it again if everyone else wanted to but I would probably not suggest playing it.

Review: Stronghold:: Fun Factor Review: Stronghold (66% = 7 ranking)

maxo-texas — Mon, 23 Nov 2009 17:39:17 +0000

by maxo-texas

One of the games I planned to play at BGGCon was Stronghold.
I played a 4 player game. I think the game will play in roughly the same time with 2 or 4 players so it scales well.

About the fun factor. This is a measure of the minutes of fun in the game vs the amount of time it takes to play the game. For example, I feel that Munchkin has about 30 minutes of fun crammed into 120 minutes of play time. On the other hand, Vegas Showdown has 50 minutes of fun and takes an hour to play. Ricochet Robots is 1:1 since you play as long as you enjoy it, and then stop.

Fun Factor does not completely cover games which I play for the experience rather than for fun (like Arkham Horror and Titan). I enjoy them on some other level--- but I play them rarely.

Parts of the fun factor will drop (Novelty) and rise (Rules) over time. Some parts of the fun factor depend on the number of players. Fifteen minutes of downtime is a little painful... 45 minutes of downtime is longer than many games.

Fun Factor Factors
1) Theme : Strong or pasted?
2) New Ideas : New ideas make your brain happy.
3) How much downtime is there overall? : Are you spending most the game waiting?
4) How long is a particular downtime? : Are there 15 minute chunks of nothing?
5) How quickly can you start the game? : Are the rules long? Is setup long?
6) How much of the game is productive activity? : Are there stalemates?
7) Rules Time & Frustration? Are the rules well organized with good examples and whitespace?

1) Theme
The game has a strong theme. The game is a simulation of a siege against a castle. This is not another auction game with a pasted on theme. While the strong theme contributed to my enjoyment of the game, it also created some fiddly rules and no-op rules (explained in 6).

2) New Ideas
The concept that my actions gave the other player action points was not completely new to me but it is a fresh concept. I had seen a similar concept in Thebes with a slightly different implementation. Essentially, if you do something fast, the defender has little time to react. If you do a lot of time consuming activities, the defender has a lot more actions (represented by hourglasses) to prepare with. I liked this concept and did not see the strategy around it as quickly as my co-besieger.

3) How much downtime is there overall.
Overall, the downtime is balanced between the players and broken into discrete chunks which strongly limits analysis paralysis by either side. At most, you usually have three choices to make- often you have one choice.

4) How long is a particular downtime.
The particular downtime in this game is small. The designers broke each turn into 6 phases. In each phase, the besieger takes actions which give the defender action points. These actions have to be spent in the phase they were acquired. So if the besieger does nothing, the defender can do nothing.
While the game can be long, you generally get an action every 30 to 60 seconds. This is very engaging. You are generally spending the downtime you have thinking about your next action or reacting to the opponents last action.

5) How quickly can you start the game.
This is a major problem. The rules need a rewrite. And the rules might need to be trimmed (see 6). It took a knowledgeable teacher about 45 minute to explain the rules to us (with several errors). We were still on the 1st page after 15 minutes. It may be too much jargon, not enough white space around the text. I think they need a "trainer game" with 3 phases and then the real game, and then advanced (and fiddly) optional rules.

6) How much of the game is productive activity?
This was a major issue. Many of the actions the attacker takes, create the time needed to counter the action. This lead to many fiddly, "no-op" turns. I push the marker forward, you push the marker back. I move special troops up- that gives the time to kill them. I think the "no-op" actions should be reserved for the advanced rules and some might be better off trimmed entirely.

7) Rules Time and Frustration
Some games have short rules and are easy to pick up (Quirkle).
Other games have long rules (Star Fleet Battles)
Some games have well written rules (Stone Age, Thebes).

The rules for Stronghold could use improvement. The rules were muddy and cluttered. They could use a larger font, more editing, white space, and bulleted lists. I recall reading one section on the 1st page which was a list turned into one giant run-on paragraph. It would have been trivial to read as a bulleted list.

One of the defenders got very irritated with the rules during the game. It was a common comment by random people who had played the game.

Many players missed the special victory condition rules around breaching and felt the game was hopelessly slanted to the defenders as a result.

Conclusion and Rating

I think that the game will generally take about 90 minutes to play once you get the rules down. I felt the game had 45 to 60 minutes of fun which would give a fun factor of 66% which would equate to a 7 ranking. I'd enjoy playing the game again but it wouldn't be my first choice.

Review: Dog Fight: Starship Edition:: Fantastic. Just blew me away.

charlestonjames — Mon, 23 Nov 2009 17:22:38 +0000

by charlestonjames

Review originally written by Endymian from http://www.gamersuniversity.com/; posted on The Game Crafter website at
http://www.thegamecrafter.com/forums/reviews/dog-fight#N9MM2...

Two (or more) players

About 60 Mins.

'''Overview'''

Dogfight is a game for two or more players where (in the basic rules) each player controls a starship on a hex board representing outer space. By running cards (placing them down in a specific order, and then revealing/using them in sequence shortly thereafter) you may command your ship to move, attack, upgrade itself, repair, or a multitude of other actions. From what I have gleaned from the advanced rules, after you understand the basic game you can command smaller fighter ships and even some space structures for a richer, more strategic experience.

Each ship has a “Hull” number, which essentially represents hit points. Zero = destruction. Each ship also has a number of Energy counters, which can be spent on ship-specific special abilities that can come in handy in a situation where you might desperately need to move but don’t have a command card to do so. Also there is a specific range (in hexes) which each ship can fire, which can be obstructed by hiding behind moons, stars, and other stellar objects to obstruct an opponent’s line of sight to attack.

'''Rulebook'''

The rulebook is very extensive. You can download a tutorial document which is great to read before you decide to start your first game, which will definitely give you the gist of the rules, but the rulebook that actually comes with the game is a lot thicker, and can be a little daunting at first, but really it isn’t so bad. I found some clarity issues when I read it the first time, but the author, Fox Games, addressed them immediately and fixed them (bravo). Once you read all the rules, anything specific you might be confused about can typically be found very easily in the rulebook’s glossary, and the back page of the rulebook has an easy to follow chart of turn steps and what happens in each one. With the aid of this, our first game was only minimally hindered by our inexperience, the chart is priceless—use it!

Although it may be wordy, it is clear that Fox Games knew exactly what was going on when they wrote it. I had a very rough time finding any problems with it, and even the one thing I was confused about was easily clarified by the context of other sections, it shouldn’t give anyone any trouble.

'''Gameplay'''

The gameplay (for the basic rules) is simple, yet satisfying. Having to make your decisions in advance is a great element that makes it difficult for one player to truly dominate another. There is also a bit of bluffing that can occur in deciding what you are going to lay down first. In order to move, you need a move card, and you need to place it down and wait until it activates before you can actually move. The same for attacks, repairs, and other actions. But before you start placing cards down, you can activate your special abilities on your ship by paying energy counters. Sometimes these allow you repair, or draw extra cards, or move a certain amount of spaces, these can be a lifesaver and decide the game if used correctly.

I was only able to play with two of the decks, but I am glad to see there is a great variety of options available to people who want to customize their game experience. This is a great example of a stand-alone game that has a rich offering of expansion content. There are multiple game boards; each one varies with the amount of obstacles and starting points, which offers even more variety to the game. This is a great joining of your typical Trading Card Game type gameplay with the special strategy of a Tactical game like chess. It is a great blend and has a great appeal to a wide audience.

'''Art'''

In a word, fantastic. Literally, this may be the best looking offering I have seen so far on TGC. I asked the author, Michael Fox, about the art early on, before he asked me to review Dog Fight for him because I wanted to know how I could obtain artwork that refined and polished. It’s all very professional looking and all the art is very in-context for the cards abilities. Even the color version of the rulebook is quite a piece of work. The borders and little artistic appendages make it absolutely beautiful. If your excuse for not getting games on TGC is that they don’t look professional enough, Dog Fight just killed your last excuse.

'''What could be better?'''

Not much. The boards were drawn in a bit of a low resolution for some reason, and appear a bit pixilated, but really it’s no big deal. The card art makes up for it by far. I would love to see randomized packs available for Dog Fight one day, and I’m sure TGC will figure out a good way to do that eventually. And maybe if the Starship cards were easier to identify in a pile (like had different backs or something) that would be good too, but I can understand why they don’t already have that-different backs would mean adding a different deck for them, and that would add a couple dollars to the cost of the final product so that’s totally understandable.

'''Final Word'''

I’ve been told this game has been a work in progress for over five years, and it shows. I talked to Fox Games about his art and the trouble he went through to get everything just the way he wanted it was very impressive. The gameplay is fun, it appears to be balanced pretty well, I haven’t found anything game-breaking in it and I am having a really hard time finding an excuse not to give this game a perfect score. Let me clarify…I don’t believe in ‘perfect scores’, nothing is perfect okay? There is always something to improve upon. Always. But, in light of the fact that this game really just blew me away, and it is leaps and bounds beyond even some of games that I see in retail stores, I am compelled to give Dog Fight a 5-star rating, I feel like it deserves it.

This is a very well made game, a great addition to The Game Crafter’s library.

Well done.

[The Author, Michael Fox (Fox Games) has graciously donated a copy of his game, Dog Fight, for the purposes of this review. Thank you very much, Michael! We had a lot of fun, and you handled my creative criticism extremely professionally. If anyone else would like to have his or her game reviewed and advertised for free on our website, please feel free to send me a message on TGC or email me through the link in my profile!]

Review: Chaos in the Old World:: Newbie’s Review of Chaos in the Old World

jhsjhs — Mon, 23 Nov 2009 17:14:08 +0000

by jhsjhs

Note: I am writing a series of reviews for newbie boardgamers such as myself, or people gaming with them. The goal isn’t to judge games in the abstract, but to address which games are fun learning experiences for someone just getting into the hobby. As anyone who has walked into a gaming store “Boardgame Night” and played whatever had an open seat, some leave you wanting to come back next week while others leave you shaking your head, even if you can see why people like it. For the beginner, some games just aren’t much fun. Case in point: Chaos in the Old World.

Victory Conditions: Before I go touch on anything else, the victory conditions need to be emphasized. There are two ways to win Chaos in the Old World. There is a standard victory point track, the goal being to get to fifty points with points gained by corrupting regions with your evil cultists. However, each player also has an additional, unique victory condition tied to a wheel with 7-9 “clicks”. If you get your wheel to the final click, you win, even if another player hits fifty victory points the same turn (if two players get the final click the same turn, victory points are the tiebreaker). Each player gets clicks in unique ways—one for killing pieces belonging to opponents, the others for corrupting specific types of region on the board. I believe a lot of the attention given to the game is a result of this—it can be won in multiple ways, and each player can take a unique path to get to the end. I will come back to this point later, but here is the foreshadowing: clever victory conditions can make for unhappy newbies.

Quick Overview: Describing this game to newcomers is a challenge, as there are quite a few rules to deal with, but I believe the following is true: the mechanics of this game are much easier then they initially seem to be. Yes, there are many phases to the game, with domination, which is different from corruption, and also from ruination (also different from corruption), and there is combat, and tokens to determine victory wheel clicks…but somehow it all fits together. If I were teaching this and had people who were willing, I would run two rounds of the game and then start all over, when everyone realizes that it is not as confusing as it all sounds. This is a credit to the game designer, who made a game with many parts that is a cohesive whole. Also, please note that I am not a Warhammer guy, so the four players in the game (Khorne, Nurgle, Tzeentch, and Slaanesh) don’t give me warm fuzzies, though others seem to appreciate the theme.

To give a quick run-through: at the beginning of each turn each of the four players gets a set number of power points, and a set number of chaos cards. Starting with the Khorne player (who gets an extra power point, but has to go first each round), the players can place one of any of their three types of units on one of the nine regions of the board, or can play one of their chaos cards on one of the regions. The three types of units are cultists (no attack powers, but if they survive the turn they leave corruption tokens in their region; they cost one power point), and two types of warrior units (basically, a two-cost weaker one and a three-cost very tough one). The chaos cards differ dramatically between the players, fitting their unique victory conditions and theme. Khorne gets cards that allow for extra attacks, Tzeentch that steal power from the other players and cancel their chaos cards, etc. In the slightest of ways, this part of the game (which is most of it) reminded me of Agricola—you have a fixed number of points, how will you spend them? You can’t pass your turn, so you have to do something, but you want to see what the others will do first to better plan your move. Zero cost chaos cards thus become extremely valuable as they let you conserve your power points until others move. Cultists are also cheap, but have no attack power…round and round it goes. Play goes clockwise until all players have placed pieces/played cards until they have no points remaining. At this point, the board is covered with cultists/warriors, and chaos cards.

The rest of the turn goes quickly. First is combat. Warrior pieces get six-sided dice to roll, a 4-6 is a hit, and a 6 gives you an additional die. Each piece has a set number of hit points. Combat is simultaneous. Dice are rolled, pieces are removed. Next is domination—add the number of pieces a given player has in a given region to the cost of chaos cards they played there, compare to the defense value for the region. If a player’s number is greater then the defense number, and higher then all others, they get the defense value in victory points. Next, corruption—each cultist left places one “corruption token” in the region. These don’t go away at the end of the turn, so they build over the course of the game. If the total number of (all players’) corruption tokens is greater then 12, the region is ruined, and players with tokens there get victory points, the most corruption tokens getting the most victory points (and that region is effectively done for the game). There is some cleanup at that point, but to a large degree, that’s it.

Now, without the victory wheels, this would be pretty straightforward, kill cultists, corrupt regions, score points. However, as mentioned, each player has a victory wheel with unique “dial advancement conditions”. Khorne gets a dial token for each region he kills cultists or warriors that belong to an opponent. Tzeentch gets a dial token for each region that has two or more magic tokens (which are randomly distributed at game start, and then can be added to regions using chaos cards) where he gets at least two new corruption tokens. And so on. At the end of the turn, the players see who has the most dial tokens. That player gets two clicks on his victory wheel. The rest who have at least one token get one click. If there is a tie for first, no one gets two clicks. Each click gives you a special bonus, for example additional victory points or upgrade cards to improve your cultist/warriors. And, of course, you are closer to victory.

Ease of Introduction: As mentioned, this game doesn’t lend itself to easy explanation. The mechanics really aren’t complicated, but there are a bunch of them, or at least a bunch of turn phases. Play it a few turns, and you realize that it all makes sense, but those first turns are a challenge, and just getting to the point where pieces are on the table takes a while. Lots of discussion the first few turns (of the “you should probably think about x, y, and z right now” variety) would minimize this, but it isn't always easy to create that sort of atmosphere at the gaming table.

Game Experience: This game was the first “I really, really want to play this game” during my reintroduction to boardgaming. Not for the theme, obviously, as it is lost on me, but for the victory conditions. I liked the idea of two paths to victory, and I still do. Not only does this lead to interesting “offensive” play options, but it demands a constant focus on the opponents’ approaches as well. Playing has only emphasized this point—the games seem to play out very differently (constant combat or little, multiple regions being ruined or few, players racing up the victory dial or everyone plodding along) and each player can significantly influence this. There is strategy, here, as well as tactics. Do you benefit if regions are falling left and right? You can influence this.

But, I have to admit, I haven’t enjoyed the game. As a beginner, and playing with other people who are at least newcomers to this game each time, the subtlety of the game is largely lost as people see there way through. For example, one of the four players only needs seven victory wheel clicks to win the game (the others need 8-9), and the game is 7 turns long. Obviously, if they get one click a turn they will win (or at least tie) unless someone else has gotten two clicks on multiple turns, which is quite hard. This difference is one of the keys to this player, who is disadvantaged in other ways. This matters and needs to be considered during the game. But how, and by who? These choices are hard on their face, but add to that confusion regarding dial advancement conditions (“oops”), limited to no experience with the opponents’ chaos cards (“you can do that!?!?”), and you have a mess. The resulting game feels very random, and can lead to frustrated players.

Externalities: I find one of the challenges as a new gamer to just jumping into the game is the sense that you will diminish the experience for others. Will the person who goes after you benefit disproportionably from your mistakes? Will you make the game random? This hasn’t bothered me with Chaos in the Old World, but only for bad reasons—I wasn’t the only one screwing things up. The game has tons of interaction and conflict, from turn one. Khorne has to kill pieces or fall hopelessly behind, so who, and where? This can lead to hard feelings of the “if you knew what you were doing…” variety. Bad times.

Final Thoughts: I really want to like this game; I am not sure why. Something about it convinces me that if I could find the right opponents, it would be tremendous. The multiple levels of interaction are clear even in the stunted games I have played. I am sure there is something there. But my goodness, it doesn’t come out in learning games. I hope that eventually I have a stable enough gaming group that shares my desire to give this one a fair chance. Until then, I will hold my copy in reserve, and break out Small World or Dominion.

Review: Bang!:: What Children Really Think About BANG!: Three children take on BGG's harshest critics

EndersGame — Mon, 23 Nov 2009 15:24:53 +0000

by EndersGame

There are over 2500 personal comments on Bang!, and they range from passionate love to raging hatred. My children happen to enjoy Bang!, and although it's not their all time favorite game, they've had a lot of fun playing it. Looking at the personal comments and ratings of other users, it's clear that many people can't stand the game, however. The haters are entitled to their opinion, of course. But then again, why should their opinion be more valid than that of children? So I figured: why not let my 9 year old, 11 year old, and 13 year old take on the harsh critics of BGG? What if I throw at them some of the strongest criticisms people have leveled against Bang!, and let them come to its defense? Read on to find out, because that's exactly what happened. I've picked out several quotations that illustrate the more common criticisms of Bang. In their own words, here's what my children had to say in response. Agree or disagree, read on to find out the reasons why some people despise this game, or for that matter, some suggested responses from kids as to why the case against Bang! really isn't that watertight!

]]>

Let's start by establishing the credentials of our three juvenile game experts:

Q: How many different games would you have played in the last 12 months?

9yo: 37.
11yo: Say about 20.
13yo: Maybe 50. At least.

Q: How many different games do you know how to play?

9yo: About 80.
11yo: 95. About.
13yo: 100. At least.

Q: How often have you played Bang?

9yo: About 20 times.
11yo: Not that often. Sometimes. Once or twice every month. Maybe 20?
13yo: Maybe 25?

Q: How would you summarize what the idea of Bang is?

9yo: To kill the sheriff.
11yo: You are certain people, and you have to knock the other players out in a certain order.
13yo: Kill the other players off, and don't get killed yourself.

Q: Would it surprise you that some people dislike Bang?

9yo: Not really.
11yo: Yes.
13yo: No, not really.

Q: Why do you think this might be?

9yo: In every game you're mainly doing the same thing, with the same cards, the game doesn't really change.
11yo: Because they think that you're just trying to kill the other player, and you actually mean it, and it's getting kids into shooting when they're older. And the idea of drinking beer, because some parents don't want that to happen to their children.
13yo: Some people don't really like killing games.

Q: Do you agree with this objection?

9yo: Not totally, because it still is fun.
11yo: Some people take it seriously, but you probably won't if you consider it a game, not a real life thing.
13yo: Not really, some games on the internet are killing games and are gory, it's not as bad as those games.

]]>

Let's look more closely at some of the reasons why some people don't like this game, and I'd like you to tell me how valid you think these objections are.

Player Elimination?

Terry Ford: (carlsbad) "Do I dislike this game. Why is it everyone carries this stupid card game around? It's so boring. It's even more boring when everyone instantly kills you because you bitch about the game and you end up having to watch other people play the stupid game. The cards are lame, the concept is lame."

HavocIsHere: "Bang, you are dead...A game where a player is kicked out before having the chance to say or do anything is broken; I've seen that in action, had myself killed shortly afterwards to play some two players with the victim."

Rob Herman: (Sitnaltax) "I like it less each time I play it. Any game where a player can be eliminated before the first turn is unplayably broken in my book."

Eric Clark: (Numbskull) "Game provides a lot of incentive to gang up on one player (whether they're winning or not) and once you're out, you get the pleasure of twiddling your thumbs and counting dots on the ceiling while waiting for the game to conclude so you can play something else. Yay!"

Q: Children, how true is this, and is it a valid reason to dislike Bang!?

9yo: That is true, but when you are done, you can do something else, you don't have to watch. And if you don't like that game, you shouldn't play it!

11yo: We changed the rules by saying that you can't eliminate any people on the first round, so everyone has a chance. You can shoot them, but you can't eliminate them completely, because then it's not fair.

13yo: You don't have to play it like that. We have a house rule that nobody can be killed before going around the table once, before everyone gets a turn. If you're knocked out, you get the fun watching other players and you know all their cards!

]]>

Too Luck Based?

Robert Seater: (rseater) "Would be an interesting party/politics game if it weren't so incredibly RANDOM"

Michael Webb: (CortexBomb) "Unimpressive card game, quite chaotic, and you're always at the mercy of the draw. Good draws? You'll probably win. Bad draws? You'll probably eat lead early and sit around waiting for the game to end."

Michael Barnes: (crackedlcd81) "I usually don't mind luck, but in this game that's all there is to it. Almost no strategy, the bluff element is practically moot, and there are so many odd rules questions that come up. Way overrated."

Paul Crane: (gtogixxer) "Obvious choices and no real decision making. Seems to drag on forever and can be quite frustrating if you're one of the ones to be eliminated early. Completely random with no real ability to influence how the game turns out."

9yo: There is quite a bit of strategy, because you need to decide what cards to play and what cards not to play. It does have some luck in it, but it is probably more strategy.

11yo: It's not random, because you pick up cards and there is strategy, because you can choose: does it benefit other players for what order do you play the cards. There is some randomness for drawing the cards, because you don't know what you're going to get, but it matters what order you play them. Also, it depends who you shoot, because if someone has been shooting a certain person for a long time, and you know that they have no misses, everyone can gang up on them. Also, you usually should shoot different people, so that you don't gang up on one person. Or if someone else starts to attack you, it might be a good idea to attack back - if they don't want to get attacked, then they shouldn't attack.

13yo: It's not only luck, it is skill, because it depends how you lay your cards down. It's also a matter of outguessing your opponents. It is strategy, because you have to figure out how to lay your cards in the best way possible. If you're Jesse Jones, for example, you have to think what your opponent's card might be, and whether it's worth taking or not.

]]>

Unbalanced in favour of the Outlaws?

Chris Farrell: (cfarrell) "Sucks like a souped-up hoover. Game seems like it lasts only as long as it takes the outlaws to kill the Sheriff, usually about twice around the table. No other role has any hope of winning, least of all the hopeless Renegade who is doomed to lose and have virtually no impact on the game. If the appalling play-balance problems weren't enough, the game is additionally almost completely uninteresting, with nothing in the way of choices that aren't utterly obvious. Avoid like the plague."

9yo: That isn't true, it depends how many outlaws there are. Usually when there are a lot of outlaws, there are more deputies, so the outlaws don't always win. Usually the sheriff wins!

11yo: The deputies should be helping the sheriff out. The renegade kind of goes with the deputies and sheriff at the beginning, eliminating the outlaws, and afterwards also helping eliminate the deputies and the sheriff last. The outlaws don't always win, especially in 3 player games, then it's usually the sheriff that wins, because he picks up more cards and he can't be put in jail - he has extra benefits.

13yo: Two rounds around the table? No way! For us, some games go around 20 times! The Outlaws don't win very often. There was one game with 7 players where the Renegade lasted, and it was a shootout between the Renegade and the Sheriff, so the Renegade does have chances - in that game I took out three guys in one turn!

]]>

Boring?

David/Charles Williams: (chux vomitus) "What a boring and pointless 'game'. It is possible that watching 6 hours of Clint Eastwood westerns, all the while getting horribly drunk, and talking in a fake Mexican accent may make this game bearable. But I doubt it. The elimination aspect of the game is odious as the game can take too long to drag to its futile finish. Why bother with this lump of turd, why not just play Snap! ?"

Michael Barnes: (crackedlcd81) "Worthless. I had high hopes for this as a fun, multiplayer card game but it's so pointless and simple-minded that it just wasn't any fun at all."

Teemu Salohalme: "Dull, dull, dull. It just isn't fun to play even for a party game. Maybe I don't stand parties either."

9yo: It's not boring, because it's really fun. It's realistic, sort of, like the sheriff can't get in jail but the other people can; and if you have a miss then you're not shot; and when you go to the saloon everyone gets to heal a health - well you wouldn't really heal a health from drinking beer in real!

11yo: It's not boring, because you have to interact with the other players. It's mostly your attitude that matters. If you are happy, you'll enjoy the game, if you're really grumpy like some people can be, then you'll think it's boring and never want to play again. But if you play a few times, it can be fun, and it's a really good game for with your family. But you don't usually want to get people to think that you want to get drunk when you grow up, and your friends might be horrified that you're playing a shooting game.

13yo: It's fun just having the thrill of trying to eliminate the other players. It's also interesting watching the other players if you are eliminated, sort of teaming up with one player. It's not boring, it's full of action. It's great for a fun party game, you just need the right crowd and the right group of people.

]]>

Too Long?

Matt Crawford: (gatchaman) "It goes on too long. There should be less Beer cards (maybe none) and more BANG cards in the deck."

Michael Webb: (CortexBomb) "The most damning thing about this game is its potential length. Losing early can mean sitting around for the better part of an hour if the game plays long, and that is way, way too long for a game of this sort...even for the players, let alone the dead people."

Matthew Eklund: (Matthew_Ekland) "Wow overrated. Surprisingly long and drawn out... and with enough downtime to kill a horse. Not fun."

9yo: It doesn't take too long at all, there are some other games that can take over an hour, this game doesn't take 45 minutes usually. It also depends how many players you are playing with.

11yo: These people hate this game! It shouldn't take too long if you're working together. If the Sheriff is working with his Deputies, it can go a lot quicker, because the teams are even and you usually should know what you're going to do next, and you shouldn't wait around for a few minutes thinking about what you're going to do.

13yo: You don't really need more Bang cards, the way it is is just right. You get enough Bang cards as it is, and you don't need less Beers - the Beer cards don't turn up that often, and when you are down to two players they are completely useless. They do help give people a last chance, and stay in the game, so they're not out right off the bat. Down-time isn't too much of an issue, it's fun trying to sway the person whose turn it is not to shoot you but to shoot someone else!

]]>

Rules and Symbols Too Complex?

John Weber: "It's hard for newbies to figure out the symbols on the cards."

J W: (waddball) "The icons are horrible to explain, rendering it difficult for exactly the audience it's intended for."

Al Johnson: "The amount of different rules drove me crazy."

Paul Schulzetenberg: (Unitoch) "Too difficult to explain all the symbols to newbies, and not entertaining enough to bring out often enough to get familiar enough with the rules. This game needs a full blown English edition, with the text on the cards. It's difficult to understand what the card symbols mean, and the player aid cards don't really help. This game is a study in bad design."

9yo: They are very easy, just looking at the cards you can sort of see what they do. For the Miss, there is a bullet going through someone's hat and a guy diving out of the way of a bullet - so you can tell that you're not shot!

11yo: You shouldn't really care about the symbols, just almost memorize the cards. Like if you see a Saloon, the picture will remind you what the card does - a Saloon has a picture of hats near beer, so that should mean that everyone gets a beer, and beer goes to all the players. For the Bang cards, you just have to remember you're going to shoot another player. For the Barrel, the icons get pretty simple, because they just represent what the card can do during your turn, and how it affects other players.

13yo: That's what the icon explanation cards are for - they explain the icons, and for the most part explain the cards. The advanced cards, like the Jail, are not too hard to explain. Pretty much what the card itself is, that is it's meaning - for example, if someone plays a Jail card on you, you get put in Jail, it's pretty straight forward. I think you can get newer editions that have the English text on the cards.

]]>

Too Easy to Figure out Roles?

Jacob W: (Jayolas) "To me it is too easy to figure out who is playing which role in Bang! - the Renegade is the only player with any ambiguity to it."

9yo: It isn't easy. It depends who you're playing with. Because if you pretend to be someone else, people can totally think that someone else is what you are, and that you're on their team!

11yo: If you play with more players, it's a little harder, and it sometimes includes guessing. You don't really know at the very beginning who is who, but it's not always obvious. If somebody shoots the sheriff, it's not obvious that it's an outlaw - some people just shoot them just because. It doesn't really matter who shoots who, it's about who shoots the sheriff. If one character keeps shooting the sheriff, usually the deputies will start shooting after him. Then it can be easy to figure it out, but that makes it worthwhile, because it helps figure out what you should do next turn.

13yo: If you have 7 players or so, you have no idea who is the Deputy, because they are trying to shoot off everyone else, and you can easy get the Deputy confused with the Renegade. The Outlaws are trying to eliminate people so they can get to the Sheriff, so they can easily be confused with Renegade or Deputy.

]]>

Other Criticisms?

Mike Swailes: (elanthus) "Makes me want to shoot myself in the head rather than play."

9yo: Definitely not. I would not want to do that. It is really fun!

11yo: Is that person drunk?

13yo: You're crazy. It's a great game if you have the right group of people.

Miranda Antonelli: (Oddrune) "It's feels a lot like Munchkin. That's not a compliment."

9yo: I don't think it feels anything like Munchkin. Not at all.

11yo: It doesn't feel like Munchkin. Most games have the idea of shooting characters and eliminating people, and in Munchkin you're just trying to shoot or kill creatures with weapons, but you're not trying to eliminate the people - what does this have to do with Munchkin?

13yo: Munchkin is supposed to be a funny game, Bang is only kind of funny.

]]>

Concluding Comments

Q: What do you like about Bang?

9yo: The pictures on the cards are really cool. And the abilities from the people.
11yo: I enjoy the interaction.
13yo: Everything pretty much.

Q: What's your favourite character to play, and why?

9yo: Probably Calamity Janet or Willy the Kid. Because Calamity Janet can play Bangs as Misses and Misses as Bangs and that is very powerful. And Willy the Kid can play as many Bangs as he wants on one turn, and if you're the sheriff it makes it much easier, because you can get rid of people much quicker.
11yo: Probably Willy the Kid, or Slab the Killer, because they are very powerful characters, and they are hard to beat.
13yo: Either Calamity Janet or Willy the Kid, because Willy the Kid basically has his own automatic Volcanic. And Calamity Janet because if you give her a Volcanic she is deadly - we like to say that she is such a sharp shooter that she shoots the bullets straight out of the air!

Q: What's your favourite role to play, and why?

9yo: Probably the Sheriff, because usually when there's not many people you're by yourself, and nearly everyone is ganging up on you. And you can't get put in jail!
11yo: I like the Sheriff, because you kind of almost start everything off, and everyone is going for you. But with the Renegade and the Outlaws, you don't know who each other is, but everyone knows who you are.
13yo: Outlaw, because it's fun trying to kill the sheriff, but you have to be sneaky, and being sneaky is fun.

Q: What games are similar to Bang!?

9yo: I don't know any game that is similar to Bang!
11yo: Maybe Saboteur, because you each have different roles, some good and some bad, but nobody knows who you are, and you also pick up cards and play them.
13yo: Lawless in a way, because it's got the Western theme, and Lawless also has cards that give you more cowboys, or fences.

Q: What would you rate this game out of ten?

9yo: 9.
11yo: Probably a 6.
13yo: 8.5 to 9.

Q: In one sentence, how would you sum up your feelings about this game?

9yo: It is really fun.
11yo: It's a game that requires being able to memorize things, the cards, and in a way challenging.
13yo: It's a great party game if you have the right group of people.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The complete list of Ender's "What children really think about..." reviews: http://www.boardgamegeek.com/geeklist/37597

Review: Dixit:: [Video Review] Dixit

TomVasel — Mon, 23 Nov 2009 15:06:09 +0000

by TomVasel

Youtube Video

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LFsiBbopszI

Review: Junta Expansion Cards :: Translation & Commentary

bill_andel — Mon, 23 Nov 2009 13:55:42 +0000

by bill_andel

With a little help from BabelFish, I've translated the cards:

ASSASSIN CARD: Pursuit - Increases the possibility of a successful assassination attempt
[note that the card does not say in what way or by how much or what the cost is].

EVENT CARD: Radioactive Waste Dump - You may draw a money card and deposit it directly to your Swiss bank account.

ASSASSIN CARD: Bodyguard - Reduces the possibility of a successful assassination attempt
[note that the card does not say in what way or by how much or what the cost is].

BRIBE CARD: Confusion - You may move another player's stack of units once [note the card does not say what this costs].

EVENT CARD: The Red Menace - The President must draw twice the number of money cards [this turn].

VOTE CARD: National Press - 5 Votes.

EVENT CARD: Armored Car - You may deposit money in hand in your Swiss bank account without being present in the Bank.

ASSASSIN CARD: Fortress - Reduces the possibility of a successful assassination attempt
[note that the card does not say in what way or by how much or what the cost is].

EVENT CARD: Double Agent - Take a card from another player [does not say if card can be face-up or in-hand and if latter, if selection is random, or player's hand can be examined].

VOTE CARD: Television - 5 Votes.

EVENT CARD: International Peace Treaty - The President must draw half the number of money cards [this turn].

BRIBE CARD: Rejection of Political Asylum - Prevents another player from going into exile [note that the card does not say what this costs].

EVENT CARD: Luck - You may decide the result of one throw of the dice [it translated as plural, so I'm saving this for rolling an Air Strike ].

EVENT CARD: Elite Troops - Increases the possibility of eliminating an enemy unit
[note that the card does not say in what way or by how much].

EVENT CARD: Attack - An attack is perpetrated by an anti-government extremist group [note that the card does not say if this has a game effect - e.g. Coup Excuse].

VOTE CARD: Radio Transmitter - 5 Votes.

While a couple of these look good, at leat one (LUCK) seems broken and many of the others do not provide enough information to be useable.

Plus, the number of votes on the vote cards seems a little high relative to the vote cards in the base game.

That having been said, I quite like Red Menace, Peace Treaty and Armored Car.

Review: Mr. Jack:: Catch this Jack if you can!

madhujith — Mon, 23 Nov 2009 13:46:47 +0000

by madhujith

I always enjoyed the mystery themed games (not sure was this after Cluedo though- see my review of Cluedo http://www.boardgamegeek.com/thread/462207), but one of the problems with the Mystery games that I had before getting Mr. Jack was that they were all 3+ players and above. Both Cluedo and Mystery of the Abbey and it wasn't that I always used to have 3 people that I could play with. Also, I was looking at a shorter game ('cos Cluedo and MoA takes about 60-90 min).

After some reading around, I found the answer in Mr. Jack. Got it through a friend of mine from Singapore. This is a 2-player murder mystery themed game that takes about 5-10 min to learn and takes about 30 min to play.

This is a game where one player plays Jack picks a character at random from the 8 available character and tries to escape while the other player playing the detective tries to catch Jack! (Detail below)

What do you get in the Box?

Well before I go to the content bit, I have to share how I felt after opening the box ;-) As I mentioned before I had read a few reviews about this game and thought that this was a simple enough game for 2 players. I wasn't completely into lot of strategic Euro games and hence wanted the game to be simple (things are different now though).

When I opened the box and saw the rule book, I almost fainted looking at the size of it!!!! It is a 38 page magazine!! and I thought that I had blown up money on this one. But don't fret as I realized moments later the rule book comes in 7 different languages and hence so big. In actuality the rule set is just 5 pages

Now to the contents:

* You get a nice big board with lot of hexes
* 8 character tokens with suspect on one side (dark color) and innocent on the other side (white background)- Characters come from the popular Sherlock Holmes series like Sherlock, Dr. Watson etc.
* 6 hexagonal gas light tiles with 4 of them having numbers1-4 for removal after each of rounds 1-4
* 2 hexagonal manhole tiles
* 2 police cordon tokens
* 1 turn counter token
* 1 card witness/no witness indicator
* 8 cards with green back with the names and pictures of the character along with their special abilities
* 8 alibi cards with red back and picture of a character on each card

The quality of the components are top notch with really thick cards and absolutely brilliant art work! In fact I'm wrong in calling these cards as cards, they are really really thick boards!

How does it play?

First let's look at the set up before we see the game play:

* Set out the board look the the cover page of the rule book to set out the gaslight markers, manhole markers, police cordon tokens and the starting positions of the 8 characters with their bright/darker side up
* Place the turn counter token on the bottom right corner of the board where it says 1
* Choose a player who is going to play lack- he gets the witness card and draws one of the character cards from the red back stack
* Shuffle the 8 green back stack and draw the top 4 cards and keep it open next to the board
* Ensure that the player playing Jack faces the grey side of the board (upside down) and the detective player faces the board upright (gold side)

Now we are all set to play :-) So here's the objective of the game in detail. One of the 8 characters is Jack the Ripper i.e. the card the Jack the Ripper player chooses is the culprit. The other player has to find out this guy, and to make matter tense you have just 8 turns in which to do that! Of course did I mention that if Jack is clever he will escape from the city (board) even before you get to the 8 turns!! So buckle up you are in for a roller coaster ride!

On each turn the following happens:

* The turn order token tells you the order of play. Eg: Grey-Gold-Gold-Grey (for turns 2-4-6-8) or Gold-Grey-Grey-Gold (for turns 1-3-5-7)
* Players choose one of the open character cards depending on who they are representing (see above of grey and gold description)
* Players move the character tokens on the board as per the movement points for each character and use the character's special ability. E.g. Sherlock can move upto 3 places and draw a card from the red back pile etc.
* After a turn is over i.e. 4 cards the Jack player uses the witness card to indicate whether the culprit is visible or invisible.
* Once this is done, depending on whether the culprit is visible or invisible the tokens are turned around to indicate their innocence. Meaning- if the culprit is visible then all the invisible characters are innocent and vice verse
* The turn counter moves to the next number and one of the gas light is removes from the board (numbers 1-4 for each round)- i.e. your city is going get increasingly darker and becomes difficult for the detective to catch Jack ;-) so hurry up

Note on Visibility:

* Any character adjacent to another character is visible
* Any Character adjacent to a gaslight is visible
* Any character in the line of sight of Dr. Watson's gaslight is visible
* All other characters are invisible
* Jack can escape the city only when he is invisible and through one of the exits that does not have the police cordon marker!

Now for the fun element- Well it is extremely important for players to use the gas lights to their advantage and also the manholes. Using manholes can absolutely turn things around for players. There is no luck element in using the manholes, but there is surely a surprise element! Add to this the special abilities of the characters are really important and if used wisely can enrich the gaming experience immensely.

How long does this play?

Typically each game should last somewhere between 20-30 min, yes it is that short though my review makes the game appear long. In very rare circumstances I've seen games stretching upto 45 min (i.e. when I play this game with some serious chess players :-)

Who would you recommend it to?

I would categorize this game as a light-medium game and hence this can fit into most game collections with ease. Serious gamers can use this as an ice breaker before they want to get into something really serious and casual gamers can play this for hours before getting bored :-) I would say this is a great game for get away- so couples might find it very attractive, but if you are a person who plays games with larger groups and seldom play 2 player games, then you may not want it because this is a 2-player game :-)

Any Downsides?

Well I had to think long and hard before writing this section. Downside of such a nice game, well can it really have one? The answer to me was yes, and I say this as I have played this extensively for over 2 yrs now- One serious downside is games tend to become repetitive after you have played many times. There are actually 2-3 different strategies and once you crack them in your initial games the surprise element might die down. Playing with different players will give you different experiences as the style of play will be different, but you can nail down the trends after a point in time.

For beginners learning the movement abilities and special abilities might take a game or two, and if they play against experienced gamers there is a huge disadvantage. This game is also fairly unforgiving in that if anyone commits a simple error early in the game, you can be sure that your game is going to be short- specially true with errors made by players playing Jack.

Personally I feel that this game is not very well balanced- what I mean by this is, it is very difficult for Jack to escape and not get caught. After some games you know that Jack will get caught (experienced gamers) and the challenge is how long can Jack keep running away. For this I do play certain variants like playing it for 6 turns instead of 8, removing 2 lamps instead of 1 etc. but still the detective has a lot of advantage unless he plays really stupid.

Final Thoughts!

Well don't get carried away reading my downside section and dismiss this game as a flash in the pan. This is a very very good game and can keep you engaged for hours, days, years. Though I don't play it very often, I do see this game hitting my table every other month at least for a couple of games. Yes there are some drawbacks, but I guess there are very few games that are perfect. If you ask me this game is perfect to satisfy your mystery/deduction itch without brain burn within a short time! With an expansion and a full blown game released I can only imagine this game getting more and more popular! As I said before catch this Jack before he escapes from the market stands.

I rate this game a solid 7.5/10 for its cleverness and short gameplay and amazingly good components and art work.

Review: Ad Astra:: Sheep for Rocket Fuel? - When Euros go into Space

pigi314159 — Mon, 23 Nov 2009 06:55:30 +0000

by pigi314159

After my first read through of the rules my first comment was, "This is Puerto Rico Catan....IN SPAAAAAAAAAAAAACE!" I chuckled and what I thought was a clever little moniker, and then it sunk in. This game is essentially the love child of a Bajoran Puerto Rico and a Vulcan Catan. Not that that's a bad thing, but something I found highly amusing.

As this game has been out for a while, and several reviews before mine are available, there will be no rules rehash or walkthrough of mechanics. You get my opinion, and my opinion only.

Disclaimer: I am a big fan of these designers. I read Faidutti's blog almost daily and like several of his games (most notably Citadels.) Laget's Shadows of Camelot is perhaps one of my most favorite games. Given the pedigree, I was probably predisposed to like this game. But I still feel the game stands on its own merits regardless of the names attached to it.

The Good

Ease of Learning
Unlike Puerto Rico, but like Catan, the game is relatively easy to pick up. I feel that anyone with any kind of gaming experience can fumble through the first round and then figure out a relatively functional strategy.

Replayability
These two are being discussed together because in this game, I feel they are interconnected. The resources remain hidden for a large portion of the beginning part of the game. You are guessing at what the randomization has left you. On top of that, the order in what planets are revealed is going to vary depending on who decides to play which travel cards. In short, no one strategy is going to win everytime and new meaningful decisions will emerge between plays.

Depth
There are many many choices in this game. You are after all juggling 6 different resources on top of turn order and time.

Action Mechanics
For some reason, I love laying down action cards in the different slots on the board. Having the option of having things happen early or late in the round adds a very interesting dynamic. For instance, do you want to play a scoring card early or late? If you play it early you will get less points but be more likely to get the bonus points. If you play it late you might have the opportunity to build whatever you're scoring to gain a bigger advantage, but also give your opponents the time to potentially tie you. This adds a very nice double think mechanic, and hilarious moments as 4 build cards in a row are revealed.

Components
FFG does not disappoint. Nicely sculpted plastics, sharp looking artwork. Really no complaints here. While this game certainly does not warrant a call to the Louvre, pieces of it rival the artist renditions found in astronomy textbooks.

The Bad

Potential Resource Screwage
The bane of the Magic player...why I stopped loving Catan...When a game fundamentally revolves around one resource, and you can't find any, let alone access any...well you are going to have a negative experience. This game takes two approaches to solve this issue. First, many improvements can be built with a variety of resources. Instead of requiring 1 A, 1 B, 1 C, and 1 D, you may built a colony with 1 A, 1 B, and 1 C or D or E. While the issue still exists for resources A and B, it is greatly alleviated for C, D, and E. The other solution is trading. In my book, trading requires you have to have leverage, aka you need to have something desirable for another player. In my most current game the only resource I could spare was wheat. And everyone else had wheat. It took a few turns of sitting on a power producing planet just so I could keep jumping before I was able to my infrastructure established. Is this the end of the world? No, I am simply noting the potential exists.

Unlike Catan you may not trade with the bank. This can force your hand strategy wise, either by forcing you to play a trade card, or by immobilizing starships to maintain resource gathering power.

AP Potential
AP ruins any game. This one is no different. The double think of Citadels with the economic planning of Puerto Rico and the negotiation of Catan can be nightmarish for our overly analytical friends.

The Indifferent

Theme
Past the novelty of screaming "PUERTO RICO CATAN IN SPAAAAAAAAACE!" the theme is not all that relevant to the game. Could it have been something else, sure. Does it really matter, not really. Bruno himself has expressed concern that the sci-fi theme may turn off potential gamers. Should it? I don't think so. But this game isn't exactly dripping in theme.

Conclusion

I like this game. The resource gathering of Catan is simplistic and you are given more control over it. The long term planning and turn order of Puerto Rico makes your strategy dynamic. While this game certainly shows similarities to Catan and Puerto Rico it has its own unique feel. The theme helps to differentiate it, as does the ability to "speed up" gameplay by playing scoring cards to jump towards the magic 50. This isn't simply a game of who can build the best infrastructure and profit the most. This is a game of who can build the best infrastructure while capitalizing on their advantages early to score points and not allowing their opponents to over power them late with a better infrastructure.

The game certainly is not perfect, however the issues with this game are largely issues the entire genre has not found a way to fix. (I'm a thinking a taboo buzzer could be amusing) I highly recommend this game to just about anyone who enjoys the hobby or who has played Settlers of Catan. If nothing else, this game deserves a place on your shelf because it does what it does very well and its creative pedigree implies a good game Euro players should like.

(Unless you don't like an indigo plantation you bartered for with eight sheep....on Mars.)

Review: Terra Prime:: Fun Space Game

DaveCole — Mon, 23 Nov 2009 05:27:07 +0000

by DaveCole

If you want to read the rules for this game they are available. Instead of going over them I am going to go over what I thought of the game.

If you enjoy space themed games with trade and and exploration you will like this one.

What does it have going for it?
1. The theme works. I have purchased and played a few other space themed titles recently that turned out to be abstracts with a space theme tacked on. While they were good games I was disappointed. Terra Prime uses the theme well.

2. It's short. A 90 minute game tops. If you don't want to invest the time to play Twilight Imperium then you can play this.

3. The rules are easy to learn and teach. I played one game on Thursday and taught one game on Saturday at BGG Con. The only thing that I had to look up was the set up as the game was already set up the first time around.

The Cons:
1. Placing new tiles was sometimes difficult. It only happened once, but we were unable to place a tile and had to remove it because we could not place it without the planets ending up one jump away. This was the only thing that bothered me about the game. Actually looking back through the rules I think some of the problems we faced with placing new systems and what slowed the game down was misreading the rules. I think on a couple occasions we were treating asteroids like planets and trying to avoid placing them next to other planets. I leave this in here because I am not sure that is what happened on the first game when we had to take the system out.

Actually that is the only thing that really bothered me about the game. I look forward to seeing more games from Mr. Jaffe in the future.

Review: The BoardGameGeek Game:: A Girlfriends Perspective on: The Boardgamegeek Game

cerenycus — Mon, 23 Nov 2009 04:30:09 +0000

by cerenycus

This year was my first time ever going to the bgg con. Excited about checking things out, and seeing how it runs, instead of going straight to the library, we went to the main hall and started looking to see if anyone needed players for a game. My boyfriend and I walked past a table, and saw someone holding the boardgamegeek game box in the air, and reading the rules. He was by himself. We decided to stop and ask if he needed some players, and he welcomed us to his table.

None of us at the table knew how to play the game, but as we were trying to struggle to read the rules, [person=134][/person] walked to the table, and offered to teach us. We quickly found 2 others to play, and then we started.

Contents

1 game board
120 game tiles (20 pieces in 6 different colours)
18 wooden dice (3 dice per colour)
6 player screens
1 start player marker
6 wooden score markers
1 rules booklet (English, German)

Recommended Players

This game plays 3-6 players. According to Richard Breese, it plays best with 5 players.

Setup

Each player is going to take their corresponding coloured sets (20 game pieces, 3 wooden dice, and 1 player screen). The player markers are going to be placed on the geekgold track. The 20 game pieces will be placed face down in a pile in front of the players screen.

A start player will be named (rolling the dice is fine). The start player, and the next 2 players (in clockwise order), will start with 10 geek gold. The remaining players will be placed on the 11 geekgold mark.

How to Play

The game is made up of six rounds. Out of the six rounds there are six actions.

Action 1 : Games arrive at the warehouse

In round one, each player is going to take 8 game pieces from their stack and place them face up behind their screen. During faces 2 - 5 they will only take 3 new games, and in round six, there will be none.

Action 2 : Deliver the games to the shop

There are 6 different store locations on the playing board. Each store is going to have a picture of a die with a number ranging from 1 - 6. You will notice on each of your game pieces (other than 2) there will be a picture of a game, and a number on it (once again ranging from 1 - 6). The other 2 tiles will be blank.

When shipping a game to the store, you are only able to place the numbered game in a store that has the same number, or 1 number difference (either way) than the number on the store. (ie: If the store shows , you are only able to place the games with the number 4, 5, or 6 in the store). The only exception to this rule are the 2 blank tiles, you are able to place those tiles anywhere on the game board.

In each store you are going to find 3 different rows (the front of the store, the middle, and the back). Each row is going to have a number beside it. If your game is in that row when the games are "bought" you will receive that number of geekgold. The further back the game, the fewer geekgold.

When placing the tile, you will place it face down in the shop window, not letting others know which tiles you are placing. When you are ready to pass, you will stack your dice, one on top of the other.

Action 3 : Geeks arrive at the shops

The players will now take their dice, and roll. They will placed their numbered dice beside the corresponding store. With this step, you are going to have 3 options

Advertise

Re-roll any number of your dice, and pay one gg. The new dice will be placed in the corresponding shops.

Promote

Pay one gg to move one die to an adjacent shop.

Pass

No cost.

Action 4 : Deterime new start player

This is where things get a little confusing. The player with the most dice in shop one will be the new start player. If there is a tie, you will then take a look at the next numbered die of each player to see who is closest to store one. If there is a tie again, you will look at the third. If it is still a tie, the first player marker will be given to the player who is closest (starting clockwise) to the previous start player.

Action 5 : Geeks choose games

All the tiles in the game stores are now flipped over. any blank tiles will be removed from the board. Any tile that was placed in the wrong shop will be removed, and placed into charity. When the tile is chosen, the person who placed the game there will receive no geekgold.

Starting with the starting player, each person is going to place their coloured die on the game they want in one shop. This will continue until each player has passed, or they have purchased 3 games.

Action 6 : Receive GeekGold for games sold

The players will now receive geekgold for every game that matches their colour is sold. All the games that were not sold will nowbe moved one row back. If the games were in the back row, and still were not sold, the game will be removed from the game, and not be able to be sold again.

Scoring

The scoring for the 4-6 players, and 3 players are different. I'm going to talk about the 4-6 player one as that is the one that I have played.

For each game you have purchased, you will receive the number of geekgold on the tile. You will not receive any geekgold for the second tile you have bought with the same colour and number on it. You will also not receive any gg for any of your own coloured tiles.

If you were able to get a set of the same number, in all colours except for your own, you will not receive the number on the tiles, but you will receive 30 gg.

How to Win

The player at the end of the game with the most geek gold is the winner.

The Good vs The Bad

Different ways to block other players from making a set
High risk for collecting low points, and low risk for the higher
No real point to try to buy your own tile, as you will not score points at the end
The theme didn't jump out at me. It was like a strategy game, with the boardgamegeek information pasted on

Survey Says

I'm giving this game 's. I had alot of fun learning this game, as well as playing. Before the con, I kept going back and forth whether I would want to buy this game or not. One of the big push backs was we typically only play 2 player games, and this was not a game for that.

When I first started playing the game, I didn't quite understand the whole strategy behind it, but as we continued to play, it started coming to me, and it's not a hard game to learn, and is quite easy to pick up on.

For the avid boardgame geek, this may be an excellent game for your collection. I don't think I would be adding this game to my collection though. If I did, it would probably just sit there as we would never have enough players to make it fun. If someone did bring the game over to play, on our few boardgame nights, I would definitely play it again.

Review: Wasabi!:: Putting makeup on a pig

stormseeker75 — Mon, 23 Nov 2009 04:05:51 +0000

by stormseeker75

When I first heard about Wasabi! I was really intrigued. I'm a sushi lover so the thought of a game based around a food I love sounded interesting. And the first pics we got looked amazing. I jumped at the chance to get this one and I've given it more than it's fair share of plays since then. Wasabi and I have had an interesting relationship that has culminated in some very strong feelings on my end. So is Wasabi sushi-grade or is it fish-sticks?

Rules

Wasabi is fairly easy to learn. There's not a lot of rules and it's fairly straight-forward. I've taught this game to many people and they've had no problem grasping the concepts. This game is definitely easy enough in the rules department to play with non-gamers.

If you'd like to read the complete rules, they are here on the Geek.

I will say that like most games Josh Capel does the rules for, the rules are laid out brilliantly. A truly excellent rulebook that looks good and is very easy to understand.

Components

Wasabi! is one of the prettiest looking games I've ever played. Each of the ingredient tiles is beautifully illustrated with vibrant colors that are easy to tell apart. All of the ingredients look different and the names are in large letters that are easy to read. The cardboard is nice and thick and the coating is good too. The board looks beautiful and once the tiles are laid out it gets even better. The visual appeal of the board during the game is spectacular.

Each player gets a menu to hold their recipes and hide their tiles. This is a great thematic touch that is both functional and looks great. Speaking of the recipes, they are easy to read and work great with the menus.

One of the nicest touches of the game is the small sauce bowls that the players get to store their wasabi cubes in. Again, these are terrifically thematic and a really nice touch. Although completely unnecessary, they make the game look even better.

Gameplay

If you've read the rules, you will know how the game works. In general, you are trying to complete recipes to score points much like the way routes are completed in Ticket to Ride. But unlike TTR, this game offers much less choice.

Blocking
A key tactic to playing TTR effectively is to block other players. Doing so is reasonably easy to do because you can see where players are going. Even if you don't know their exact destination, you can see generally what they are going for and try to stop them. In Wasabi, you can block much the same way but you have no idea what the other players are actually trying to accomplish. Additionally, the special cards can make your block attempts wasted because they can undo your carefully placed block.

Completely tactical
Every turn in this game is completely tactical because there is very little you can do to control your fate, especially in the late game. If you play this game with 4, you can expect the board to be radically different by your next turn. It doesn't take long before players are bumping into each other and messing up each others plans. To that end, you need to play every turn based on new information. You can't really plan ahead.

Why can't we have recipe lists?

For the life of me, I can't figure out why they did not put the recipes in the menu instead of just the names in English and German. Having all the different recipes inside the menu would actually help tremendously because you could see what the other players were trying to accomplish instead of just guessing. I suppose if you've played the game a lot you might know all the recipes, but for new players, its a total shot in the dark.

Meaningful choices

In my games, I like choices that matter. I feel that my choices in Wasabi are completely meaningless. I'm not sure if its that they are all tactical or because the game is so chaotic, but I just don't feel like I have any control and as such, my choices feel meaningless. To me, it does not matter what I do because it can very easily be undone by other players. There doesn't seem to be much permanence in my decisions in this game and that's one of my biggest problems with it.

The special cards
I feel like the special cards were designed to help give players some control, but all they really do is make it more chaotic. As I mentioned earlier, you can't really block because the cards can undo any block you may make. In particular, Wasabi is a reall screw-over card because you can effectively stop multiple players with it. However, they can pull the card off the board and undo the block. My biggest problem with these cards is that they add difficulty that may be a bit much for new players. In a game that is this light, that difficulty is out of place.

Game length

This game can really drag with new players. Heck, I just find that it drags in general. It's too long and offers no meaningful choices which makes it feel like an eternity to play.

Number of players
2 - This may be the best because its the least chaotic. I've never played it with 2 so I can't say. Based on my 3-player experiences, that seems right.
3 - Wasabi starts to show its chaos. Even with only 3 players, the board changes drastically by your next turn.
4 - Don't bother. You have no chance at anything resembling a controlled atmosphere.

Compare it too...

I've already mentioned Ticket to Ride which I think is an apt comparison. In both games, you are trying to complete several different goals throughout the game to score points. If you can tie those goals together, you will be in great shape. I still love TTR after almost 3 years of owning it. It's easy. I feel like my choices matter. I can block and interact with the other players. My trains on the board are permanent. Wasabi has none of that for me, plus the special cards add rules difficulty

Overall

In summation, Wasabi is not a game I like. It's basically the same as Ticket to Ride, but it completely pales in comparison as far as gameplay goes. Sure, Wasabi is beautiful. But in this case, beauty is only skin deep. There is nothing here once you get past the shiny outside.

I rate Wasabi 3/10. I will never willingly play this game again. In a very crowded gateway game field, Wasabi has not a leg to stand on. Give me TTR, Carc, Settlers, Alhambra or almost any other "gateway" game instead.

After my 7th play, I had enough so I got rid of Wasabi and I couldn't be happier. This game is abyssmal and offers me nothing in terms of gameplay. I'll be quite happy to never play it again.

Review: StarTaxi:: HEY! Taxi ! StarTaxi !!!

volnon — Mon, 23 Nov 2009 01:30:16 +0000

by volnon

]]>

I played this game yesterday and today- the wife beat me again- I am suprised the neighbors have not called the police yet. She is constantly beating me!

Anyway, I feel it necessary to add some comments about this game that my session did not mention- or I should mention again. It really is a neat little game that deserves more attention.

To begin with, the simplicity of this game is what makes it so wonderful. Everything comes well packed into a small box- you get 4 plastic spaceships (taxis), scorecards, markers for the scorecards, a wooden die, cards, and a rule sheet. Quite a lot in a little package- perfect for a roadtrip or camping.

But don't be fooled by the simplicity- it may be well designed to be simple, but it has a certain amount of thinking and strategy involved. And,I must add, you had better have a decent memory if you want to win. If you don't have one, this game could actually help you develope one!

There is a lot of fun involved, racing around the cards (which are all placed face down on the table to create your "universe") looking for matching colors. My wife was actually laughing when she would flip over the wrong color. She was so positive it was a different alien!

The object of the game, as stated before, is to race around with your spaceship (read StarTaxi), your distance controlled by the die roll and card usage. If a large open hole is created by cards being picked up, this becomes a "Black Hole", which means the only way to get across the void is to enter Hyperspace (three of your movement points).

The person who gets the most matches of like aliens will win the game, and if you grab a planet or two you will almost certainly win. Matches of like color aliens are also worth different amounts if male, female, or kids.

Components are of a good quality, and will stand up to repeated game play. Although adults played this game, this game would be great for kids- it reminded me slightly of Husker Du, which I played as a kid, but this theme was much more fun.

I suggest you run out to the curb and hail a taxi right now to buy this game.

And don"t forget to tip the alien.

Review: Battle Cry:: Review as an abstract

whac3 — Mon, 23 Nov 2009 00:40:30 +0000

by whac3

1. Introduction

One can view and enjoy this game from a number of different but fundamentally supplementary perspectives. Thus, for example, one can view the game as the first in the series by designer Richard Borg using what has been called the Command & Colors system; other games (minus expansions) in this series to date are Commands & Colors: Ancients, Memoir '44, BattleLore and Commands & Colors: Napoleonics in no particular order. Personally, I view the series as essentially the same game with different themes and minor rules tweaks, but that is not in any case the perspective I wish to pursue in this review; it's just an example. The most common other perspective is to view this as a light tactical wargame in the same sense that by contrast Axis & Allies is a light strategic wargame. Both of these views have a number of reviews associated with them. Yet at least a third view can be taken, namely one can effectively ignore the ACW theme and treat this game as an abstract.

Frankly, I do not intend to beat the dead horse of whether or not Battle Cry is a wargame or an abstract or how either of those terms is defined. To be frank, I consider the game to be both depending on one's point of view and see no contradiction in this view whatsoever. Theme in my experience makes as much difference to the workings of a game as the paint-job on a car; mechanics are still mechanics however well motivated. This is why I view the games in the series as fundamentally the same game or at most variants. This is not to say that the theme is "painted on" in this game; each scenario reenacts an actual battle of the war (speaking specifically of this game).

The point is that one expects of an abstract and how one thinks of the game is different than a wargame, although the two need not be mutually exclusive. So, as I said, I am approaching this game from the perspective of an abstract. Clearly, because the game employs both cards and dice, the game is not a perfect information abstract. Nevertheless, for each scenario, the game boils down to two (asymmetric) sets of units with definite mechanics for combat and movement. Had one never heard of what my father calls "the War of Northern Aggression" routinely, this would still be a thoroughly enjoyable and interesting game.

2. Components

]]> ]]>
The beautifully illustrated box is large relatively speaking, but it does not waste space. ]]> The board consists of a hexagonal grid; hexs are easy to see and easily large enough for the pieces. ]]> For each scenario, one places terrain pieces on the board as can be seen along with pieces in these views. ]]> ]]> The types of terrain are clearly distinguishable, and each piece is nicely and durably made. Most importantly, one always has enough of the right terrain markers for the scenarios, and how to set up each scenario (like the rest of the rules) is clearly and unambiguously explained.

My sole complaint about the components is the need to apply stickers to the dice and units. The dice seen below at least have slightly inset sides which well fit the stickers, but I am still concerned that as time goes on the stickers will start coming off the dice. ]]> Perhaps the depression of the sides will prevent this happening, but even so the possibility would not exist if the dice were pre-fabricated. More problematic are the flags. My vision is poor and I found it impossible to affix the flags exactly as they should be, and they are already starting to come off consequently. The flag bases are clearly distinguishable so that I can use the pieces even were all the flags to come off, but I admit to annoyance that this issue exists. Nonetheless, this minor point does not stop me from heartily recommending the game even to collectors; one just needs to give afar greater degree of care and precision in applying the flag stickers than I was able to do. When one does, the pieces look like these. ]]> ]]> ]]> I know the use of stickers lowers the price of the game a bit, but I for one would have gladly paid a bit more for that little extra that would let me have nice-looking pieces.

I did not find a good image of the cards by themselves, but these are clearly printed, nicely illustrated and unambiguously worded. They are also made from high quality card stock.

3. Rules Summary

Each scenario specifies the terrain, unit placement, number of cards for each player and who goes first. The object in each case is to capture six of one's opponent's flagged pieces. In a real sense, each scenario represents a variant of the game.

The three types of units, namely infantry, cavalry and artillery, consist of a single flagged piece and respectively three, two and one unflagged pieces. Generals are also flagged pieces but do not count as independent units, in the sense that they cannot attack independently, although they move separately. Each type of unit (here including generals) has a particular range of movement and (except for the general) a range of attack; both are modified by terrain. The concept of line of sight used in attacks can be treated as blocking by terrain or other units. Attacks are made by use of dice; the type of unit attacking and the distance to the unit attacked dictate how many dice are used. The function of generals is to add a die to attacks. Unlike later games in the series, no counter-attacks are possible.

The cards are used to dictate how many units in any or all of the three areas of the battlefield (left flank, right flank or center) primarily. Some cards do allow reinforcements or the targeting of a general specifically, but the main function of the cards is to let one move units and generals.

In any given unit, flagged pieces are destroyed in combat last. This means for example, that an infantry unit can take three hits before the flagged piece is captured. Generals are then captured after the flagged piece of the associated unit (if any) and only on the roll of a crossed-sabers symbol.

4. Gameplay

Viewed as a two player abstract, the game boils down to capturing six flagged pieces as Chess boils down to capturing the king. The use of dice necessitates that one maximize the probability of hitting a unit enough to capture the flagged piece, whether wearing the unit down or all at once. The cards restrict but also facilitate one's ability to do this. These two elements of play make for a strategically deep game.

Before the first time we played this game, my wife asked me if having once played a given scenario, one would want to play it again. She was new to wargames and so unfamiliar with the nature of a scenario in this context. She quickly saw that any given scenario can be analyzed and replayed any number of times. The lack of perfect information does limit the analyzability of the game in one sense, but in another sense it simply demands the analyze take into account the probabilities.

The game therefore is reminiscent of Hasami Shogi in the object, but the incorporation of probabilistic elements complicates the strategic problem. Usually, I prefer perfect information abstracts, but this game just works.

Review: Pandemic:: 2D6.org: Pandemic Video Review

ncassidy — Mon, 23 Nov 2009 00:30:39 +0000

by ncassidy

Review Excerpt:
Having not played Pandemic in quiet some time, we thought that we would give the cooperative gaming gem a bit of table time. It’s interesting how not playing a game for a while can cause you to forget that “hard mode” actually means what it infers – especially when inadvertently playing on hard mode. Thus was the case with our adventure with Pandemic. We rolled the game out anticipating a clean steam rolling session, and walked away with nothing short of blood, sweat, and tears. However, that isn’t to say that we didn’t have fun in the process. Well, maybe not all of us...

For the full review, play the video located below OR visit http://www.2d6.org

Vimeo Video

Review Cast: Travis Ross, Emily Ross, Ashly Simmons, and Matthew Falk.
Filmed / Edited By: Nicholas Cassidy
Production Notes: Matt interchangeably used the words “virus” and “disease”. Bad Matt. Let us know what you thought about our review!

Our Review:
Craftsmanship: 4 / 5
Presentation: 3.5 / 5
Accessibility: 4 / 5
Gameplay: 4 / 5
Replayability: 4 / 5
Final Verdict: Buy it IF you enjoy cooperative games.

Review: Heist:: Gettin'-Jighm-wid-it review

Jighm — Sun, 22 Nov 2009 23:29:39 +0000

by Jighm

I picked up Heist for a few reasons when I saw it on the games store shelf. One, it was under $10, which is what I was looking for that day. Two, I like the theme - cracking a code to break into a safe. And three, the packaging looked nice with the safe dial sticking out of it.

I did, however, feel a little fear at getting the game because of the name Fundex on the box. I like a lot of their games, however the games are rarely as involved as you may think before reading the rules. This game, unfortunately, ranks right there with those.

Components:
The game comes tightly packed in the box (which opens at the top and not very easily). You get that dial that sticks out of the box, a deck of vault number cards, a deck of code cards, and a deck of tool cards. The components are good quality and pleasing to the eye.

Set-up:
You place the vault cards in a circle in numerical order clockwise and then stick the vault dial in the center pointed at the number "0." You shuffle the code cards (consisting of 2 eahc of the numbers from 1 through 9) and deal a certain number to each player dependant on the number of players. Players then secretly arrange their code cards face-down in front of them, each choosing one card as his/her starting card. This card is simply pushed forward a tad. Then, each player is dealt 5 cards from the shuffled tool deck and the next card is placed face-up next to the draw pile to start the discard pile. If the card is a special card, more cards are flipped until you get a regular tool card. The dial on the vault is turned according to the rules of this card. This is so that no player has an advantage in the game with the vault starting at "0." However, here is a point to keep in mind. There is absolutely no rhyme or reason to choosing what order to play your code cards in or which one you choose as your first card.

Play:
On your turn, you play cards from your hand. You may play as many as you wish, completing each one before playing the next. Most cards simply have you turn the vault dial forward or backward a certain number of digits. You are attempting to land the dial on the card that you chose as your target. If you finish your turn with the dial on your number, flip that card over for all to see and choose another of your cards to try for on your next turn. Again, there is absolutely no rhyme or reason to choosing your next card as you cannot possibly know where the dial will be on your next turn unless you have certain special cards in hand. The first player to land on all of his/her code cards wins.

Special cards: There are 6 special cards that may be played on your turn if you have any.

Wild Key - Move the dial forward or backward 1 or 2 digits.
Zeroed Out - Set the vault dial to "0."
Reverse Play - Just like in Uno.
Skip a Thief - Play in front of another thief. That player simply discards the skip card on his/her next turn.
Alarm Bells - All players pass their code cards (all of them) one player to the right or to the left, your choice.
Bamboozled - Give an additional code card to a player from the left-overs.

My thoughts:
Some of the special cards add a bit of something to the game, but overall, the game is a luckfest.

I thought that the game was going have players trying to crack the same unknown code. Instead, players are cracking their own codes known to them.

There was no real strategy to be had here. They trick you into thinking that you have some control over things by choosing the order of your cards and which ones you try for each time. These choices are meaningless.

For the money you pay for the game, it's ok to have in your collection. But, I may not play it much myself.

Jighm

Review: The Bingo Game:: The Bingo Game 2K4 Review

diemacher — Sun, 22 Nov 2009 23:17:50 +0000

by diemacher

"The first game to turn Bingo into a game of strategy" is how the Bingo Game is pitched. Don't laugh yet, since the designer has done a credible job of making something interesting out of an otherwise dry and random concept. In a world where everyone seems to be publishing their lifelong dream game, this one is better than most comparables.

The game is Bingo, of course, so each player gets a bingo card and a decision is made about what creates bingo (five across, a pattern, etc.). But rather than call out numbers, players instead roll two custom dice and move a pawn across paths on a board. The paths connect in various ways and each space is marked with a bingo number. You move the die roll to a space, and that is the number that everyone marks off their cards. This space is then covered with a chip, so it does not count anymore in the game and is ignored for movement purposes. As the game moves along, players are trying to identify paths that will get them the numbers they need to complete their pattern quickly. Certain spaces allow a pawn to transport to a different area of the board quickly, or force players to lose a turn. Of course, the first player to complete the bingo wins. The Bingo Game is a nice take on bingo with some nice added touches, but it is clearly family fare. There is a nice description and plenty of photos at www.thebingogame.com .

Review: Immer oben auf!:: Immer oben auf Review

diemacher — Sun, 22 Nov 2009 22:57:29 +0000

by diemacher

Ah, another memory game for kids that will frustrate the adults! The game consists of blocks in three colors, and each colored block can show one of four animals. Turquoise blocks show four water animals, yellow blocks show four land animals, and blue blocks show four flying animals. Each player gets a set of blocks and stacks them so that only they can see the animals. Everyone else, of course, can see the colors.

For their turn, a player points to another player's tower and declares what animal is on the top of their stack. The selected player then reveals the block to everyone, and if the guessing player was correct he takes the block and places it on the bottom of his stack, and he can continue by guessing the animal on the top of another player's stack. If the guess is wrong, the player keeps their animal and places it at the bottom of their stack. Thus, players' towers grow and shrink as guesses are made, and by having a good memory you can improve the otherwise 25% chance on your turn.

The game ends when any one player creates a tower of a specified height. With four players, this is a nine-story tower, and since you start with five you must make four correct guesses plus one for every block taken from you by others. This makes the game work quite well as someone who is close to winning gets pushed backwards, but it is possible for one player to lose all of their blocks before someone wins. Overall, this is a fun game that looks great and is easy to teach to almost any age group.

This review originally appeared in Counter Magazine.

Review: Landwehr 1438:: Landwehr 1438 Review

diemacher — Sun, 22 Nov 2009 22:39:08 +0000

by diemacher

Landwehr 1438 is the first published of several current games planned by Terra Authentica. The game is lavishly produced, with a beautifully-crafted wooden board consisting of a nine-by-nine grid. Into the grid cells fit nicely-finished tiles, and these tiles drive the action in the game. Each player is trying to build a route from their home town, placed in one of the four corners, to the town of Lueneburg in the center. The town consists of four Quarters, and each player has a designated Quarter where they must deliver their goods. Once they get all eight goods to their Quarter, each player is assigned a delivery schedule and must deliver a prescribed set of goods, including those from other players, to specific home towns. The first player to complete this two-part task wins the game.

During the first half (bringing goods to market), play consists of revealing tiles from the board in an attempt to create a path for your goods. Goods are moved in carts, and a cart consists of one to four goods with your color good on the top. Carts move the number of spaces equal to the number of goods, thus single carts move slowly while four-place carts can hum along. The tiles show roads that are straight or roads that turn, or a "landwehr", which is trench that cannot be passed. Once a tile is revealed, it can be placed in the desired orientation or swapped with another revealed tile, except that landwehrs cannot be swapped. In order to get to the required town Quarter, players enter through a crossing tile and must wait a turn before entering the town. This thematically represents the time period requirement that merchants had to hold up and offer to sell good to the landwehr builders before they were allowed to enter the town.

Once all the goods get to town, a chart shows what the player must deliver to complete the second part of their journey. This is dependent of the order arrival in the town; the first player to get all of their goods to Lueneburg takes the first set of orders, the next player takes the second, etc. The required goods are taken from the other players once they have gotten them to their town quarter, and placed in carts (meaning your good is on top) for delivery to the required home town. Once all four players are in the second phase of the game (delivering goods back home), no more tiles are revealed or swapped but they can be reoriented. Thus the development of the network during the first phase must consider the impact on the efficiency in the second phase.

The expectations of this game are high since it is expensive and so well made. It does not quite live up to this, however, as the game play is dry and abstract. The rules also include a two-player scenario that uses some of the same tile and movement ideas, but is a different game with a different set-up. The game works, but it doesn't excite, and thus I expect this to be a curiosity that most will never get to see or play. You can see some photos and read the rules at www.terra-authentica.com .

This review originally appeared in Counter Magazine.

Review: Dino Booom:: Dino Booom Review

diemacher — Sun, 22 Nov 2009 22:38:55 +0000

by diemacher

Dino Booom is a matching game that reminds me of Michael Schacht's Affenraffen with a twist. Five different types of dinosaurs plus four bananas are printed onto square cards, and 25 of these are placed into a 5x5 grid. The dinosaurs appear on different landscapes, and each round it will be possible to capture dinosaurs on a chosen landscape type. Each player is trying to be the first to get the right mix of dinosaurs to complete the "menu card" chosen at random by the tribe chief.

The chief throws the four "holy bones" into the air – each shows one of the three landscape types or a banana on one side, and is blank on the other. For this round, only the landscapes (or banana) that land face-up can be hunted. As soon as the bones fall, each player can hunt using their spear, which is a plastic rod with a suction cup at one end. Each player tries to capture a dinosaur card by spearing it before anyone else does, but the card they capture must be eligible based on the landscapes shown on the bones. Each player is trying to get the right mix of cards shown on the menu, and the first player to do so gets that card which will score. Each round, though, players spear only one card so it's not a complete free-for-all.

As you'd expect, certain cards become highly desired. If the menu requires two blue dinosaurs and there is a single card showing two blue dinosaurs in the forest, plan for an all-out attack for that card if the "forest" bone lands upright. Bananas are jokers, but can only be speared if the banana bone is face-up. The game is silly and very fun for kids, but won't do much to excite the rest of the family.

This review originally appeared in Counter Magazine.

Review: Piraten, Planken & Peseten:: Piraten, Planken, & Peseten Review

diemacher — Sun, 22 Nov 2009 22:36:38 +0000

by diemacher

This is an odd game, in that it uses an amazingly crafted ship that fits into the oversized Kosmos square box (bigger than the normal ones) yet is essentially an abstract strategy game. The constructed ship has six planks extending from each side, and ladders at the ends. Four treasure chests, two large and two small, are randomly placed on four different planks to start. Each player has a set of pirates that have different heights. Each plank has three spaces for pirates, and initially players place their pirates on the planks. The goal of the game is to capture the most valuable booty, and these are a set of gems that are earned by having your pirates end in the best position relative to four treasure chests placed on the planks.

Each player also receives a "power plank", which shows a set of steps from 12 to zero. Initially, a clip is placed on the 12, and each time a point is used the clip is moved down one space. On a turn, a player can use up to five points to move their pirates from plank to plank around the ship. Once three pirates are sitting on a single plank, the next arriving pirate will knock the forward-most pirate into the sea, where they swim to the shore and climb back on one of the ladders later. The last space on the "power plank" shows "0/1", meaning that the player who has reached this point on their plank can move at most one point per turn until the round ends. The round ends when two players reach this condition, and then the awarding of the gems takes place.

For the spaces with the large treasure chest, the biggest pirate on the plank gets to draw a treasure randomly from the treasure bag. For the small chests, the smallest pirates get to take the treasure. But in either case, common-size pirates will cancel each other. If I have the shortest pirate on a large-chest plank, and two others are larger than me but the same size as each other, I'd still win the treasure. The treasures themselves are of various lengths, and the winner is the player who can create the longest string of treasures once the bag is emptied.

In the end, what looks to be a kids game is in fact a placement and point usage game that rewards careful planning and conservation of resources. The round end is interesting, in that if two players reach the 0/1 state it ends, but until then having a few extra points can be very valuable. I can't imagine that players who are intrigued by the movement and placement dynamics care at all about the elaborate ship, and those that are awed by the ship will be disappointed in the game play. It's a decent abstract, but your kids will be able to create a better game with the components.

This review originally appeared in Counter Magazine.

Review: Gloom:: Can a game be ruined by its own expansions?

Aurendrosl — Sun, 22 Nov 2009 20:36:27 +0000

by Aurendrosl

A very sad little card game

What could be more morbid (and fun) than a card game focused on ruining the lives of your Adams Family-esque household and killing them off one by one? That's Gloom, a card game from Atlas Games. My girlfriend and I picked this one up months ago, eager to give it a try. The concept was cool (place transparent cards over your family members and rack up negative points) and the artwork was charming in its own way.

Here's where the fun begins...or ends...which one gives you negative points again?
In Gloom, you want to stack events on your own family members or the family members of your opponent(s). Bad events give you negative points (like being pursued by poodles), and happy events give positive points (like gaining an inheritance). The player with the lowest score wins the game. Therefore, you want to get as many negative points as possible. Once a player kills off all of their family members, the game ends and the points are totaled. The core game is pretty balanced, I'd say. There are great ways to screw over your opponent, but it's never overpowered. Unless you're simply terrible at Gloom, there is little chance of a "runaway leader" at any point of the game.

There are a few things about Gloom that sets it apart. First, the cards are transparent. When you stack a card, it will often fill a "point slot" on the left side of the card with a numerical value. There are only three "point slots" for each card, meaning that you might (or your opponent might) play a card that covers up the point value of the card underneath. It's simple and easy to understand, but very clever. Second, the game is scalable from two players all the way to seven (with all the expansions). Something I enjoy about Gloom is the player interaction. It's fairly cut-throat, so the winning player in these larger groups tends to be the person who wasn't attacked as much by everyone else. That's why I prefer to play this game in a small group. The dynamic of killing off your own players while trying to throw off your opponent is very similar to the gameplay of Fantasy Flight's [thing=478][/thing].

Here's where it all goes downhill (negative points, right?)
I'm not too fond of Gloom anymore, and I'll tell you why: the expansions ruin the game. Okay, let's backpedal a bit and I'll explain. Gloom had three expansions, each adding a slight twist to the rules and an extra deck of new cards to use with the game. Each expansion also adds a new family. You can mix and match the expansions any way you please, but you need to use the core game. One expansion - Unhappy Homes - introduces a house for each family, and you can place bonus points and effects on the house for your end-game score. Another expansion - Unwelcome Guests - adds guests that "visit" each family and either contribute or harm the host family. In theory, these expansions are great. Yet, they add too many cards, I think.

A massive oversight on the part of Gloom's publishers was that they didn't include some sort of icon on the "expansion" cards. This seems like such an obvious error. Every other CCG or expandable card game on the market today (that I can think of) places a special mark on all of their "expansion" cards. Dominion does it. Agricola does it. Pretty much every CCG does it when a new card series comes out. So, was it such a mysterious concept for Gloom's publishers to grasp?

Since each expansion adds new rules and new cards, the deck will get too big. After all, this is a game where a session only lasts 15 to 30 minutes. So, when you add expansions (even just one expansion), you usually won't see most of the cards from the new expansion. Add two or - heaven forbid - all three expansions and you have a mess of extra rules and extra cards. This is where some sort of classification of the expansions would come in handy. If I don't want to play with the Unhappy Homes deck, I need to patiently look through the entire deck and remove the related cards. It's even worse when you say "screw it" and start mixing all the decks together. Then you REALLY don't know what cards go with which expansion.

I like the core concept of Gloom. I do. It's a quirky game that is easy to teach. Also, it's very funny when played with the right group. However, because organizing the cards is such a chore, and since playing with the expansions is almost pointless, I don't play this game very often. Maybe once my bitterness over buying three useless (IMO) expansions I'll bust out Gloom again. Until then, I'll remain gloomy and despondent (yay! Negative points!)

The unhappy verdict:
The core Gloom game is good. I'd recommend it to anyone who enjoys card games. More specifically, I'd recommend it to anyone who enjoys cut-throat card games such as Citadels and Babel. It's a solid 4 out of 5 stars in my book: not perfect, but definitely worth playing. Since opinions vary, add an extra star to that score if you really enjoy cut-throat games, and take away a star if you hate cut-throat games.

Gloom with the expansions feels too random, too unbalanced, and too clunky. I'll admit it: maybe I'm not playing it correctly. Perhaps some careful deck-building could allow me to add the expansions without adding too many cards. Yes. Perhaps, but that only leads to more sorting and more counting and more work to balance everything out...before each and every game. Boring! No thanks. If I'm going to spend 20 minutes setting up a game, I'll play Agricola instead. Gloom plus the expansions is a 2 1/2 out of 5 stars from me. Add one star if you're more tolerant of sorting and deck building than I am. Add another star if you LOVE expansions.

Gloom:

Gloom with expansions:

Review: Travel Blokus:: Blokussing Each Other Out : A Travel Blokus Review

Focuscoene — Sun, 22 Nov 2009 20:28:23 +0000

by Focuscoene

Let it be known, loyal readers, that I have never played regular Blokus nor have I played Blokus Trigon. This is the only form of Blokus I have played. So, in reviewing, I will concentrate more on how it is as a stand-alone game, rather then making comparison to Blokus. Yeah? Yeah.

Travel Blokus is an abstract strategy that reminds me a lot of Tetris (you may have heard of it). Each player has an equal number of Tetris-like blocks in their hand. The goal is to be the player with the least amount of individual squares in his/her hand. Meaning, a piece made-up of four squares is worth four points and so on.

The means by which you do this is simple yet, like any good Abstract Strategy, almost infinitely complex. The players each take turns placing one piece at a time. You can place a block down ONLY off of the corner of a piece of YOUR color. You cannot have one of your squares aligned directly next to one of your other squares at any point in the game. You can, however, have them aligned directly next to your opponents' pieces. Thus, you try to manuever your pieces in such a way that you are not only maximizing the number of squares you are getting rid of, but also blocking off your opponents' opportunities while creating new ones for yourself.

This gets really tricky. Your first play will feel arbitrary, but by your second and third plays you will realize just how crucial each and every placement actually is. I'm assuming that this is ESPECIALLY the case in Travel Blokus, which is presumably smaller than regular Blokus.

My conclusion? Yeah, it's pretty darn great. The fact that it's tiny means you can take it to work and play it on your lunch break, always a plus in my book. As far as being a game to bust out during a game night, it usually gets three or four plays per pair before moving on to something else. I've found that it absolutely applies to both non-gamers and hardcores alike. And the pieces themselves are a clear, pretty plastic. By the games end, the board always looks really cool.

I can't really think of anything wrong with it. There's absolutely no reason to not have this in your collection. For my personal tastes, I do like more meat in my Abstract Strategy games. I think maybe the more hardcore folks are going to go, "That's pretty neat, but now lets play some Pente" or something like that after a couple of rouds. Kind of the way I feel about Hive.

So there you have it. How many Lime Camels?

out of five.

Review: Cheese:: Cheese Initial Review

Eisley — Sun, 22 Nov 2009 19:28:24 +0000

by Eisley

In Cheese, players flip a piece of cheese (made of foam) and score points depending upon how it lands. One corner of the cheese block has a nibble taken out of it. When the cheese lands, if the nibbled corner is facing downwards the player gets no points and the turn moves on to the next player. However, if the nibbled corner is facing upwards the player scores points: 1 point if the cheese is resting on its largest side, 3 points if resting on its long edge, and 9 points if resting on its short edge. A player that scores points on a flip can gamble those points and take another turn immediately; however, if they do not score any points on their next flip then they lose all the points for that turn.

The cheese block has large round holes in it of three sizes and these start the game filled with foam discs so it is a single, solid block. When a player scores points they remove a foam disc (small for 1 point, medium for 3 points and large for 9 points) from the cheese to keep to record their score. Removing a disc changes the balance of the cheese block slightly. The first player to 12 points wins.

Overall, Cheese is an incredibly simple game and is very quick to play. These isn’t much skill involved, although I’m sure some people will be better than others, but this game is about fun and generates lots of good-natured banter too. The cheese block looks great too especially when some discs have been removed.

The removal of the discs does change the balance of the block but it doesn’t really make much difference to how you flip it as it’s so light you don’t really have too much control over it. But it doesn’t matter. Cheese is not about skill, it’s about fun. Gambling your points for another turn doesn’t seem worth it in the early game but it’s a nice game mechanic for the later game when other players are very close to winning as it means there’s still a chance you could storm to victory.

If you enter Cheese knowing and accepting it will be just a fun game, it is very enjoyable and you can play it with any audience. For 6 euros, this was an easy purchase choice to get a game that is a humorous dexterity filler game, a game for Christmas with the family, and a good drinking game too.

James.

[Played with 3 players]

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

Review: Pente:: Go Pente, Go! : A Pente Review

Focuscoene — Sun, 22 Nov 2009 19:04:16 +0000

by Focuscoene

Oh yeah, this is the good stuff. Abstract Strategy fans everywhere should be tingling all over at the sight of this game, it's so up our alley it's stuck there. However, those of you who don't like games that are too brutal, or are too frustrating (there will be times when it seems like no matter WHAT you do, you just can't get five), you may need to avoid that alley.

Pente, for all intents and purposes, is a Go variant. That right there should make any Abstract Strategy fan excited. The difference is that you need five little pieces in a row (vertically, horizontally, or diagonally) to win the game, and that you can capture tokens to remove them from play and give them back to the player. You capture tokens simply by surrounding them on either side with two of yours.

Just like with Go, the simplicity to that explanation is remarkable given just how deep this game ends up going. I have found, in every play, that we end up having almost two or three different games going at once. There will be a skirmish in one corner, another skirmish in another, maybe one in the middle. We end up going at it at one for a while, and then all of the sudden a player will place a piece in a different corner and the focus of the game completely changes (not to mention whatever it was you were just trying to set-up).

The challenge level in trying to get five in a row is so high, you're going to surprise yourself at how close you'll come. Because think about it, if you have three in a row, your opponent's going to see it and place a token on one end of that. So now what? There's no point in placing a fourth because your opponent is simply going to capture them. Herein lies the depth: finding ways to set things up so that, even if they capture one, you have another option to complete five available. If you're playing against a particularly good player, this is remarkably difficult to accomplish. Oh, and you have to thwart their attempts to do the same.

I love, love, love, love this game. But as I always say, a board game review shouldn't be about how much the reviewer himself loves it (afterall, I'm an abstract strategy addict), but about how much the world CAN love it. And that's where the tone of this little review shifts a little bit.

Pente is not for the faint of heart. If you don't like playing Chess, if you don't enjoy Go, but you're down for some Checkers, you may as well walk away when someone tries to break out a Pente board. It's very brutal, you have to plan very, very carefully in order to actually get five pieces in a row. If you're playing someone good, you won't. Plain and simple.

If you're the type of person that doesn't get-off on coming so close to getting five, and having it taken away from you by the one move you didn't see, stay away from this game. I love that, personally. I love thinking I've got my opponent in a corner, and the two of us sit there and analyze every possible situation until we find the one, THE ONE, that I missed and the game goes on. It's what makes an Abstract fan's heart beat.

So there you have it. Abstract Strategy fans: you have to have a copy of this. Everyone else? I reccommend giving it shot. Play 3 or 4 sessions before making your opinion on it, you might surprise yourself. If, by the 4th play you still can't stand the frustration, then I reccommend Hive.

And, so everyone knows, I am now installing a lime camel rating to all my reviews. I used to write movie reviews, and frequently complained about the serious flaws in having a rating system, however sometimes people just want to see how many lime camels it got, so I'm adjusting my philosophy.

Pente:
of out Five Lime Camels.

Review: Giants:: I really do not know why I like this game as much as I do.

easypeasy — Sun, 22 Nov 2009 19:04:06 +0000

by easypeasy

Giants is, at this point in time, my game of choice - but I ask myself why?

OK let’s get one thing behind us from the start - as has been said before by many, this game is ascetically pleasing - in plain English: It’s drop dead gorgeous to look at. But that is a rather shallow reason to like a game.

Is it the theme? Erecting Stone statues (called moia) on an Island which is by all accounts THE most remote place in the world is a little bit specialised - and although it works for me, but that can’t be the reason surely.

There is a bidding system to carve moias (large stone statues). The bidding is actually rather ingenious. It’s a double bidding system, you bid workers and tribe markers, both of which you need for other things. Bid too many workers, and you reduce your ability to move moias. Bid too few workers, and you cannot choose a big moia. Waste your tribal markers and you will not be able to buy rongo tablets (a sort of Easter Islander writing media) that allow your chief to act as a shaman.

Then place your pieces - you have a shaman, a chief, some workers, and tribal markers.

With a shaman you can recruit another worker, take (non-renewable) wood to help move your moias, get a hat, or get a new tribal marker.
Workers move the moias, either yours, or for a victory point, someone else’s.

The chief can either double as a strong worker (worth 3 workers), or buy breaking a rongo tablet, double up as the shaman. OK, it an interesting resource allocation system, but do I like it for that?
The board is beautiful, but essentially it is a hex map. Mechanically - nothing to write home about.

All in all I do not know why I like this game as much as I do, but I can say one thing - I love to death.

Review: Linwood:: First play of Linwood

JoffW — Sun, 22 Nov 2009 17:51:54 +0000

by JoffW

I recently picked up Linwood. It looked interesting, although upon watching Tom Vasel's video review I wondered if it was worth it, however, as the price was extremely good, I picked up a copy anyway.

The box is quite neat and I like the cover art:

]]>

Upon opening the box, this is what you are presented with:

]]>

I like the way that the box is divided, separating the tiles from the other components.

The components themselves are of pretty good quality, although I am not keen on the fact that the cards are slim style cards. You only get 2 summary cards, but this is not a major problem. The cards could be improved by actually printing a summary of what abilities a player can carry out on the actual elemental cards themselves (perhaps i'll ArtsCow myself a deck at some point):

]]>

The tiles are of good quality with a nice gloss finish. Although there is no real artwork on the tiles themselves, the design is practical and I don't think it can be improved upon. The Starting tile has a darker coloured back (think Carcassonne). Each players pawn occupies its own space at game start (surprisingly enough ) with the Forest Bandit pawn occupying the centre.
The Elemental tiles are depicted with the artwork that appears on the cards.
Tunnels are represented by a 12 pointed star shape within a larger star shape. Don't get confused here as the Elemental tiles do not function as Tunnel spaces:

]]>]]>]]>

So, how does it play? Well, I played a two player game with my 14 year old daughter and quite frankly, I enjoyed the game, and so did she.

The game involves a lot of luck and randomness. The dice rolling mechanic is sure to put a lot of people off, but there is a card driven variant ( http://www.boardgamegeek.com/filepage/45920) which would control this to some degree.

Drawing tiles is random, but no more so that drawing tiles when playing Cacassonne. One thing that bothers me here is that the player drawing the tile must lay it and move his piece onto the tile to continue his movement; this sometimes results in having to lay the tile at a disadvantage to yourself. At least in Carcassonne the random draw is controlled somewhat in the player being able to lay the tile wherever he chooses, thus hindering his opponent or using the tile to further his cause (although Linwood is a different game to Carcassonne, I hasten to add).

Here is a picture of our finished game and the layout we had created. I won, but my daughter was quite close.

]]>

I would be interested to find out if anything could be added to this game to improve upon it. There are a couple of ideas in the variants section that might be good to implement. The author has said that he also has some ideas of his own that could be added... I wonder what they are?

All in all, this is quite a natty little game. It has some good ideas and although I can put up with the dice, I would prefer to use the diceless variant (mentioned above). It has the potential to be improved upon. Don't be too quick to write this game off, I quite enjoyed it, even with its randomness.

Review: Rise of Empires:: [VIDEO] Rules explanation in Polish | Krótkie spojrzenie na reguły po polsku

yosz — Sun, 22 Nov 2009 16:36:35 +0000

by yosz

Video jest częścią recenzji opublikowanej na [url="http://www.gamesfanatic.pl/2009/11/22/rise-of-empires-prawie-jak-civilization/"]Games Fanatic[/url]

Vimeo Video

Review: Restaurant Row:: The more I play it, the more I like it!!!

halbower — Sun, 22 Nov 2009 15:49:01 +0000

by halbower

Restaurant Row is from a small publishing company called Pair-of-Dice Games and designed by Greg Lam. Players assume the roles of restaurant owners who seek to make their restaurants the best in town.

The game board is a restaurant menu. ]]>The inlay has been replaced with the game "board". The board is dual sided so it can accomodate two players on one side and 3 to 4 players on the other.

There are six community areas that players can visit. These are the fish market, meat market, vegetable market, help wanted, renovations and the bank. Each player is given a die and will secretly set that die to the number corresponding to the community area they want to visit. Do you want the best fish? Or the best veggies? Perhaps hiring the hostess would be the right move.

Players simultaneously reveal where they are going. If you are the only player going to an area, you may make your purchase normally. However, if you and an opponent both selected the same area, the two of you must make a close fist bid for who gets first dibs.

Players make three such community trips per turn. Then players set their menu prices. You must weigh the benefits of lower prices(more customers) with the benefits of higher prices (more profit). Players secretly set their prices with their die then reveal their prices simultaneously. Then customers are drawn from the bag.

Some customers are "foodies" and will go to the place with the best food. Did you remember to buy food at the three markets? Some customers like the best ambiance--which is awarded from the renovations. Some customers like service, ie, the most talented help wanted. And some customers are "scenesters" who will go to the place which currently has the most customers already in it. Customers are drawn until one player's restaurant is full. Then the scoring objectives are modified.

Players will score points at the end of the game. Points are scored by having the best in the various areas of competition: ambiance, service, profit, popularity, etc. The amount of points awarded to these categories will vary. When the first restaurant fills up, the objectives are shifted in value based upon the customer make up of the restaurant that first filled. Thus, you need to be competitive in several areas but also need to fill up your restaurant in order to win!

Each player has an aerial view of his own restaurant. ]]>
There is an area for you to hire up to three employees, make three renovations and seat up to five customers.

The renovations and the help wanted don't just improve your ambiance and service; they also give you other cool benefits. The bartender will give you the first local customer. The dance hall will give you the first scenester. The hostess lets you seat a customer at the bar, giving you a capacity of 6. The patio gives you two extra tables. Thus, you will need to bid high on some of these areas to get the right goods and people--and to deny those same goods and people to your opponents.

This game is very fun! The more I play it, the more I like it! The quality of the components is the only drawback. I understand this was self published. But this game deserves to be bought up by a major publisher. Congrats to Greg Lam! I look forward to seeing what new games you come up with!

Review: Tobago:: Another very favourable review...

e9martin — Sun, 22 Nov 2009 14:40:31 +0000

by e9martin

(This review was posted originally on http://deathofmonopoly.blogspot.com.)

Although I didn't make it to Essen this year (yet again...), in the past couple months I have been browsing the rules of the many new releases. It seems to me that a lot of the most well-received games this season have REALLY complicated rules (see the rules for Shipyard or the various strata of rules for Dungeon Lords). They may be quite good but they'll probably never get played by my group. Sigh.

Two games, Tobago and Gonzaga, however, are recent releases whose rules actually seem relatively reasonable and look like they could be a lot of fun. Thanks to a lovely birthday gift from my brother, Tobago is now in my possession and has been played a couple times now. So is it good? Oh, yeah. It's great.

Components

This may well be the highlight of the game. The components are beautiful! The game comes with wooden huts and palm trees and little stone Easter Island statues. Everything looks and feels authentic and it really adds to the experience. The board is beautiful and extremely well thought out. It comes in three pieces which can be arranged in 32 possible configurations, making a different spread for every game. The most interesting thing is that no matter how you arrange the board there will always be a largest area of each type of land mass. Very cool. Verdict: Beautiful and highly functional. Just great.

Rules

As I mentioned earlier, one of the main draws of this game came from reading the rules early on. They seemed relatively simple and intuitive. And they are. The rulebook clearly explains everything and because many of the ideas in this game are so thematic and unique, they seem easier to pick up and remember. The rulebook also has lots of pictures and examples, making the game a breeze to learn. Verdict: Excellent.

Gameplay

In the game you play an explorer on the island of Tobago, searching for one of four buried treasures. There are a few really clever interrelated game mechanics going on. First, you play cards on the columns corresponding to the four different treasures. Each card narrows down the area where the treasure could be (i.e. NOT in the largest lake, on the beach, beside one of the palm trees, etc.) As the possible locations are narrowed down, the cubes representing that treasure are removed from the board until there is eventually only one space left.

And here's where the next major gameplay mechanic comes in. Instead of narrowing down one of the treasure locations, you can choose to drive your little wooden jeep (jeeple!) and grab the treasure if there is only one cube left. There are a few rules to moving the jeep and how far it can go, but they aren't complicated and add just enough choice to make things interesting. Once a treasure is captured, the players who contributed cards to that column get to share in the spoils.

And this is where things get even more interesting. Each player has marked the cards they added to that treasure column with the player capturing the cube adding one extra marker. A set of treasure cards of varying value is made up, with each contributing player being able to look at a few. The first gets flipped and the players, in order of discovery, get to claim one with each marker they played. Tricky, and quite fun. And just to throw a wrench in the gears, there are two nasty cards that cause each player to lose their best treasure if they have not yet claimed one. You really need to see the treasure drawing in action to have it make sense but it adds a ton of tension, interaction, and laughs to an already fun game.

Once treasures are given out, one more wrench is thrown in the gears. The three giant stone statues shoot laser eyes at the coast and where their gaze hits the shore, magic amulets arise from the depths of the ocean. Seriously. Okay, so it may not be that dramatic but every time this happens the board is seeded with three amulets that the players can pick up with their jeeples. These amulets offer many powers including free turns and removing location cubes. Great stuff and quite fun to make noises as the statues slowly turn 60 degrees. Ka-chunka-chunk. Verdict: Varied and fun but not too complicated.

Strategy

Okay, so I always like a bit of strategy in all my games (a lot if a game is particularly long). Tobago is more about tactics than long-term strategy and throws in a big old dose of luck during the treasure draws. But it always offers you tons of choices. Should I narrow down a treasure and get in on the rewards or should I go and pick up that amulet that will help me out? Can I narrow down the treasure so it is closer to the location of my jeep? Should I hold out to draw a better treasure card but possibly get hit with a curse? There's tons of choice every turn but the game plays really fast and tends to keep everyone involved. If I were to compare it to something, I'd say it's about as deep as Blue Moon City. But given the short play time (less than an hour) this one hits a home run on balance between fun and strategy. Verdict: Not a brain-burner but something you'll wanna replay again to figure out the best moves.

Conclusion

What can I say? I really love this game. It plays unlike anything else in my collection, it's easy to explain, the components are gorgeous, and it's just a whole lot of fun. I predicted previously that Eine Frage Der Ahre might be a Spiel des Jahres contender next year. This one is a guarantee. Pick it up, you won't regret it.

Review: Thunderstone:: Never Hear of It. Sure, I'll Play : An One-Play Review

Jeremiah_Lee — Sun, 22 Nov 2009 14:34:48 +0000

by Jeremiah_Lee

A friend of a friend brought a copy of Thunderstone to game night, and people were just getting ready to play it as I arrived. There were sevenof us, so we split into two games, three of us playing Dominion: Seaside, and four playing Thunderstone. I asked to play Thunderstone because I didn't really enjoy my plays of Dominion.

Turns out, as those of you that have been following this game already know, Thunderstone is -a lot- like Dominion. It is so much like Dominion, in fact, that it lead to a discussion about how close a game can be to another game before there are legal issues. The general consensus was that there is no known limit.

We played with a different set of cards than the rules indicate for first games, as per a suggestion from the owner of the game, as he said the noted that in his plays with the rules-suggested initial card distributions had been a bit unbalanced (there were long periods where the monsters were too big to attack).

Short Review
If you're looking for a short (20-45 min, depending on how many times you've played, and how many you're playing with) deck building game with a solid fantasy theme (instead of a medieval landowner theme, as in Dominion), then this should work for you. There's some indirect player interaction, which (if that's what you're looking for) can be increased by the card choices. It seems like it could be played solo, as well, so that's a bonus.

Components
Sleeve. You'll have to sleeve every card, so expect to buy a bunch of them. The cardstock, while not cheap, isn't the best I've seen. I feel like the cards are a tad thinner than the Dominion cards.

]]> ]]>

The artwork is great, and quite consistent (although the cardbacks, in my opinion, aren't very exciting).

The iconography is simple, and generally works. There can be a bunch of numbers on each card, but with placement/color changes, after just a bit of time you know which number is gold, XP, light, or whatever. I feel like the XP & VPs, on the bottom of the monster cards, could have noted which was which right on the card, because it's a bit difficult to remember, but it's a minor gripe.

Gameplay - General Overview
Take your 12 cards, shuffle, draw six, and use that hand to buy things (more cards) in town, or fight monsters (for victory points) in the dungeon.

Your deck gets bigger, your cards get more powerful, you kill monsters easier.

When someone gets the Thunderstone (found in one of the last 'monster' cards in the dungeon), the game ends and we count VP (monsters, and experienced heroes).

What Makes This Game Tick
Clearly the deckbuilding genre of games is taking off. Dominion was a big hit, and this one is likely to be as well, because the theme really works well here. When you have the Flaming Sword card, and you 'attach' it to your fighter and see his attack value go up, it's a clear theme-mechanics hit.

This is a game of deckbuiliding where you have something exciting to do with the deck that you've built. You get to hack at monsters. Dominion is lacking in this area, as buying a 3 point VP card isn't nearly as 'cool' as whacking a dragon.

What Goes Clunk
Player interaction, at least in the set of cards I played with, was really lacking. I told the players that I might have to leave mid-game (three sick kids at home), and that turned out not to be a problem. Even if I'd have left (I didn't have to) the game would have gone on almost without a hitch. This can't be said in almost every other game.

The game seemed to be missing one player aid that would have really helped out. Luckily the owner had already created and printed it for us (I'll see if he can put it up on BGG). He had put together a mat to place the monster draw deck, the XP deck, and the three levels of active monsters. The active monster area noted the light level (number of torches) you needed to effectively fight the monster, and kept things clear as to which monster was at which level.

The Bottom Line
If you enjoyed Dominion, you'll probably like this game. If you didn't like Dominion (like myself), you might still like this game if the theme works better for you, or if you felt like Dominion didn't really have a fun goal. If the game sells for about $30, it seems like that would be a good price point to compete in the marketplace.

Not What You're Looking For?
Want deckbuilding, but don't like the fantasy-RPG-ish theme, go for Dominion. And if you want to build a deck outside of the game to bring in (while staying in the same theme-area), Magic is the way to go for those with plenty of disposable income.

Review: Hossa!:: Hossa! Review

diemacher — Sun, 22 Nov 2009 13:04:41 +0000

by diemacher

Hossa has been released in several editions, including one in a nice tin-box. This is a party game based on singing, and the game is a set of bilingual cards divided into "keyword" cards and "category" cards. On a turn, a player takes one of each type, and chooses one to give to the player to their left while discarding the other. That player then has several options to score: one point for naming a song that matches the category or includes the keyword, two points for singing the song's title, and four points for singing a full verse from the song. Anyone who accurately sings along also gains a point. The card then passes and the next player must name or sing another song that meets the category or contains the keyword. Obviously, with more players this gets both more challenging and more fun.

Hossa is all about who you’re playing with. I bring this to extended family events and we have a ball; I can imagine with different groups it wouldn't work as well. You certainly could bluff -- sing a phrase that you make up on the spot and see who calls you on it -- and this just adds to the fun. The rules include other variations for team play and "choirs" which use a Name-That-Tune idea. Hossa is good fun for anyone with a song in their heart.

Review: Constellation:: Stellar Tiles/Constellation Review

diemacher — Sun, 22 Nov 2009 13:02:50 +0000

by diemacher

Constellation is a pattern-matching tile game for two or three players. The game includes 49 tiles placed into a 7x7 grid, and each tile shows one of seven different symbols, each in a different color and on different color backgrounds. During the game, each player tries to match patterns of tiles but each uses a different method for matching. One player is finding matches using only the background colors, one uses the symbol color, and one uses the symbol type. The Constellation cards are shuffled and placed into three stacks, with the top card revealed for each. Players try to create a match with one of the three revealed constellation cards using their scoring method, and they do this by shifting tiles in the grid.

On a turn, a player can exchange two tiles if they share a characteristic different from the one the player uses for scoring. An example may help here: say I score for background color. I am trying to match one of three specific patterns shown on one of the constellation cards. On my turn, I can exchange two tiles which share either their symbol color or their symbol type, but I cannot exchange two with the same background color (nor would that help me). Since each player has a different scoring parameter, recognizing where you have a pattern advantage is critical and playing defense is often necessary. If the exchange creates a pattern match the player takes the card and scores its points, then reveals the next card on the constellation card deck. More complex patterns are worth more points, and players play to an agreed-upon level.

Constellation at first seems like a brain burner but the ideas are logical and gel quickly. The challenge comes in aiming for the patterns that you can build before others see them. This was a limited edition of only 200 copies, but those who like pattern recognition will find a little gem here.

This review originally appeared in Counter Magazine.

Review: Coda:: Coda Review

diemacher — Sun, 22 Nov 2009 13:02:45 +0000

by diemacher

This deduction game is also sold as "The DaVinci Code", riding the coat-tails of the book's worldwide success. The game consists of 26 tiles, 13 each in black and white, and each containing a number from zero to eleven and a dash. The tiles are mixed face down and each player takes four to start, standing them up so that only they see the numbers but they place them in sequence, low to high. The black numbers are considered lower than the white ones for sorting purposes. To play, you begin by drawing a new tile from the pool and set it to the side so that only you see it. You then guess a tile on another player's display. If your guess is correct, the player must reveal that tile and you can go again until you miss. When your guess is wrong, you reveal the tile you drew from the pool and then place it properly in your sequence, thus revealing some information about your other tiles.

As tiles are revealed, the guesses begin to focus as the game nears its end. For example, if two different players have an unrevealed black tile and I can account for all the other blacks (between those revealed and the ones only I can still see), the position of the other tiles may determine who has which of the two or I make a 50/50 guess. As a result of this, the game can break down in the very end since every correct guess logically leads to the next assertion. The addition of the dash tiles helps this quite a bit, since the dash can be placed anywhere in the display and thus raises the stakes for the accusations. Like most deduction games, keeping your own information private for as long as possible helps enormously. Coda is a nice introduction to deduction games or for those times when Code 777 is just too much.

This review originally appeared in Counter Magazine.

Review: Ludoviel:: Ludoviel Review

diemacher — Sun, 22 Nov 2009 12:42:52 +0000

by diemacher

Ludoviel is a set of trivia games about games. The bilingual card deck shows characteristics like "one side of the box looks like a book spine", "you do not play clockwise", "there are only flat parts", and 116 others. Using these cards, players can play eight different games or of course design their own.

Ludingo uses an Apples to Apples idea. One player names a game, and everyone quickly scans their hand cards for something that matches. The first player to knock shows their card, and if all agree it fits then they discard their card and offer a new game name. The first player out of cards wins. Haste Ludo is played Haste Worte style, where a card is drawn and everyone gets a fixed amount of time to write down the names of games matching the characteristics. Players score for unique entries. Other games all use ideas from games you know, and the designers nicely offer their inspiration for each ("Think you know this game? Maybe you should play Mamma Mia!").

The games are fun and appeal to the nerdy-nature of most game players, and those with knowledge of obscure games will often do very well as long as they can convince others that they're not bluffing. Ludoviel is an enjoyable way to pass some time between games, while traveling, or at a restaurant. You'll be surprised how quickly your brain freezes when the time pressure builds!

This review originally appeared in Counter Magazine.

Review: Floriado:: Floriado Review

diemacher — Sun, 22 Nov 2009 12:38:43 +0000

by diemacher

Floriado is a tiny tile game offered for free at Essen in 2003 to anyone who bought another Cwali game. The game consists of 40 tiles, eight each in five colors. Each set of eight includes tiles with one to eight flowers. These 40 tiles are shuffled and placed in a 5x8 grid between the players, and each player takes a self-supplied token to move across the grid during play. The token needs to have a front and a back (like a boat or arrow) to show the direction it arrives from.

Players move around the grid collecting flower tiles. Moves can be any number of spaces in a single direction, but never back in the direction the token came from. As tiles are collected, they are placed in stacks by color. The key idea, and the one which makes planning critical, is that tiles can only be taken if they have fewer number of flowers than the previous one taken in that color. So, if my first blue is the "two", that's bad planning since I could only then take the one and never collect the three through eight. You can have up to five stacks in front of you (one for each color flower), and the game ends when neither player can collect another flower.

Players score for the number of tiles by color in an additive series: two cards are worth two, three worth four, four worth seven, etc. The game plays fast and requires planning an efficient route to collect multiples of single flower types, while thinking about defense and offense. Corné van Moorsel credits inspiration from Fossil, Kupferkessel, and more, and you can see these in this simple but pleasant little game.

This review originally appeared in Counter Magazine.

Review: Beer & Pretzels:: Beer, Pretzels, and Napkins?

aramis — Sun, 22 Nov 2009 05:43:23 +0000

by aramis

I won this in one of the give-aways here on the geek, given by the designer. I promptly forgot what I was expecting. I checked the mail today (it wasn't here monday, it's saturday, and I didn't get back in between), and lo, and behold, a key... down to locker 42 (how significant... Ford, can you spot me a pint of Bitter?), a GREAT BIG 9 cubic foot package locker...

Oh, great, says I, it's a monster game. Inserting the key, turning, opening... I see nothing... wait... a little white box, about 2"x8.5"x12", tucked into the very back corner. I walk with a cane due to a knee injury... The USPS is TRYING HARD to make me angry with the game from the get-go.

I drive home. The kids sit and watch intently. First thing I see is "Purple Coaster Expansion." Hunh? He didn't mention the expansion. Packaging was boxed game, shrinkwrapped, and a loose counter sheet, with an instruction sheet, all inside a huge ziplock, itself wrapped in a fold-up cardboard sheet-box.

The Box
This box is surprisingly heavy. Textured paper covering thick card. Beautiful full color art. High Quality.

The divider has two channels, about 4"x8", but is only 2/3 height of the box.

Inside the box
5 sheets of die-cut, really thick, monster-sized counters... about 4".
Each sheet is a different color.
1 cord, 2 yd, made into a loop. Gold cotton, I do believe, metal crimp.
2 bags of plastic coins; 1 bag penny-sized golden color, 1 bag quarter sized silvery. They are nice and thick.
2 small 3x4" ziplocks. Perfect for the coins.
1 rule-sheet, double sided. One side is English, eine Seite ist auf Deutsch.

The counters
each color, including the purple expansion sheet, has 5x about 4" disks, and an about 4" rounded corner square.
Disk 1: 4x$1 pillow pretzles
Disk 2: 2x$2 pairs of pretzel sticks
Disk 3: 1x$3 thin classic twist
Disk 4: 1x$4 thick classic twist.
Disk 5: 1x"x2" showing a miniature
The square: A coctail napkin.

The colors, Base: Pink/Red, Blue, Green, Gray, Yellow
The expansion: purple

Playing the game
Put the string out on the table.
Pick starting player.
In turn, toss a disk, aiming to land it in or on the string, and preferably, covering all or part of someone else's disk.
When all done with disks, in turn, each tosses their napkin in.
Count points for pretzels that are not covered, but are on or inside the string.. If the beer scores, double your score.
"pay" the players their score from the bank
Repeat, with new start player each round, until everyone has started a round, making sure nobody starts more than one round.
Compare total coins; high wins.

1st Night Play
3 games in half an hour. Really lifted my mood. (it was pretty black; I went out because the wife had pumped petrol sans cash to pay, and was insisting on spending the rent money.)

The players were myself, my 10yo, and my 5 yo.

play was competetive and fierce. We cheated like big dogs on game one. Dropping is NOT tossing, and it really chops scores.

Games 2 and 3 were far more fun... toss from beyond reach of the table. Lots more scoring. 28/11/8, and 50/16/11 for games 2 and 3.

Cries of "More, Daddy! Another round!"

Quirky humor
In the rules, on the box.

Note: there is only one page of rules. The other side is written in German. Don't try to read the other side unless you know German. Even then you might want to stick with this side...just to be safe. German, like math, is kind of hard. And it has really long words that sound funny when read out loud.

Now, Ted, the designer, includes quotes on the box-bottom's side. Best of the bunch:

"I've solved it alread, and until I did, it was rather pedestrian."
—Every BoardGameGeek.com user

Heck, the box bottom even has title side:

Beer & Pretzels: The Box Bottom
A sophisticated box bottom for the discriminating gamer who knows where the pieces go when the game is over.

And from the expansion...
using the purple set with less than 6 players will "void the warranty."

As Advertized?
Pretty much. Quick, easy. 2-5, 6 with expansion.

Took much longer to write this review than to play.

But it has one error: the age icon, above "6+"... my 5yo caught on right quick.

My 10yo thinks it's TOO fast, she thinks it should be 6 or 7 rounds.

Bottom Line: Fast, fun, easy to play, dexterity game.

Review: Pocket Battles: Celts vs. Romans:: Pocket Battles Review - A small disappointment

out4blood — Sun, 22 Nov 2009 05:43:07 +0000

by out4blood

]]>Photo by farchamb

[thing=42898][/thing] is an interesting little game I purchased from Zev up at Euroquest. Disappointed that Zev didn’t yet have copies of Dungeon Lords for sale and I was itching to buy something (but not the O-deck for $10!!), so I settled on Pocket Battles, a small little box of game that Zev was selling for $15.

“A war game that fits in the pocket?” questions the back of the box. Normally, I’d expect to see marketing blurbs like that written with a little more confidence. “A war game that fits in the pocket!!! Bitchin’!!!” Instead we get this vague question. Is it not a war game? Or will it not really fit in my pocket?

]]>It's small! Photo by Mazz_O

I. Gameplay Overview

Pocket Battles is a smallish 2-player war game, where you field an army based on point values, and take turns issuing orders to your troops, either shooting or engaging melee with the enemy. The first player to kill half of the opposing army wins.

Your actions are limited by order tokens. You get 1 for each 10 points of initial army value. To complicate matters, order tokens are also consumed when your units take damage (the reverse side becomes a wound token). It’s possible to have a unit (or units) receive a lot of damage in a turn and thus use of up most of your order tokens.

The battlefield is organized into 5 ranks and 3 columns. 2 ranks for each player, and a middle “engagement zone”

]]>Photo by Mazz_O

There are three main types of units: melee units (with black dice pictured), shooting units (white dice), and support units (no dice). Support units can’t shoot or engage, but they can augment others. There are also hybrid units with both black and white dice.

When attacking, you roll a certain amount of dice (usually one or two, but occasionally can be many more) and score 1 point of damage on the target for each matching die on your attacking unit. For example, if your unit has 2-3-3-4-6-6 on it and you role 4-6, that counts as 3 hits. 1 for the 4 and 2 for the 6.

In pocket Battles, you get to make several decisions, most of which occur in the setup phase.

Army Building. If you have played your opponent before, there should ideally be some meta-gaming going on as you try to compose a force that will counter what your opponent is likely to field. Troops are limited by their deployment points and their formation value. The better troops both cost more and have lower formation values, so you cannot create any “super units.”

Creating units. After choosing your troops, you must then assign them to units. A unit cannot be composed of more troops than the lowest formation value in the unit. So a troop with a formation value of 2, could only be in a unit with one other troop. In this portion of the setup, you get to make some seemingly interesting choices about whether to combine shooting units and melee units, or to keep them separate. In reality, the choices just aren’t that compelling. First of all, because actions are limited, you want to maximize your unit size to get the biggest bang for your action buck. Secondly, some of the unit arrangements are pretty obvious, and thus won’t vary game to game. As an example: for the Romans, you want to put a Cataphract in each of your melee units (since they get an extra die when charging.

Army Deployment. Once you have organized your troops into units, you then take turns placing them into your two ranks (“zones”): front and rear. Your support units will obviously go into the rear. Other than that, the rest of your units would probably go into the front, since you want them available to shoot or intercept and the game will be over too fast to really benefit from redeployments, although there are some tactical exceptions (e.g., a melee unit you do not want the enemy to be able to charge). You will also want to equally protect all 3 of your sectors: left, center, and right, since if a unit attacks in an undefended sector, it can “flank” and attack any enemy unit.

Once you’ve set up, you then take turns. On a turn, you a) may perform a unit redeployment, moving a unit from one of your adjacent zones to another, and b) must take an action (by issuing a unit an order).

The actions are as follows:
Tactical Move – Same as a unit redeployment, but some units cannot redeploy
Charge – Attack with a melee unit, the only way to offensively enter the engagement zone
Carry on an engagement – Keep fighting a melee
Leave an engagement – Retreat, generally you would only do this if a shooting unit gets charged and stuck in an engagement, since the enemy gets a free strikeback; it’s better just to charge with a melee unit
Shoot – Use a ranged unit to attack the enemy front or units in an engagement
Use a special trait – Celts get healing, Romans get a double order (but you must still pay order tokens)
Pass – No action, but this still costs an order token

Units can be issued orders more than once in a round, but it costs an escalating amount of order tokens.

When you charge, your opponent gets a choice of 3 counters: a) intercept with a melee unit, b) shoot back with a shooting unit, or c) wait. It’s still early, but we have found that the best options have always been: intercepting with a small 1-troop unit (which we usually don’t bother with) or shooting. We usually chose shooting since with massed archers, there was a good chance to damage or destroy the attacking unit when plussed up by the Excite trait.

Speaking of traits, some units have traits that let them roll more dice, do more damage, or alter the rules in some fashion. Some of the traits are shown below:

]]>Photo by Zman

A round ends when both players have run out of order tokens. A new round begins, and the second player gets to go first.

II. Pros. Here are the things I like about it

+ Really nice production. The tiles are really nice and thick and the icons are colorful. The icons aren’t all that descriptive, though, so you’ll be looking back and forth to the player aids until you get used to them. This is far superior to miniatures as there is quite a bit of info on each tile.

]]>]]>
Photo by Zman

+ It really does fit in my pocket. It's small! (At least we answered one of the questions.)

+ It sort of satisfies my war game itch. I say "sort of" for reasons that will become clear below, but if you need to get some dice-rolling combat in, this is a way to do it.

+ It plays quickly. This is both a good and bad thing. The game plays quickly, but because it's all dice rolling, it does in fact play too quickly.

III. Cons. Here are the things that bother me

- The game is far too short. After the setup, a game is generally over in 2-3 turns. In a game like this, where engagement outcomes are largely dependent on the dice rolls, having only a couple turns means only a few rolls occur, like 3-4. So...

- The outcome is almost entirely random.
Bad roll for you and a good roll for opponent = quick loss
Good roll for you and a bad roll for opponent = quick win
Good roll for both = really quick, close game
Bad roll for both = reroll

So it doesn't really matter what decisions you make, unless you do something completely stupid, your outcomes are largely random affairs. If the intent were to create a single setup for a series of battles, then it would be wise to mention that in the rules. As it were, we were disappointed by the short game length. We had one game that effectively went a single turn. Romans used Imperator to both shoot (plussed with Aquilifer) and charge with Cataphracts, wiping out units on both rolls. On the Celt turn he charged and was blazed down by a shooting unit. Game over.

- The tactical choices seem pretty obvious. Unless you have units with long-range shooting, and only the Romans do, our experience is that charging is by far the best option. It’s often better to save frontline shooting units to shoot back when counter a charge, since you can do that out of turn.

- There’s no terrain effects. All of the battles are very abstracted. There’s no terrain, there’s not much maneuvering, and there’s no flanking cavalry charges.

- The end of a round seems degenerate. The rules state that if you run out of order tokens to place as units and you take damage, you must remove units. This seems pretty excessive. A large unit with 6 wound points could conceivably wiped out with only 3 hits. Therefore an obvious move is to save that charge against their best unit until after they have run out of order tokens.

- The Card The player aids are a bit confusing. This seems a petty point at this point, but the player aids are colored for each player, but do not include all of the traits for that faction. Some of the traits are common to both sides, but only found on one player aid. This may be just an error, as there are other icons that are doubled up. We found the only way to use them was to keep them together off to one side so both players could review them, as opposed to giving one to each player.

IV. Conclusion

What can I say… makes me wish I’d bought the O-deck.

(5/10)

Review: Letter of Marque:: I dig it for what it is.

MainManDetroit — Sun, 22 Nov 2009 05:34:17 +0000

by MainManDetroit

My group of 6 played this tonight and we really dug it. It is a quick game that makes you try to outwit your friends.

You are given 5 ships of which 2 have cannons printed on the bottoms. In addition you have 5 treasure cards ranging from 3 points to 7 points. Lastly you have 3 cannon cards.

To start the game everyone shuffles their treasure cards and flips one face up for everyone to see and they place it in the center of the table. Then you place one of your five ships on top of your treasure card. Only you know if it has a cannon on the botom or not.

On your turn you have three options.

1. Retrieve a treasure card of yours with one of your ships on it and score the points indicated.The ship is discarded.
2. Attack another persons ship in play with one of your three cannon cards.. If their ship has a cannon on the bottom, it is defended and you lose your cannon card and your opponent receives a point.If it does not have a cannon on the bottom, you get the treasue, score the points and your cannon card and their ship are discarded.If you are out of cannon cards, this is not an option.
3. Flip over a new treasure card and put it in the middle and add one of your ships to it.

Very simple and straight forward. You might think too easy.
While the concept itself is very easy to pick up, the strategy really comes down to how well do you know your gaming group. We played about 4 games in an hour. There is not much threat of Analysis Paralysis, and the game moves very quick. You will change tactics quite a bit as you play. The more games we played, the deeper our strategy went.

Card quality is wonderful, and the ships are simple but fill their purpose fine. The directions are simply laid out and you can pick up the game in 2 minutes.

This is no Citadels, but it is a quick game to play while you are waiting for that one guy who is always tardy. I really did enjoy it, even though we all made pirate jokes as we played.
Do you know what a pirates favorite fast food chain is? Aaaarby's.
What do pirates hate to wear? Aaaargyle sweaters.
It never ends.

-D

Review: Floesser am Katarakt:: Floesser am Katarakt Review

diemacher — Sat, 21 Nov 2009 22:25:09 +0000

by diemacher

Floßer am Katarakt is a nicely-produced two player strategy game. The "board" is an elevated river with a waterfall at one end. Logs in the colors of two players, plus white and green logs, are placed in a four-by-eight grid on the river, and each player starts with five raftsman on their side of the river. The first player to get three raftsmen to the other side wins, or alternatively the first player to knock off three of the opponent's raftsmen wins.

On a turn, a player must advance the river by pushing one of two logs into the grid along one of its eight columns, forcing a log down the waterfall at the other end. This log is then placed behind the river and will be one of the two available for the next player. After advancing the river, a raftsman can be moved along the logs. Raftsmen can move on logs of their color and on neutral white logs, and can go as far as they can on connected logs but must stop as soon as the color changes. Raftsmen can never move onto the other player's logs and neither player can move onto the green logs.

Thus, by proper advancement of the river logs one can craft a path across the river. The raftsmen can move up and down along the logs, but can never move backwards towards their own shore. Once on the fourth column, for example, a raftsman could move along any of the four spaces in that column, or to any forward column, but not back to the third column. If a raftsman gets dumped over the waterfall, he swims back to his shore to try again. But if you take advantage of the white logs to advance your move, you are vulnerable to attack. If one player can make a legal move to a white log holding the other player's raftsman, that original raftsman is removed from the game.

The result is a clever and enjoyable strategy game that looks terrific. Floßer am Katarakt was displayed quietly at Essen and was marketed with mostly child games, but it is nothing of the sort. It is not original its design but works well and the production is top-notch.

This review originally appeared in Counter Magazine.

Review: Dancing Eggs:: Eiertanz review

diemacher — Sat, 21 Nov 2009 21:59:27 +0000

by diemacher

If you have any silly streak in your game group at all, you need to get this game. Eiertanz comes in a real egg carton and the game includes nine yellow rubber eggs and one wooden egg. It also includes two different dice, and these drive the action.

In turn, each player first throws the red die. This shows any of six ways that an egg can be obtained. One side is simple, showing that the player who rolled the die takes any egg from the carton. The other five sides all put things up for grabs. For one side, the first player to yell "cock-a-doodle-do" gets an egg, for another everyone must run around the table and the first back to their seat gets an egg. The best side, though, requires that a rubber egg be dropped onto the table so that it will erratically bounce, and the player who snags it gets to keep it. All of this is fun, but it gets so much better when you learn about the white die next….

After the egg is awarded to whatever player met the red die challenge, that player must roll the white die to see where they must hold the egg for the rest of the game. This can be under their chin, under their arm, in the bend in the middle of your arm, between your knees, or between the head and shoulder. Now, re-read the red die paragraph and think of yourself lunging for eggs or running around the table while holding eggs under your chin and between your knees! Any eggs dropped during game play get returned to the carton for recycling, so an egg earned is not necessarily an egg kept. The game ends when all the eggs are out, and each rubber egg is worth one point while the lone wooden egg is worth two points.

Eiertanz is pure fun and you can bet that if you’re playing this in a crowded game room, others will come by to see what all the laughing is about. The packaging makes sense even though it makes the game a pain to store, but that is small consolation for one of the most enjoyable silly party games to come along in a while.

This review originally appeared in Counter Magazine.

Review: BSZZZZ!:: Bszzzz Review

diemacher — Sat, 21 Nov 2009 21:28:14 +0000

by diemacher

Bszzzz is a chaotic trick-taking game from Zoch and it is definitely not a kids game like most of their output. Each player gets three fly swatter cards plus a hand of cards that include "nasty" cards (flies and mosquitoes), "useful" cards (butterflies and bees), and spider webs. In turn players play cards to the table but there are no suits to follow or trump to consider. A "fly swatter" card played to a trick stops the trick, and the player who swung the swatter may score for the "nasty" cards in the trick at that point.

This sounds normal, until you learn that the "play in turn" is really only a suggestion since "useful" cards, spider webs, and fly swatters can be played out of turn by any player. The only rule is that one player cannot play two cards in a row. Since each player gets only three fly swatters, they will have at most three tricks to win in the round. But, if a swatter is played immediately following a "useful" card, they will only score the negative points of the useful cards. It's odd to think of the fact that nasty cards are good and useful cards are bad, but it makes sense since you’re "killing" the swarm with your swatter so you're penalized for killing the good with the bad. Spider Webs stop a trick and force all cards played up to that point to be discarded.

The result is a game with a very odd rhythm and with just three swatters to use it can be best to play early before many cards are played onto the trick. To make things even more bizarre, a variant rule suggests that any card can be played at any time by any player. This is called "Total Bszzzz" and that is what you must be to try it.

This review originally appeared in Counter Magazine.

Review: Le Passe-trappe:: Le Passe Trappe Review

diemacher — Sat, 21 Nov 2009 21:02:50 +0000

by diemacher

Le Passe Trappe is a dexterity game that may be the most frantic and fun thing to play. The game is so simple and yet highly addictive, and anyone who enjoys Zopp, Spinball, or other quality dexterity games should seek this out.

The rectangular board sets on a table top and consists of a wooden frame around a playing surface. The surface is divided in the center by a solid wall, save for a small opening in the center. Ten round disks fit perfectly through this opening, and they are propelled through the opening by means of an elastic band stretching across the table on each side near the ends. Players take a disk with one hand, pull it back against the elastic, and release to fire it toward the board center. Simultaneously, each player is trying to get all of the disks to the other side. The first player who clears their side of disks wins the round.

The game is frantic and pure fun. No position is safe, as even when only one disk is left on your side you can quickly see three more coming through at you to change the balance. The game is made in two sizes; both work equally well although the larger seems more appropriate if space is available. Ferti is the company that is producing Pitchcar, the new version of Carabande.

This review originally appeared in Counter Magazine.

Review: King's Blood:: King's Blood Review

diemacher — Sat, 21 Nov 2009 20:56:23 +0000

by diemacher

The makers of Train Raider and Mermaid Rain, two quality games that show a good trend for development in Japan, released a card game called King's Blood. The game is lighter than their larger board game projects, but like those it uses some novel new ideas and is produced to high quality standard.

The card deck consists of character cards with three characteristics: a color, a number, and a sex. Players play cards to the center of the table to create genealogies, with the goal to empty their hand before anyone else. One card is played per turn, and cards can be added to extend the genealogy by matching the color or number characteristic to a previously placed card. When two cards with the same color but opposite sex are paired, they have a baby and begin a new generation that is placed one level lower on the table. In this way, multiple generations grow and opportunities to lay cards increase.

Some cards also have events associated with them that spice things up. These reverse the playing order, force players to take cards, or skip a player in the order. The result is an original game that plays quickly. The choice of play is determined by the cards in hand, so the decisions are not great and luck is significant. But the idea is good and the time of play is appropriate for the level of control. This would be an interesting pickup for those interested in the new game ideas coming from Japan.

This review originally appeared in Counter Magazine.

Review: Jishaku:: Shocking Magnitude! : A Jishaku Review

Focuscoene — Sat, 21 Nov 2009 20:12:53 +0000

by Focuscoene

I just want to begin by saying that this game does not deserve the low average it has recieved here on the geek, at least as far as my reviewing standards are concerned.

Anyone who has been reading my reviews has probably picked up on how I do things by now. I make an effort to not so much judge the game on personal taste, or how it fits in to MY collection (all though I will certainly share this information). I instead try to judge it's potential to first fit into ANY collection, and then from there, what NICHE collections could it have potential in if it's not quite "universal".

That being said, I'm going to go ahead and give Jishaku a good review, despite the fact that I am totally aware of how shallow of a game it is.

Your objective in Jishaku (assuming you are playing by the basic rules) is to get rid of all the tiny magnets in your hand. The first player to do so wins the game. You do this by taking turns placing the little magnet stones, which vary in shape and size, one at a time into a little egg-carton-esque foam board. Your hope is that you place it without attracting the attention of the other magnets all ready placed.

The placing of the magnets actually does take a certain amount of skill beyond simply placing it gently. As your stone descends down to the foam, you can see which magents are responding and in what direction. From there, you can kind of manuever your positioning so that it's placed juuuuust so. If you're really good, you can place it without attracting any magnets while leaving it in a very precarious position, meaning it looks ready to leap out of it's spot.

When the magnets to attract, it happens lightning fast and with a resounding "CRACK!" that startles the player almost every time, and ends with all players going "OOOOOOOOOOHHHH!" almost every time.

That's it. There's alternative rules, but they're not as good as the basic. They revolve around collecting magnets instead of expunging them, which just isn't nearly as fun. What's nice is that the mechanic is simple enough that you could make-up any number of rules and it could work for an interesting game. I myself am toying with the idea of making my own board that works a little differently.

What makes this game worth having around is anyone, and I do mean anyone, can get into it for at least a couple of rounds. I've played with my mother and my three-year old neice, while I've also played at a crazy birthday party involving jello shooters. During game nights, people tend to like to play it once they're "out" but don't feel like sitting around waiting.

I honestly do feel like this is one of those games that everyone should own. Seriously. I mean, why not? It's so barebones that players can casually play it at the same time that they're playing a big, meaty wargame. Finished your turn? Drop a couple magnets to pass the time. It requires so little of you that you can get away with doing this without coming off as rude to the players of your meatier game, even without missing anything that's happening.

Do I think it's an awesome game? Do I ever suggest it? No, not really. I gave it a six on the geek, I believe. But there's room on everyone's shelf for quick sixes. Especially for the people who would never imagine "rating" a game in their spare time.

Review: Power Grid:: Played my first two games yesterday.

daengineer — Sat, 21 Nov 2009 17:40:05 +0000

by daengineer

So we have a gaming night once a month or so and yesterday we decided to play PG for the first time.

When we started I thought the game "looked" like ticket to ride, probably my most hated game ever, which wasn't a good start but it's not like that at all which was nice. I've played quite a few games I would say and normally can grasp the mechanics and strategies pretty quick.

The game took pretty long, we played the first game on the France map and it was fairly fun, however, normally when I play a game I like I really want to play again or want to go buy it immediately. I did not have this feeling at all. I came second out of five in the first game and would've won if someone would've played properly and tried to take cities which blocked someone but he didn't. This is one of the main problems I have with this game and something that I don't like about other games at all. I find that this game has too much interaction, in that, another player can completely ruin your game or easily determine the winner (Especially when the player is a bad player) by their mistakes.

Then we decided to play a second game. I didn't really feel like playing again which is a very bad sign when it comes to liking a game, but I didn't mind. The second game was on the original map and the same thing happened again. I finished second and that same player bought powerplant after powerplant wasting his money and being way behind in the game which made us reach step 3 on the turn that I was going to end the game. Instead, because it was step 3, another player was able to get more houses and beat me to the win.

I don't mind losing a game, normally it gets my mind going more and I will enjoy the next game even more, however I am just stating that this is something I really don't like about this game. I might be wrong since I only played two games, but I don't like a game where you can play a perfect game and still lose.

Another thing I do not like about this game is the randomness of the powerplants. A few times I would make sure to be last player so I can get a good plant and a bad powerplant was turned over and nothing left was good so I wasted a turn being last (As I sacrificed revenue to be first). Other times somebody is last and gets a really plant which can be a game changer imo as if you can get good plants and not waste money on buying a million plants during the game, you can get a good lead.

I don't mind a game with a little randomness but I find the randomness of the plants is way too strong and can be a game changer.

In conclusion I would say that I didn't hate this game, I'd play it again, but it certainly didn't stand out in being one of my faves and I expected much better from a top 3 rated game.

Review: San Juan:: Thirdfloorgamers (video review) - Great Little Game

matera — Sat, 21 Nov 2009 17:29:24 +0000

by matera

This is our 6th episode done by four students. I hope you guys enjoy. This covers most all the rules for the game and gives you a sample play for those that want to see it in action. For most of the students this was their first video review and were a bit shy. Zach comes back for another review making this his 3rd video review. Hope you enjoy and check out some of our other videos.

Thirdfloorgamers.com is a Historical Game Club that I run at my school we have kids come from 6th grade to about 12th grade. Mostly middle school kids as that is what I teach.

Vimeo Video

Review: Infinite City:: Infinite City Initial Review

Eisley — Sat, 21 Nov 2009 13:05:53 +0000

by Eisley

Infinite City is a tile-laying game. The first thing to strike you is that the rules are very, very short. This definitely appealed to me but the short rules do not mean the game is shallow.

The goal of Infinite City is to score as many points as possible and points are scored depending upon which tiles your markers are on at the end of the game. To set-up, five tiles are placed face-down on the table in a cross shape and each player is given 15 markers of their colour and dealt a hand of 5 tiles, which they keep hidden from the other players.

On a player’s turn, they select a tile from their hand and place it face-up orthogonally next to a tile already in play. They place one of their markers on this new tile and then follow the written instructions on it. The instructions have lots of different effects such as swapping the position of two tiles in play (along with any markers on them), removing all markers from a single tile, playing another tile immediately, adding more tiles to your hand, swapping hands, and so on. If a player ever places one of their markers on an existing face-up tile they do not get to execute the instructions on the tile. Placing a marker on a face-down tile allows the player to turn it face-up and perform the action. When you have finished your turn, you draw tiles so you have 5 in your hand.

The game ends when either one player runs out of markers (every other player gets one more turn) or all 5 Power Station tiles have been played. Players score in three different ways. First, groups - a player scores one point for each of their markers that is in a contiguous group of their own colour that is three or more in size. Second, numbered tiles - some tiles have a numbered value on them and a player scores this many points if their marker is on such a tile. Finally, ring tiles - some tiles have silver rings on them and only the player who has markers on the most ring tiles scores one point for each tile they are on. So, if the red player has markers on 4 ring tiles and the blue player has markers on 3 ring tiles then the red player scores 4 points and the blue player scores zero. So, you want to make a large contiguous group and be on tiles that score points or have rings.

Overall, Infinite City was fun to play and a lot more interesting than it first seemed too. The effects of the tiles are quite varied and working out how to get the most out of their effects makes for some solid tactical thinking because the order and locations in which you play them make a big difference. Plus, the effects on your and/or your opponents is critical: Do you increase your own presence or do you remove another player’s? Adding your own markers to the board will likely further your scoring but breaking an opponent’s contiguous group could affect them even more. Could you achieve both at the same time? Do you place a tile in a space to deny other players the same opportunity?

There are lots of good choices to consider and the choices in your hand are limited each turn so the game doesn’t slow down too much. Any planning is made in a bit of a vacuum as you don’t know what tiles your opponents may be holding, so you may need to reassess your plans on the fly. When you start understanding what tiles could be played, you can sometimes see signs of what a player may be preparing and/or what you need to prepare against; however, Infinite City is a fast, light, tactical game so perfect information is not required.

During the game, it is not easy to see the exact scores. The contiguous groups each player has are obvious and are usually the main target for attacks, but it takes time to calculate how many points players may earn from buildings and even longer to work out who will get points for the ringed buildings. This fuzziness means it is possible for players to take advantage of opportunities others may have overlooked and, for me, this added a bt of extra excitement to the game as it wasn’t over ’til it was over.

A couple of tiles seemed quite powerful compared to others and I might have liked an option to exchange tiles instead of my action, or maybe play an unseen tile off the top of a draw stack (instead of out of my hand) as sometimes your tiles in hand can make little difference. These are minor issues though as Infinite City is fun, offers some short-term, tactical decision-making with constant back-and-forth attacks and shifts between the players. Infinite City was a nice surprise.

James.

[Played twice with 3 players]

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

Review: At the Gates of Loyang:: Why no rice?

bawawn — Sat, 21 Nov 2009 03:56:15 +0000

by bawawn

I am a huge fan of Agricola and Le Havre. Yes, I bought the first editions of each, then got the animeeples and vegimeeples. Is it crazy to spend $75 on a box full of cardboard chits and wooden cubes? Yes, no doubt, but I am hooked. So it was a no-brainer that I would go and buy the next game in the so-called "harvest trilogy," and-- bottom line-- I have not been disappointed.

Components
Compared to Agricola, you will probably be surprised at the (lack of) heft to the box. What you do get is very nice, though. All the vegetables are cute, recognizable cut-outs, and this greatly improves the harvesting experience. Your marker is a paddy worker in a triangle hat, who dutifully moves upwards on the Path of Prosperity. The player mats are efficient and well designed.

]]> ]]>
Images: Henk.Rolleman, helloa

The cards have the signature artwork, are printed on good card stock, and are generally well written, although there are several which have caused considerable confusion (see all the "Bookkeeper" threads).

The rule book is fine, but needs refinement in several areas. The layout is easy to follow and there are many examples and illustrations. However, there are some head-scratching word choices ("play" meaning "place," instead of "use"), a reference section of special cards that sometimes only repeats the card text itself, and a lack of examples for some of the most confusing rule areas (such as how exactly to play the 4 person action phase). These questions have come up on the BGG and most have been settled.

Setup
Can be done in 10 minutes if all the pieces had been pre-sorted. Each player gets a turn summary card, 10 Cash coins, a "home" field to plant your first crop, a stack of "private" fields that you will use (one new field per round), a cart/storehouse for your veggies, and a game board with your own Path to Prosperity (victory points) and a shop that you use to buy/sell vegetables. Everyone starts with the same items, but your private fields will be revealed in a random order so every player's experience will be different.

The general supplies of Cash coins, vegetables, loan cards (which can be taken any time and are worth 5 Cash immediately, but negative one victory point at the end of the game) and satisfaction markers (more on this later) are put in the center of the table within reach of all players. My advice: buy a few small cheap plastic containers for each of the supplies, so you only have to open them up before you play. The parts then almost clean up after themselves; as you return your used veggies back to the boxes during game play, you then just have to snap on the lids and put them back into the box at the end of your game.

Before the game actually starts, each player purchases the crop they want to sow on their "home" field from their own shop. The choices for the home field are wheat (cost 3), pumpkins (cost 4), or radishes (cost 5). Later in the game, you can also purchase cabbage (cost 5), soybeans (cost 6) and leeks (cost 6). Like in Agricola, at the same time you sow, you immediately fill in the total number of vegetables that can be held on that field (for the home field, this is nine total vegetables-- exactly enough for each round of the game).
]]>
Image: skell

Playing the game
There are 9 rounds, each divided into 3 phases:
1. The Harvest Phase. You harvest 1 vegetable from each of your fields and place them in your cart, then turn over the top card in your "private" field pile. This new field can be planted in the action phase. If you have completely harvested all the vegetables from a field, then the card is placed out-of-play and cannot be replanted (this is unlike Agricola, although there are some cards that change this). Private fields can hold between 3 and 6 total vegetables, and the larger the number of spaces on the field, the fewer options you have for viable crops (i.e., the field with three spaces can plant all types of vegetables; the field with six only wheat, pumpkins and radishes).

2. The Card Phase. This is how you will acquire your markets for trading vegetables, your customers, your helpers, and the extra fields. Doing so will require some skill and some luck. Shuffle the action card deck (including any discarded cards from the previous round), and then deal each player four action cards. The starting player chooses one card from his hand and places it face-up into the "Courtyard," basically a communal pile of action cards. The next player then chooses whether they either (a) place a card from their hand into the Courtyard, or (b) pick one card from the Courtyard and one card from their hand to keep (to later use in the Action phase). If they choose (b), then they are done with the card phase, and they place their chosen cards in the proper areas on their player mat (there are areas for the helpers, markets and customers), and then place the rest of their unchosen leftover cards from the hand into the Courtyard. If they choose (a), then the next player goes. Each player has to make tough decisions about which cards to offer to the Courtyard and thus to others, which they want to keep for themselves, and which ones they don't want others to get. After all players have selected their two cards (one from the Courtyard, one from their hand), they stock their newly acquired markets with vegetables from the general supply, and place satisfaction markers on their new regular customers. The last person to select their cards becomes the new starting player; the second to last is the second start player.

There are five types of cards:
Regular Customers. Each regular customer wants four deliveries of the same combination of two vegetables in successive rounds of the game. If you successfully deliver what they want, they will pay you in cash (and generally, you get paid more for each subsequent delivery). If you cannot deliver what they want, they will become "unsatisfied," and you switch their satisfaction marker from the blue to the red side. If you still cannot deliver what they want in the next round to an unsatisfied customer, you will need to pay them 2 Cash in every round you cannot deliver. So taking on a regular customer is the best way to earn money, but contains some risk.

Casual Customers. Each casual customer wants a one-time delivery of combination of three vegetables at any time during the game, and never become unsatisfied. They will generally pay you a lot for them. The game has a clever mechanic which rewards you for having more regular than casual customers (as regular customers require more advance planning). When you deliver to a casual customer and have more regular customers than casual customers, you get a 2 cash coin bonus payment on top of the base delivery price. If you have fewer when you make your delivery, you suffer a 2 cash coin penalty which is deducted from the base delivery price.

Markets. These allow you to trade the veggies in your cart for other types of vegetables. The rate is 1:1 or 1:2, depending on the trader. Each vegetable on offer from the market can only be traded once, and some markets are better than others.

Helpers. Each helper has a special ability, some of which will influence other players (using their markets or selling to their customers). When you use a helper in the action phase, it is then discarded.

Extra fields. You pay an additional two cash coins for each extra field, but then they act just like your private fields (with the exception that when they are completely harvested, they are not out of play, but instead put in the discard pile, and could be eventually come up again during the card phase).

3. The Action Phase. This is the heart of the game, where the general goal is to make as much money as possible. It's done as one long multiple-part turn beginning with the starting player. You can, in any order, and as many times as you want:
(a) Take a vegetable from your cart and sow it onto an unused field.
(b and c) buy or sell vegetables from your shop. To buy a vegetable from the shop to place in your cart, the costs are noted above in the "setup" section; to sell a vegetable from your cart to your shop, your profit would be: wheat, pumpkins, leeks and cabbage: 1 cash coin; beans and leeks: 2 cash coins. It is generally unfavorable to sell vegetables back to your shop (as the profit is low), but sometimes you need just 1 extra coin to buy an extra field, or move that one step up on the path to prosperity.
(d) trade vegetables at any of your market stalls. See above, "Markets"
(e) use or discard a helper card. You may want to discard helpers without using them in order to lower the price for the two-pack (see below).
(f) deliver vegetables to your regular customers. Collect cash for every successful delivery; turn the satisfaction marker to red if you cannot deliver to a regular customer this round; or if the marker is already red and you cannot deliver this round, pay the bank a 2 cash coin penalty.
(g) deliver vegetables to your casual customers. Collect cash for every delivery, as specified above, "Casual customers." Remember that there are no penalties if you do not deliver to casual customers. However, keeping track of the number of regular customers to casual customers you have will be important, as the ratio, as explained above, affects your payments to casual customers.
(h) buy a two-pack of Action cards-- this action can only be taken once per round. The cost to buy a two-pack is either (1) the number of markets you have, or (2) the number of helpers you have, whichever is greater. You get the top two cards from the Action deck, and can place 0, 1 or 2 of them in your area for immediate use (discarding the others). If you take both cards, then you choose one of them to be active, and place the other one underneath it. The bottom card will only become active once you completely use the top card and discard it (use all the vegetables in a market, make all deliveries to a regular customer, deliver to a casual customer, or use a helper).

Once you are done with your actions, you then
(a) store your vegetables. Any veggies in your cart must be stored; your original storehouse can only hold one vegetable; you can upgrade your storehouse to accommodate four vegetables for a cost of 2 cash coins. Once upgraded, your storehouse is permanently able to hold 4 vegetables.
(b) Move up the path of prosperity. The path has 20 steps and you start on step 1. Your first step for each round, regardless of the number you start on, costs 1 cash coin. Your next steps in a round cost the number on the step. So, if you start on step 5, progressing to step 6 would cost 1 coin. If you want to move further on that round, moving to step 7 would cost 7 coins and moving to step 8 would cost 8 coins. So, starting at step 5 and moving to step 8 would cost 1+7+8 or 16 total cash. It is not advisable to take a loan just to move up one space on the path of prosperity, as at the end of the game, you will move down one space per loan card used.
]]>
Image: henk.rolleman

Then the next player completes their action phase.

In the four person game, the action phase is carried out slightly differently in order to speed up the game. The start player picks a partner (among the 3rd and 4th players), and the second start player is then partnered with player who wasn't picked by the start player. Then, the start player and the second start player do their action phase simultaneously. If they have any helpers that potentially could affect other players, they can only be used against their partner. Once they are finished, their partners complete their action phases simultaneously; similarly, if they use any helpers that affect other players, they can only be used against their partners.

End of the game and scoring
After everyone has completed their ninth turn, the game is over. If you have a loan card, you move back one space per loan on the path of prosperity. The person who has the most points on the path to prosperity is the winner; if there is a tie, then the person with the most money is the winner. If there is still a tie, the person with the most vegetables in their fields and carts is the winner. If you have survived this many tiebreakers and are still tied, then there is a joint win.

My impressions of the game:
Theme
Others have noticed that, for a game set in China 2000 years ago, it was an odd design choice to use simplified Chinese characters which were only standardized and implemented in the last century. Also, why is there no rice?

Interaction
Is present, but generally pretty minimal. Many of the helpers will interfere with other players, and during the card phase, you have to be aware of what other players already have and want. But there is no direct bartering with other players, and everyone is in their own distinct world -- each player has their own shop, markets, fields and customers.

Downtime
Given that there are so many things that can be done on an action phase, the potential for lots of downtime is high, as when it is not your turn you are just waiting for someone else to figure out what to do. If you are playing with others that take forever to make simple decisions, this may be frustrating. The four player rules speed up the action phase considerably, and some have noted that the four player game can be shorter than a three person game.

Complexity and variability
Many others have noted that this is not as complex as Agricola (with its multifold goals) or Le Havre (with its bazillions of resources). This is quite true, but a simple game this is not. Even from the start, there are a lot of interesting, sometimes agonizing choices to be made. The game has a lot of variability based on the vegetables you choose to plant, the customers you get, and the order of the fields you have, so a person's strategy has to be flexible. You generally have to plan two to three turns ahead, or face the wrath of several unsatisfied customers.

Teachability
This is a game with some pretty basic concepts that everyone should be familiar with - buy, sell, trade, plant, harvest. A few of the mechanics (the card phase, buying a two-pack) are difficult to grasp fully until you see how they work, but after playing one full round of the game, most people are up to speed.

Tension and balance
This is I think where Loyang excels. The resources are tight, and in general, the play is evenly balanced, so players with similar experience levels will be neck and neck. Unlike Agricola, where you could get an awesome and virtually unbeatable set of cards by luck alone (or get screwed), Loyang divides luck with the card distribution phase, which amounts to practically a mini-game every round. Every decision counts, and most games are won by one, or at most two, points.

Luck
The luck of the draw is always a part of any card game, but Loyang mediates this with an interesting card phase mechanism. If you know that one of your cards will dramatically benefit another player, how do you entice them to pick up other cards first? Or if you want to keep two cards from your dealt hand, which one do you place in the courtyard so that it won't be snagged by other players? It says a lot that I feel that I have improved significantly with experience playing the game, so reliance on luck couldn't be an overpowering part of the equation.

Unique game play elements
Fans of Agricola and Le Havre will be pleased that Loyang has different goals and a completely different feel to gameplay. I have not played Antiquity (on which Loyang is said to be partially based), so cannot comment about how truly unique Loyang is, but, to me, the card phase mechanism, the long-range and short-range customer planning strategies, and the scoring mechanism are new and interesting.

Fun
The use of the nice wooden vegetable pieces, the various markets to barter goods, the choice of pleasing loyal customers or ripping off one-time buyers-- these all seem like realistic parts of a food economy, and makes this game really satisfying to play.

Overall
I'm very glad I got this, even at such a stupendous price. Hopefully the game cost will be lower (and more appropriate for the quantity of contents) with the rumored upcoming American printing of the game. But it's a game I now play quite often; others who may have been intimidated by Le Havre will find that Loyang, though elaborate, is more accessible (and plays over a shorter period of time). I would recommend it for casual/family gamers who want to step-up the complexity a notch or two, lovers of economic games who do not mind some luck factor, and eurogamers who like creating their own productivity "engine" and are used to relatively sparse player interaction.

Review: At the Gates of Loyang:: At the Gates of Loyang - the new Agricola?

out4blood — Sat, 21 Nov 2009 01:27:31 +0000

by out4blood

]]>Photo by barandur

[thing=39683][/thing] is the latest release from Uwe Rosenberg and the first release from Hall Games, a new company formed to apparently pick up the leftovers from Uwe's creative genius that get declined by Lookout Games.

While fans of Uwe have been eagerly awaiting this game, it has not received the kind of OMG! buzz that [thing=45986][/thing], [thing=45315][/thing], and [thing=33160][/thing] have been receiving. But it’s been very high on my radar screen, and apart from Dungeon Lords and the [thing=43018]Agricola expansion[/thing], it is the game I have been most eagerly awaiting. It is only now starting to hit the shores out here in the gaming backwaters of the USA, but I had a chance to play it several times at Euroquest and have since grabbed myself a copy to play even more.

In reviewing games, I prefer not to rehash the rules, but since it is new and scarce, I will cover the highlights. I prefer to address what I like or dislike about the game, while providing enough context for the reader to make sense of my meaning. For those who prefer the rules to set that context, they are available online here.

I. Gameplay Overview

Loyang plays over 9 identical rounds. Prior to the first round, players need to buy 1 of 3 available veggies to plant in their home field. Then the first round starts. In each round, there are 3 phases:

1) Harvest (players receive one new field and harvest vegetables from their fields),
2) Card phase (players each play 2 Action cards, then a new Starting player is chosen), and
3) Action phase (players buy and sell vegetables, then score victory points)

]]>Photo by skeil, Annotations by out4blood

In the Harvest phase you remove one vegetable from each planted field and “plow” a new field - a new card from your 8-card shuffled pile of private fields. Your first field, the “home” field, acts as a timer to countdown the rounds. You remove the 9th vegetable to signal the last round. Cards and actions can never affect the home field. Fully harvested fields get removed.

In the Card phase the deck and discards are reshuffled and four cards are dealt to each player. This is a confusing phase for some players, but it is essentially a card draft, something that many people wish had been incorporated into the official rules for Agricola. This is an important mechanic for the game.

At some point in this phase each player must “play” 1 card from their hand, and 1 card from the common pile. For the first player, the common pile is empty, so they must “discard” one of their cards to start the pile. Then, every subsequent player must either a) “play” (1 from hand, 1 from pile) or b) “discard” 1 to the common pile. Once a player has “played,” they must “discard” their remaining cards to the common pile. Once all but one player has played, the last player can no longer discard, and is forced to play. This is where turn order is set. The last player to play is the new start player, and the second-to-last becomes the second player. IMO, this phase is really where the game is won or lost. If you miss out taking a valuable card, such as a specific customer you need, you can get can fall behind.

In his recent review , crobledo does a great job discussing the type of cards.

Before we move on, let's talk about the 5 types of cards:
1. Markets - These are the orange cards. Markets will allow you to trade any veggie for one of the three veggies displayed on the card. The rate of trade is either 1:1 or 2:1. When you obtain a market, place the 3 veggies available to you on the card to remind you of the supply. Once you have traded for all 3 veggies on the card, you discard it.
2. Helpers - These are the white cards. Each helper has a different ability. They are all one-time use, and are discarded as soon as they are used. Any helpers that reference "other player" mean your partner in the action phase. Helpers that affect other players also have a purple lantern symbol to remind you and others of that fact.
3. Regular Customers - These are the blue cards. Regular customers have to be supplied with their desired veggies every single round, for 4 rounds, or suffer a -2 coin penalty. All of them want 2 veggies every round, but the veggies they want varies as well as the cash you get. Whenever you get a regular customer, you also place on it a satisfaction token, on the happy side. The first round you fail to supply a regular customer with their vegetables, you turn it over to sad instead of paying the 2 coin.
4. Casual Customers - These are the red cards. They all want 3 veggies, and when you fulfill their order they pay you the money on the card and then are discarded. Like the regular customers, the amount of cash you get is based on the rarity of the veggies they want. Additionally, whenever you fulfill a casual customer's order, you need to look at how many regular customers you have out. If you have the same amount, you get paid the face value of the casual customer. If you have MORE casuals than regulars, you get 2 coin less. If you have MORE regular than casuals, then you get 2 coin more.
5. Extra fields - These are the green cards. They work the exact same way as your private fields, but cost 2 coin when you obtain the card. They go up by your revealed fields, and can be planted and harvested just like regular fields.

The Action phase is where most players will spend their time focusing, and it probably takes the most time. The Action phase is done one player at a time, starting with the new start player (except in 4-player which is played 2 players at a time). You can do several things in the action phase:

- Sow unplanted fields with a vegetable. Like Agricola, you need to have the first vegetable on your cart to plant one, the rest come from the supply for free.
- Buy and sell vegetables at your local shop – the rules state that this is “your own shop” but it makes explanation easier if you consider it “your local shop” instead. Otherwise, the buying and selling bits don’t make much sense.
- Trade vegetables at your local market stands - either 1:1 or 1:2 depending on the particular card
- Play or discard a helper card – the helper cards are one-time use tactical cards that give you special powers once played. When you take advantage of a helper card, you must discard it, so the powers are not persistent.
- Buy more cards (what the rules call a two pack) – very powerful action, since almost all the cards are valuable, especially the extra fields. Getting more cards is a key to victory. However, the more of some type of cards you have the higher the cost to buy additional ones.
- Deliver to customers for cash – this is where you make your money. You have two types of customers: regular and casual. A regular customer must be satisfied in four successive rounds starting immediately. If you fail to satisfy them once, they become angry. If you fail to satisfy an already angry customer, then you must pay 2 coins. So creating a stable supply of certain types of vegetables is crucial to being to effectively meet demand for your customers. Casual customers can be served at any time and can sometimes be very lucrative, but the game rewards players who have more regular than casual customers.

At the end of the Action phase, you store any leftovers, pending space available, and move up the VP track (the “Path of Prosperity”). This is the scoring mechanic people have been talking about. The VP track goes from 1 to 20. Each turn, you get to move up 1 point for 1 coin. If you want to move up more, you must pay the cost on the next space, e.g., to go from 18 to 19 would cost 1 coin, but to go from 18 to 20 would cost 21 (1+20) coins. Obviously, you never want to miss going up a step, and it’s cheaper to try to get a lead early than it is later. But for every bit of lead you have, subsequent moves cost you more. At any time in the game, you are free to take out loans which give you 5 coins, but for every loan you take, you must move back 1 space at the end of the game. So a loan will cost you about 12 coins at the end – see this post for more details on loan cost calculations.

II. Interesting decisions

I consider myself primarily a strategy gamer, therefore I assess games mostly on what kind and how many interesting decisions I get to make in the course of a game. In Loyang, the decisions are almost completely tactical, as you rarely to never have the capability to nor need for strategic planning. With a couple of exceptions, almost all of your actions are re-actions:

-React to the “plowed” field. Your fields have been shuffled and flipped over, so you do not know ahead of time what field will turn up, and the better vegetables require the smaller fields. Do you waste that 3-plot field with a cheap vegetable because you need it now? Or do you buy a leek to plant and hope for a leek-y customer? The one exception is the tenant-farmer card, who can be very powerful. As part of using his power, you get to look at the order of your private fields, and so you can actually develop a planting strategy that will optimize your garden. But you can’t depend on this card showing always showing up for your benefit.

-React to the Card draft. If someone discards a card that will benefit you, you take it. If you don’t take it, then you may or may not see it again in time for it to be useful. Ultimately, this is where I think the most important decisions occur. The card draft is the single most important point of player interaction and is when you can deny a player ahead of you the cards he need to get his engine going.

-React to 2-packs. If you don’t get what you need from the draft, you can hope to get it from the deck directly. Most of the cards will be helpful, but occasionally, it can be a wasted action. It’s not really a decision though; you generally want to take advantage of the 2-pack buy option each turn if you can afford it. But what you do with those cards will be a complete reaction to what you get.

-React to customers. You can’t make money if you don’t have customers, so you will want to grab the ones that show up as soon as possible, even if none of them fit your current crops. It’s lucky to grab a regular customer early that you can deliberately plant for on the first turn. Otherwise you need to plant and hope to grab a lucky draw customer to serve later. This is another reason why the card draft is so vital to your success.

-React to the occasional player interaction. Occasionally you will have the opportunity to screw with another player. In those cases, you can choose generally choose who to interact with. It’s possible to really hurt a player if you trade away their veggies, or if you swipe their critical casual customer. In the four-player game, the starting and second player after the Card phase get to choose a partner who they will interact with (this is to speed up the 4-player game, since both pairs can now play simultaneously). But again, this is not a strategic decision, it’s a tactical one that is primarily a reaction to what you want or what you want to avoid.

-React to the VP buy. There’s not much decision here. As long as you have some customers, you buy as many points as you can each turn. There’s no reason to hoard your money, the points just get more expensive each turn.

The only two real strategic decisions that you face in this game are: what to plant at the beginning (Ralph claims the initial choices are balanced) and whether to take a loan or not (in general, don't!).

II. Pros. Here are the things I like about it

+ Should be appealing to new players. This game will likely have instant appeal for most people, which means it will be easy to get it to the table for people to try. On the surface, it’s a simple game about buying, trading, planting and harvesting vegetables, and ultimately, selling those vegetables for profit. The beautiful, colorful artwork and wonderful vegimeeples add to theme to make it look very fun.

]]>Photo by helioa

+ Remains true to its theme. The game is easy to teach new players since the concept of planting and harvesting is pretty simple and very thematic. Everyone can “get” how this works pretty quickly. You also have customers, both regular and casual, that you must satisfy for profit. This also fits with the theme and is easy for people to connect with. As a counterpoint, the helper cards, and the card distribution mechanic are not all that thematic, but on the whole, I think this game remains true to its harvest theme. I think I could probably get Grandma to play this game (if they have it in stock in Heaven) since she loved gardening and the vegimeeples are so cute.

+ Scales well from 1-4 players. Because the game is largely a solitary affair (see Cons below), with some limited player interaction, it will play almost identically regardless of the number of players you have. From the solitaire game (yes, like Agricola and Le Havre, this plays well solo) to four players. Another positive/negative aspect of the game is that the time required does not scale linearly with the number of players. (See Cons below)

+ Is a meatier game with Jambo flavor. [thing=12002][/thing] is a great game about buying and selling sets of goods. If you have played Jambo, you may sense some immediate similarities. I usually describe Loyang as “Diner Dash meets Jambo.” For those who have not heard of Diner Dash, it is a computer game where players must rush around to produce food to meet the needs of customers who enter their store. The regular customer mechanic feels very much like this.

+ Is a pleasantly mild brain-burner. It’s not a really heavy strategy. It’s a medium-heavy tactical game. Almost all of the decisions are reactionary (see below) as you try to puzzle out the best way to satisfy your customers and make money. It’s not too heavy and not too light.

]]>Some thinking going on. Photo by yakos

III. Cons. Here are the things that bother me a little

- It has limited interaction. During the Card phase, there is plenty of interaction. It is a card draft after all. And despite it's perceived clunkiness, this is where the real decisions are made. However, people won't really notice, because is generally pretty quick. However, during the Action phase, the game can be almost entirely solitaire play. Sure, there is the potential for interaction, for making use of another player’s customers, market stands, helpers, and fields, and it’s the potential for interaction that forces the turns to be sequential, and those require the helper cards. In reality, most of your actions will be done solo. IMO, the game would be better served by just eliminating the Action phase interaction and making the turns simultaneous (since it would speed up the game), or forcing any interactive actions to be done first, so that players could then get on with their own turns. This would reduce game length dramatically, especially for a 3-player game. As it is, the low level of interaction makes it feel that it…

- Is more of a puzzle than a game. The winner will be the player who satisfied his customers in the most efficient manner, not because he “chose a better strategy.” This is probably just a personal preference – a puzzle game can be great, too – but I prefer games with heavier strategic elements. Because of that, the game feels, like it…

- Can be a bit long. This game takes a surprising amount of time to play. 9 rounds is a lot once you get going. It seems to take about 60-90 minutes to play this, even 2-player. 3-player takes even longer, since the Action phase is done one-at-a-time. 4-player is closer to 2-player in length. The card draft will take longer and you have an extra “partnering” decision to make, but the two pairs of players can play simultaneously which makes it faster than 3-players. These are estimates from our games, but 1-player takes about 45-60 minutes, 2-player takes about 60-90, 3-player 80-110, and 4-player 70-100. New players will take even longer as they will be reading the card text (and rules appendix) to figure out what the cards do and when they can be used.

- It’s not as deep as I would have liked. Since it’s more of a tactical optimization puzzle, there’s not much strategic depth here. There are some apparent no-brainer moves that you really need to be making on your turns – like only buying vegetables to plant, regularly buying 2-packs, regular customers satisfied, trading for other players’ leeks, etc., – but apart from that, it’s all in the card draft. There’s the possibility for some really valuable card combinations, but those are all tactical decisions (see below)

- It has very tight scoring. Regardless of how poorly or how well you play, you will probably have about the same number of points as everyone else. The VP scoring mechanic acts as a very slight brake on the leader and enables catch-up by laggards. So the game seems to frequently come down to the tie-breaker (remaining money). Even the rule book supports how narrow the scoring is: for the solo game, the performance rage extending from “good” to “master” is a mere 2 points. So this game is all about eking out a tiny advantage in your little garden. This may not be to some people’s taste.

- It could benefit from a centralized score track. The individual player boards are a bit fiddly and busy, and it is easy to bump your player token off the track as you lean in to snatch a leek from your hapless opponent. So far, a bumped token has happened in every game we’ve played. There’s no game memory to be able to recalculate the scores, so you need to remember where you were when that happens. Also, it’s difficult to actually see where all the other players are, although that’s not really vital since you should be moving up as much as you can each turn. A common “race track” would have mechanically been more efficient, if less thematic. I understand the rationale for the T-shaped board and all, but it wasn’t necessary.

- It’s more expensive than it needed to be. You may be one of those who say components shouldn’t factor into price, but there are plenty of people out there who think they should. And in a tight economy, people want to ensure they are getting their money’s worth. It’s no different than the pricing of a book with 1000 pages versus one with only 100. This game is expensive for what you get. It’s essentially some vegimeeples and a deck of cards for $75. Now, before the righteous get all ugly with me about this, consider Ralph’s own comments regarding the game price. If this had been published by Lookout, it probably would have been a lot cheaper. Hopefully, if rumors are to be trusted, it may get picked up by Z-man, and Zev may be able to offer it at a better price point.

]]>All you get. Photo by bayerbube

IV. Conclusion

Despite my frank discussion of the cons, At the Gates of Loyang is a great game which I will probably enjoy for some time. It’s one of the rare games that's got me fascinated. I have already been digging in, analyzing the veggie distributions on the customers, and trying to determine the best initial veggie – I’m assuming they are NOT balanced. – and it's kept me engaged enough to spend time reviewing it. I take that as a good sign.

This has also spurred some serious solo play, which I enjoyed with [thing=31260][/thing], but did not really get into with [thing=35677][/thing]. So for those solo fliers out there, this should be enjoyable.

I would have preferred a heavier game, on the order of Agricola, but this one is very fun to play and it's great that 9 year old daughter enjoys playing it as well.

My initial “hype rating” (based on Agricola and Le Havre) was an automatic 10, but after playing it a lot, I will probably settle on a 9.

(9/10)

Review: Say Anything:: I play games to have fun - And boy is this game fun!

SVan — Sat, 21 Nov 2009 00:46:49 +0000

by SVan

I got Say Anything right when it came out, because it sounded like Apples to Apples, but with more imagination involved. And I was exactly right!

While Apples to Apples is getting sold like crazy and even been bought out by Hasbro, I always look in stores to see when Say Anything is going to join it on the shelves.

That's because it should be a Christmas present for any family that likes Apples to Apples and likes party games in particular.

What makes this game so good? First off, it's very simple. The "host", picks a card, reads one of the five questions and then the other people around the table are try to come up with written answers that you will like. Unlike Apples to Apples, where you're stuck with the junky answers in your hand, you're free to use your mind in any sick and twisted way that you desire. And let me tell you, this game gets sick and twisted real fast, and I mean that in a good way!

After everyone is done trying to one up the great answer from before, the "host" gets to choose which answer he or she likes best. Then after they choose, everyone else chooses which one they think the "host chose."

All in all, it's like several meta games put together. You're not only trying to figure out what the "host" would like best, but you're also trying to make everyone else think that your answer is the one he or she is going to choose.

Last month when my best friend visited me, even though we enjoy much heavier games, this was the most requested game. This is because, first, it plays up to 8 and second, no other game I own gives more fun for the time it takes to play.

Almost every game I've played of this, I can remember. I don't think there's another game in my collection that I've played as much as this game that I can say about.

That's because with Say Anything, it's not just about making the funniest answers, although that's great, what I come out of it is finding more about my friends than I ever knew before. With this game, the fun is learning about your friends and having a good laugh with them or even sometimes a really cool experience.

Of course this game isn't perfect. For one, there's not really any strategy in the game. Not saying that people win by luck, far from it, but really the score doesn't matter. Winning isn't really important in this game, like other games I like play.

Also, because one person can come up with a really brilliant answer early, it kills your thought process and it can take a long time sometimes to come up with an answer. There's times when you just throw out an answer just to speed it up. Plus, you may have to wait a while for other players who are not very quick at coming up with stuff.

Last, the dry-erase markers, at least for me, have all been pretty terrible. Although they sent me a bunch of them a while back, the replacements haven't really been much better. I'm probably going to have to get my own replacements one day.

Other than that, it's definitely the best party game I own, not named Balderdash. It's got everything I want in a party game, and best of all, stays under and hour.

I've mostly played it with good friends, but I have played it with people I don't hang out with a lot. Does it work in that situation? It does and it does work pretty well. Still, the more you know about the people you're playing with, the better the experience will be.

My final thought is if you like party games, or if you have family and/or friends that like these type of games, I fully recommend this game. Especially, if you or they like Apples to Apples. In fact, after you play this game, you'll probably never want to play Apples to Apples again.

Review: Bharg:: The first game I tried with the Decktet

Throkda — Fri, 20 Nov 2009 20:37:45 +0000

by Throkda

Having had a long time interest in card games, I've tried many of the games found on Pagat.com with a regular card deck, a deck modified to simulate a german or latin deck, and even some of the tarot deck games. I've also played with other game systems such as the Icehouse pieces or Piecepack. As a matter of fact, I had only recently found someone who was as eager as I was to try as many games as possible of these various systems. While looking for new Icehouse games, I stumbled across one that linked to Magnate, one of the Decktet games.

A new game system! Well, new to me, anyway, and I'd never even heard of artscow.com before. Next thing you know, I've ordered my deck, and even printed off the rules compilation I found here at BGG.

Upon arrival, I was excited to try a game, and we figured we'd start with something simple -- a rummy-type game. There was a bit of confusion initially in terms of what constituted "binding", as I hadn't heard that term used before in the games I've played, but we soon sorted it out and played like old hands.

Bharg is a game in which you are trying to form specific sets within your hand, and then your goal is to lay them all down at once and go out. In this manner, it is closer to Gin than Rummy, but that's a mere technicality.

Your hand consists of 7 cards. Interestingly, rather than allowing for sets that are sequential runs or cards of the same rank, the only valid set is a group of cards containing exactly one of each suit symbol. Since the number cards each contain 2 suits, and aces and crowns each contain 1, this means that a valid set can be composed of anywhere from 3 to 6 cards.

The twist in this game is that there are two separate discard piles: one that you can draw from, and the other containing only discarded aces. The top card in the ace pile lets you go out with cards that are not otherwise part of a set, provided they all contain the suit of that ace.

This aspect is similar to another game I own, Corsari, in which the game begins with a "tavern" of cards, although Corsari allows you to draw from this pile. When you lay down your hand, cards that would otherwise count against you as penalties are zero points, provided they match the color of the current top "tavern" card.

Once we understood that similarity (even if the mechanism is slightly different), we found we were able to grasp the strategy of arranging cards in our hand and going out much better.

Some games were quick -- one or the other of us got lucky and was dealt a hand that already contained two sets. Some took a little longer as we broke up some potential sets to form others. Once, I even managed to go out with all 7 cards matching the ace I discarded (given that there are only 10 cards containing any given suit symbol, including the ace, this was a bit of a longshot on my part).

My wife immediately fell in love with this game and has requested it repeatedly. A sure sign of a good game is when the person you're trying it with immediately wants to play it again several more times.

Adding the extended cards (4 pawns with 3 suits each and the Excuse, with no suit) changes the game up slightly. Having a card with 3 suits means that's one less suit to try and match up with another card, but also increases the probability of duplicate suits when trying to complete your set. The Excuse is essentially a freebie card, unable to be part of a set, but considered to always be "bound," and thus worth no penalty points.

To summarize the gameplay - each player is dealt 7 cards. Your turn consists of drawing a card from either the deck or the discard pile, then either going out with a discard, or simply discarding. If you discard an ace, it goes into a separate pile that may not be drawn from. To go out, you lay down all your cards at once, and then discard. A valid hand consists of "bound cards," which can be one of three things:

1. The card is the Excuse (if playing with the extended Decktet)
2. The card contains a suit matching the ace at the top of the discard pile (note that if your last discard is an ace, this may change which suit counts as bound)
3. The card is part of a group of cards in which all of the 6 suits are represented 1 and only 1 time each.

Your opponent then lays down their cards (without drawing). You score points equal to the ranks of the unbound cards in your opponent's hand (Aces = 1, Crowns = 10).

This is a fun game, easy to remember and teach, and will be a regular at my table.

Review: Carcassonne:: Newbie’s Review of Carcassonne

jhsjhs — Fri, 20 Nov 2009 19:19:04 +0000

by jhsjhs

Note: This is my fifth “newbie review”, targeting boardgame-relative-newcomers such as myself. I have many years of gaming experience, but of the war- and card- variety. I started playing modern boardgames at this past year’s GenCon, and really ramped it up a couple of months ago when I discovered a few local boardgaming groups. I have found that the incredible variety of games and even types of games makes getting involved in the hobby a bit of a challenge, so I have started to write these reviews in hopes of identifying games that newbies can enjoy. As always, let me say that I am not trying to determine whether the game is good or bad, but whether a beginner will enjoy the process of learning. Can they pick up the rules quickly? Will they be lost in a fog turn after turn? Will the other players be gritting their teeth as the newbie destroys their beautiful strategies? Will they have fun?

Quick Overview: Carcassone is game unlike any other in my limited experience. It consists of a bunch of tiles, maybe an inch square, that have a picture on one side. The tiles each have the picture of a piece of a medieval land on it. Each edge of a given tile is fully covered by one land type: walled city, field with no road, or field with a road. The middle of some tiles (that have fields on all four sides) contains a chapel. So, for example, a tile may have two edges (there are no directional markers, you can turn the tile in any direction when you play it) as part of a walled city (so the wall crossing diagonally across the tile), and the other two with fields including a road. These tiles are turned face down and put to the side. The players each have seven little wooden guys, called “meeples” (which I find cute). One tile is drawn and put face up in the middle. Going clockwise, each player turns over a tile, attaches it to the map (at first only containing the one tile, but then of course growing). You can only attach like to like: field with no road to field with no road, city to city, etc. When you have placed your tile, you then have the choice to put a meeple somewhere on that tile (and only that tile), either in the walled city, on the road, in the chapel, or lying down in the field (depending on what land types are on the tile). The one tricky rule—you can not put a meeple in the same road/city/field as another meeple. However, sometimes two or more meeples wind up in the same place, as a road that initially does not connect can wind up connected, for example (same for cities). When a city or road becomes complete (the city is completely walled in, the road stops at cities/chapels/breaks on both sides, the chapel is completely surrounded by tiles), the player or players up to a maximum of two who have the most meeples there get points for it, and all players get their meeples back from that city/road/chapel to be placed again in future turns. The points are determined by the number of tiles that make up the city/road—two for each tile for a city, one for a road, and the chapel gets nine points fixed. The meeples lying in fields (farmers) stay there until the end of the game, and get points for the number of completed cities the field touches (that is, can reach without going over a road or through another city). When the tiles run out, the game is over. Most points wins.

Ease of Introduction: Carcassonne is a breeze to learn. Flip over tile. Place tile like to like. Put down meeple or not. Rinse, repeat. The “no two meeples in same city/road/field” thing will probably trip you up, but not more then a time or two. This is a beautifully simple game, emphasis on beautiful.

Game Experience: The remarkable simplicity, the surprising ways you can make your opponents miserable (that’s my city, now!), the unexpected complexity to the question: do I put my meeple on this tile or not, is a real joy, and is so almost immediately. Acknowledging that my gaming collection is somewhat limited, if a non-gamer friend asked me to pick out one game to try to convince them that boardgaming is a wonderful hobby, this would be it. Not because it is my favorite game, I should mention, it is not. But beyond the simplicity (obviously important in that situation), more then any other game I have played in the past few months, Carcassonne opened up my eyes as to what a game could look like, what it could be. I never would have guessed turning over a tile and either putting down a small wooden guy down or not could make for an interesting game. The fact that it does makes me wonder what else a game could look like. Maybe anything.

Externalities: I find one of the challenges as a new gamer to just jumping into the game is the sense that you will diminish the experience for others. Will the person who goes after you benefit disproportionably from your mistakes? Will you make the game random? In a two player game, it is moot—you will lose, your opponent will know this, don’t worry about it. In 3+ player, you will probably introduce some randomness, but I don’t think enough to matter. I wouldn’t worry.

Final Thoughts: Given my last review was of the cost-is-definitely-not-no-object Space Hulk, I have been thinking a bit about how much games cost. Carcassonne seems to come in a variety of packages, from the base set which is very cheap (maybe point-two Space Hulks?), to several “big boxes” which include expansions for more money, though less then buying the expansions separately. My advice, as a fan of the game and strong recommender of it for newbies everywhere, is to buy the base game. Maybe you will love it, and buy the expansions, and this advice will cost you money (sorry). But I haven’t tired of the base game yet, and there are so many games out there to play, there is no need to put your eggs all in this one basket.

Review: Inn-Fighting:: Drunk Dwarves And Wasted Wenches : An Inn-Fighting Review

Focuscoene — Fri, 20 Nov 2009 18:34:42 +0000

by Focuscoene

Before reading any further, let it be known that this is the first dice-rolling game I've really ever played. Thus, I have nothing to compare it to, and part of determining whether or not a game fits in peoples' collections or not is comparing it to other games like it.

That being said, I do not like Inn-Fighting.

You take on the role of an Adventurer in a bar brawl. You and your other players take turns rolling the di to beat the snot out of one another. Not exactly deep stuff, but it's funny. And the Adventurers are such blatant cliches of themselves that it makes the whole experience very charming, especially if you're familiar with Fantasy cliches.

Your goal in Inn-Fighting is to be the first to collect 20 Victory Points, which you achieve by hitting the other players' Adventurers. Their Hit Points are removed, and become your Victory Points. Once you get 20 Victory Points, all you need to do is hit one more Adventurer and victory is yours.

So how does this happen? Well, with dice. There are six di that each have symbols representing actions you can take. You can Punch the person to your left, throw a Stool at the person to your right, unleash a Special that damages the person with the most Victory Points, drink Ale to replenish health, or take the Lucky Dice and draw an Action Card.

When you attack, you roll a d20. You take whatever roll you get from that, add it to the number of di displaying the action you are taking (so if you got two Punch icons and you rolled a 14, your attack would be a 16). If this number is greater than your Adventurer's Skill Level, you do the higher-damage option displayed on your Adventurer's card. If it's lower, you do the lower.

Adventurer's can also roll to defend against your attacks, making things a little more interesting.

The Action Cards are either a special event you can make occur by playing it at the right time, such as whatever attack was just directed at you is re-directed to another player of your choice. Or, they are By-Standers. By-Standers offer your character power-ups, such as +2 to your Special roll. They also get in the way of attacks, if the person attacking doesn't have enough of a certain symbol to get passed them. Meaning, if the person only rolled one Punch and is choosing to attack you, he'd hit your By-Stander first. However, all he needs is more than one to go straight to your main Adventurer.

That system is practically non-existant though, since it seems incredibly rare that you don't have enough of any one symbol to hit an Adventurer.

Anyway, that about sums it up. I mean it. That's it. You roll the di, over and over again, and hope you get better numbers than other people. There is no strategy involved here, folks. If you're looking for that, you need to look elsewhere. This game is about as mindless as they come.

So then the question is: does it fill THAT slot? What I mean is, does it work as a game to have when you don't feel like thinking at all, but you and your friends just want something to do with your hands while you're talking about other things?

Well, that would be the only thing it COULD work as, I think. And on that level, while it may, it's certainly not the best choice. It takes entirely too long to get to 20 Victory Points, I've had a session that lasted two hours, to just be a silly filler. Not only that, but games that don't have seven di and a ba-gillion HP and VP tokens to manage make much better choices for mindlessness.

So there you have it. I can't recommend it. Sorry, I just can't. I see no reason for any type of gamer to require it in their collection. Even D&D fans will be turned off, because it lacks any customization at all. Apparantly there's a template where you can make your own Adventurer, but why bother? It doesn't really matter all that much how your Adventurer plays at all.

I'll keep looking for other dice games to play.

Review: War of the Ring:: 3-Player Review

dave65tdh — Fri, 20 Nov 2009 17:22:55 +0000

by dave65tdh

Review: War of the Ring as a 3-Player Game

Introduction
This review describes how WotR plays as a 3-player game and how the 3-player game compares to the 2-player game. Many of these same principles will also apply to the 4-player game, but here I’m focusing on the 3-player game. This is not a review of the 2-player games (but both the base and expansion games are absolutely outstanding) and, furthermore, I’m assuming that the reader is already familiar with 2-player WotR, Playing with or without the expansion does not change my analysis. So after extensively playing the base and expansion as 2-player games, we finally had occasion to play a couple of 3-players games, using the expansion rules. I was completely astounded at how different the game plays as a 3-person game and thought I would share my views.

3-Player Rule Changes
There are only a few major changes from the 2-player game. In a 3-player game, the 3 sides are the Free, Sauron, and then Isengard combined with the Southrons & Easterlings (I/S&E). The victory conditions are modified in that if the SPs win, the SP who has conquered the most FP cities and strongholds, less lost cities and strongholds, is the winner. There are several changes regarding SP Event Cards. During play, each SP draws only one Event card, of their choice, per turn, and has a hand size of only 4 cards. Upon drawing their cards, if both players agree, the SPs can chose to exchange a single card. Furthermore, each SP can only play cards that relate to their units. With regards to using Action Dice, the SPs alternate taking turns during the Action Resolution phase and can only move their respective units (both sides can use the Nazguls) while the FP cannot use 2 consecutive actions on the same nation. Finally, S&E Elite units are considered Leaders just as are Isengard Elite units.

The Players and Games
Both Shadow Players (SPs) were experienced with the base and expansion games while the Free Player (FP) was relatively new to the expansion as well as playing the FP. All are gamers and this was the first time we played the 3-player version. We played back-to-back games, keeping the same sides (well, with a game of RttG and pizza thrown in between). I played Sauron both games, and the FP won Ring victories, even as the SPs had a combined 10 VPs. In both games I think I managed to get ahead of the Saruman player, but only because the game went on one more turn, which allowed the FP to destroy the ring. A unified Shadow team likely would have been able to win militarily in both games. After writing this up, I played another game as the Free against cooperating Shadow players and, after a couple of turns of FP military conquest, the Ring was destroyed.

The Approach to the Game:
Cutthroat SPs
As opposed to playing this as a two-player game with 2 people on one side, our approach was to play it as a true 3-player game, with each player trying to win for themselves and with second and third place being equal losers since it’s hard to directly compare the Free losing and being the losing Shadow player. I think this is the way the 3-player game is meant to be played since there are specific victory conditions for the SPs, there are restrictions on sharing information between the SPs, and this seems consistent with both Saruman and Sauron being power-hungry megalomaniacs. Yes, eventually Sauron would rule using the One Ring, but Saruman certainly could not be described as simply Sauron’s lackey. This requires both SPs to cooperate with the other only as far as their mutual interests align (i.e., destroying the FP militarily) and not having one player undermine their chances of winning by unilaterally helping the other SP. You could play that the being the losing SP is somehow better than having the FP win, but again, we played this as a true 3-player game.

Cooperative SPs
In contrast, I also played one 3-player game as the Free against cooperating SPs. Although this was also fun and worthwhile playing, the game played more like a 2-player game with some extra “gaminess” due to the rule forbidding consecutive actions by the same Free nation. I spent much of the end of the game trying to figure out how to manage my action dice so that I could win militarily—unfortunately I needed to either use consecutive army dice to move both Gondor and Rohan armies, or attack with a Gondor army twice in a row—both prohibited with the 3-player rules. For example if the SP has 7 action dice, the FP can only use 4 of 5 dice on Gondor by alternating moving Gondor troops and passing; whereas if the SP has only 5-6 action dice, then the FP can only use 3/5 dice on Gondor troops. Thus I was not able to send my Gondor troops from Umbar to Minas Morgul in one turn for the win while cooperating SPs were able to maximally move the Southrons as the Sauron player didn’t use any of the Army dice. Furthermore, there were endless discussions by the SPs as to how to manage their action dice. Thus I think the 3-player game is much better with non-cooperating SPs.

SP Strategies
Due to the victory conditions, each SP must put conquering FP Cities and Strongholds as their first priority. As a result, both SPs have a common goal to destroy the FP militarily, but neither wants the other SP to gain an advantage in conquest. Consequently it is in neither SP’s self-interest to spend much, if any, actions on the FSP, as every action a SP takes to hunt the FSP, is an action that SPs is not using for military conquest so this is effectively an advantage to the other SP. As a result of this intense competition between the SPs, the game is reduced to a relentless, blitzkrieg-like military conquest on all fronts of the FP by the SPs.

The SPs must conquer FP’s Cities and Strongholds as quickly and efficiently as possible. There is no time to wait to muster large forces or wait for good combat cards. The SPs must attack right from the beginning in an all out assault. The first FP targets are the 4 FP Cities, as they are all lightly defended, can be conquered with one attack, and are all within 2-4 regions from the SP’s armies. The next targets are the easier Strongholds such as Helm’s Deep, Erebor, Woodland Realm, or possibly Rivendell. Thus, any well defended Stronghold is effectively off limits for the SPs as it would require too many action dice to conquer. As you can see, this is a great way for the SPs to hone their military skills.

FP Strategies
Since the SPs are focused on a military victory, the FSP is left largely unmolested. The FP must exploit this and move the Ring forward at fast as possible. All available dice should be used for this task. If the FP starts focusing on its military, the SPs will soon overwhelm the meager defenses. This is a great way for the FP to improve their FSP game.

Reasons to Play the 3-player
(1) Perhaps the obvious reason is that you have 3 players all wanting to play the game. Thus one person doesn’t have to sit out, nor do 2 players have to "share" a side. Each player acts independently and the sides are roughly equal (although see below).

(2) The 3-player game is challenging and fun. The approach to the game and resulting strategies are somewhat different from the 2-player game, but nevertheless, the 3-player game is still a good game. I prefer a 2-player game, but the 3-player can be quite entertaining as the SPs “fight” amongst themselves.

(3) The 3 player forces the players to approach the game from a slightly different perspective. The alternative victory conditions force each player, especially the SPs but also the FP, into playing each side differently from a 2-player game. This results in alternative and innovative approaches to the game which may provide new insights into potential strategies for the 2-player game.

Possible problems
One possible problem is that it appears that the I/S&E player has a stronger position than the Sauron player. This mainly comes from the geography of the map and leadership. All 4 of the FP cities are closer to I/S&E forces than Sauron forces. Because cities are much easier to conquer, and are worth the same as conquering a FP Stronghold for Shadow victory purposes, the I/S&E player has an advantage over the Sauron player. Furthermore, the I/S&E player only has 3 Cities and Strongholds to defend while the Sauron player has 7 to defend. In addition to these geographical advantages, the I/S&E has better leadership since I/S&E elite units are also leaders (with Saruman) and the I/S&E player starts with 4 Leaders, while the 4 Nazguls starting with the Sauron armies can be used by either player. Granted, Sauron does control the Witch-king, starts with 6 more armies (28 Regulars and 2 Elites versus 20 Regulars and 4 Elite/Leaders), and only requires one muster action rather than 3 to bring its forces to War, but on the whole, the I/S&E player has a stronger position than the Sauron player. However, even in spite of this, the game is certainly not broken as I was able to play competitive games as Sauron. The stronger/better/more aggressive of the 2 SPs should probably be the Sauron player.

Another possible problem that may come up is common to many 3-player games: Kingmaking. The FP can easily ensure that one of the SPs definitely cannot win by simply attacking and defending against a particular SP. The rule forbidding the FP from taking consecutive actions by the same FP nation somewhat prevents this, but an unscrupulous FP could easily prevent a particular SP from winning. Similarly, one SP could disregard his own victory conditions and focus solely on the FSP and/or helping the other SP. Both of these scenarios are not in the spirit of the game, but certainly could be a problem if you weren’t playing with fair, competitive players. This is of minor concern since most players wouldn’t even be playing with such a jerk of a player.

Conclusions
3-player WotR is an exciting, fast-paced game and certainly worth playing. It is not as good as the 2-player game, but is still a good game. The simple change in victory conditions results in a fresh look at the game and provides a unique platform to find innovated strategies.

Review: Court of the Medici:: A simple but clever little cardgame playable with a standard deck

Fortune — Fri, 20 Nov 2009 13:07:38 +0000

by Fortune

Why do I love this game?
Court of the Medici is a simple but clever and elegant cardgame for two players. A session shouldn't take more than 20 minutes. The box is small, very efficient, all the components fit in perfectly. You get two different couloured decks of cards with beautiful artwork and interesting quotes from Machiavelli and another political thinker whose name skips my mind. You also get a rulesheet which is a bit messy. I read a lot of complaints about the rules, so let me help with this revew. If you strip the game of its theme references (which is, as you have guessed, almost pasted on), you get the following rules.

---

COURT OF THE MEDICI RULES

Setup:
You and your opponent get a deck of cards with values 0-10 (2 of each) , 15 (1) and a joker. Shuffle the deck and put the topmost 4 cards in the middle of the table. Whoever has the biggest sum, starts the game. These 8 initial cards constitute the 8 Inner Slots. The number of Inner Slots can only be reduced throughout the game, you can't create new slots here (exept with Card 1), only in front of you AKA Outer Slots. Draw 5 cards in your hand.

Player turn: choose one of the following actions
A/ Play out a card , i.e. put it in front of you (NOT in the (i.e. create a new Outer Slot).
B/ Play a card on top of any other card(s).
C/ Play a card on top of any other card(s) AND discard a card or stack of cards that have the same total value.
D/ Put back a card to the bottom of your deck.

Draw back to 5 at the end of your turn.

Special cards:
Card 0 - choose a stack of cards, discard them and put this card in their place
Card 1 - choose a stack of cards and separate them. If they were in an Inner Slot, you can create new Inner Slots.
Card X - Joker, can have any value from 0 to 10, determined by the active player.

End of game and victory conditions
The game ends, when no one can play a card OR one player has no card in the Starting Slots. Who has the biggest total value of cards on the table (i.e. not discarded cards), wins the game.

---

As you can see, you can play Court of the Medici with a standard deck of card. Just separate the deck into two decks, each consisting of 2 suits (f.e. spades and clubs). Assign the value of each card as per the following:

2-10 - the same
JACK - Card 0 (Minister)
QUEEN - Card 1 (Lady-in-waiting)
KING - Card 15 (Grand Duke) - note that there's only 1 king in your deck!
JOKER - Card X

Now comes the question why would you buy the game if you already have a standard deck. Well, it's up to you. If you like a little bit flavour and Renaissance Italy, Machiavelli quotes, gorgeous paintings and all that jazz, it might work for you. Also, the game is inexpensive, can be bought for 7 quids (10 bucks). So yeah, it's worth to be in the collection of anyone who likes cardgames.

Review: Shipyard:: Review in Spanish

jose633 — Fri, 20 Nov 2009 13:04:16 +0000

by jose633

Hoy voy a reseñar este juego que trata con la construcción de barcos, poniéndonos al frente de un astillero donde tendremos que tomar todas las decisiones correspondientes para que nuestra empresa acabe siendo la más importante del sector. Tendremos que tomar las decisiones sobre qué tipo barcos construir, la tripulación, el equipamiento y los empleados para llevar nuestro negocio a buen puerto.

Corre el año 1870, y durante varios siglos los barcos de vela han dominado los océanos, sin embargo los barcos de vapor van poco a poco haciendose con la supremacia marítima, amparados en una mayor velocidad y seguridad. Los empresarios comienzan a diseñar sus barcos compitiendo entre sí para lograr construir el barco capaz de acaparar todos los records de velocidad y hacerse así un hueco en la historia.

Es un juego de Vladimir Suchy y está publicado por CGE (Czech Games Edition)

Visión general

El objetivo del juego es hacer barcos, contratar los empleados que nos van a dar beneficios durante la partida, comprar el equipamiento de cada barco: velas, chimeneas, cañones, hélices..., contratar la tripulación y finalmente, una vez el barco esté listo para ser botado, intentar que los jueces que acudan a la inauguración nos puntúen bien cada aspecto del mismo. Al final, gana el jugador que reúna más puntos.

Cómo se juega

A cada jugador se le da un tablero donde irá colocando todas las baldosas de barcos que vaya comprando, así como los barcos ya contruídos.

Así queda el tablero inicialmente:

Cada jugador dispone, en su turno, de varias acciones que puede llevar a cabo:

-- Construir barcos: Coge y paga hasta 3 losetas de barcos que debe colocar en su tablero personal.
La colocación de cada loseta está sujeta a unas reglas bastante sencillas. Un barco está compuesto como mínimo de una proa, una parte central y una popa.
Si en este punto, el barco se completa, debe botarse de inmediato y contabilzar puntos.

-- Comprar recursos: Coge y paga por la ficha de vagones que quieras. Los recursos que podemos asquirir son: Trigo, carbón y hierro, y estos podrán ser canjeados más adelante por piezas para nuestro barco o tripulación.

-- Alquilar una loseta de canal: Cogemos y pagamos por la loseta de canal por la que nuestro barco navegará en el viaje inaugural. En estas losetas vienen dibujados varios iconos que es lo que nos va a dar puntos.

-- Comprar equipamiento
--Reclutar tripulación
Estas dos acciones separadas funcionan de manera similar. Cada vez que la eligamos, movemos la figura un espacio en el sentido de las agujas del reloj, y eso nos indica qué podemos adquirir con coste 0, si estamos interesados en otro componente/miembro de la tripulación, deberemos pagar una moneda extra por cada espacio que avancemos. De manera que el precio máximo a pagar por una pieza o tripulantes es de 3 monedas.

[img]
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2499/4109405580_bc6ffa8d2a_o....[/img]

-- Contratar empleados: Se sigue la misma regla anterior y te llevas a tu astillero la ficha correspondiente. Ingeniero, comerciante, contratador, contable, capataz, encargado de las velas, etc... Cada una tiene sus beneficios, para que tengamos donde elegir en nuestra árdua tarea de dirigir un astillero.

--Comerciar con los recursos: En la parte del tablero donde está el hexágono podremos cambiar los recursos adquiridos previamente por todo aquello que podamos necesitar. La mecánica es similar, avanzamos un espacio en sentido de las agujas del reloj y nos pagan cada recurso a una determinada cantidad. O podemos intercambiarlos por tripulación o por componentes para el barco.

--Recibir subsidio: Simplemente recibes dos monedas del banco (Sólo para partidas de 4 jugadores)

PUNTUANDO BARCOS

Llegó el ansiado momento. Todos nuestros esfuerzos de los pasados meses están a punto de ver su fruto. Nuestro barco está a punto de lanzarse al canal donde una docena de jueces, libreta en mano, van a puntuar el barco en diferentes categorías. ¿Acabará convirtiéndose en el orgullo de la compañía, o acabará perdido en el tiempo y el espacio... (Ah! no..., que esto es del Arkham Horror...)

Vamos allá:

Una vez que el barco está terminado es el momento de colocar todas esas piezas de equipamiento que hemos comprado con nuestras acciones, asignar la tripulación y mandarle a navegar por nuestras losetas de canal.

Cada barco debe llevar un capìtán obligatoriamente, si tenemos más de ese tipo, el juego los considera oficiales.
La regla general es que cada persona debe viajar siempre en una cabina, (hay baldosas de barco con cabinas para albergarlos), con la excepción del capitán, que puede ir fuera y en cualquier baldosa.

Todo lo demás debe ir colocado sobre las baldosas de barco en sus lugares correspondientes: velas y chimeneas, grúas de carga, cañones y hélices tienen sus espacios específicos y bien diferenciados.

Una vez completado este proceso, calculamos su velocidad. ¿Cómo se calcula? Pues muy fácil.
Nuestro barco tiene una velocidad base de 1.
Por cada vela aumentamos en +1 su velocidad.
Si tenemos 2 chimeneas, pero sin hélice otro +1
Pero si tenemos 1 chimenea y una hélice la velocidad base es 4, y a partir de ahí podemos ir sumandole todo lo anterior.

Por ejemplo, si tengo un barco con 2 chimeneas, 1 vela y una hélice, su velocidad sería 6.

Colocamos la ficha de barco sobre la loseta y avanzamos un número de casillas igual a su velocidad. Cuidado, tienes que tener suficientes casillas para que el barco navegue, y para ello puede que necesites más de una loseta de canal.

La foto de arriba no es de juego real, ya que sólo navegan tus barcos en tus canales, pero para visualizar como es viene bien...

¿Cómo nos puntúan los jueces?

Nos dan 1 punto por cada tripulante y por cada punto de velocidad, y 2 puntos por cada cañón o grua que llevemos.
Por cada símbolo que atraviese nuestro barco va a ser puntuado en esa categoría. De manera que si tenemos un barco con 2 cañones, si pasamos por encima de un icono de cañón nos va a otorgar 1 punto por cada cañón y 1 punto por cada soldado que llevemos a bordo. Ni que decir tiene que si nos las apañamos para pasar por 2 iconos iguales volvemos a puntuar.
Si pasamos por un icono de grua, nos puntuarán los hombres de negocios y las gruas instaladas en el barco.
Si pasamos sobre un icono de farol o bote salvavidas o salvavidas, nos puntuarán dependiento de cuantas de cada tipo tenemos en nuestras losetas de barco.

El "Blue Ribbon" es la distinción a la velocidad. Si pasamos por él nos va a puntuar la velocidad del barco multiplicada por 2. Pero sólo se puntúa una vez, la última por la que hayamos pasado.

En fin, hay un sinfín de posibilidades de puntuar.

Al principio del juego se nos dieron 6 contratos, 3 azules y 3 verdes, que hay que ir descartando cada turno hasta quedarnos con uno de cada color. Pues bien, estos contratos nos darán puntos adicionales al final de la partida por haber cumplido con las exigencias que el Gobierno depositó en nuestro modesto astillero.
Estos contratos, por ejemplo, nos premian la cantidad de barcos, su tipo, el tamaño, la seguridad, etc..

CONCLUSIONES

Es un juego que a mi me ha gustado bastante por la cantidad de maneras que tienes de puntuar. No es un juego que aporte ninguna mecánica nueva pero las que tiene están bastate bien implementadas. No se hace pesado y es bastante entretenido.

Me gusta:

- Fácil de explicar a pesar de todas las opciones que tiene.
- Divertido
- Se puede puntuar de muuuuuuchas formas.

No me gusta:

- El tablero de cada jugador podría haber sido de cartón más grueso.
- La cantidad de fichas diminutas que trae el juego lo hace un poco engorroso.

Review: 7:: 7 Initial Review

Eisley — Fri, 20 Nov 2009 12:05:10 +0000

by Eisley

The rules for 7 seemed relatively straight forwards when read, but when you see the game laid out it can be quite daunting as there are a lot of different decks of cards, different tokens, even several boards. (Not that daunting is necessarily a bad thing.)

In 7, the players are heroes in a fantasy setting working together to stop the Unnamed returning to the world. The players win if they can close all 6 portals, or if they can collect the 7 pieces of armour with at least one hero having a Might score of 30+. If all 14 cataclysms take place, the players lose. However, whilst the game is co-operative, there can be only one winner (so long as all the players don’t lose) and that will be the player with the most might.
In turn order, players take a single action or pass, and a round is over when all players pass consecutively. The game’s "currencies" are Fame, Might, Gold and Gifts. The Gifts come in 6 different colours (7 of each colour) and these are used to close portals or complete quests. Fame is used to buy characters (companions for the hero who also come in 6 different colours) who help you gain gifts and potentially income each round. Gold is used to buy elixirs (used in place of gifts or to gain gifts) and buildings (which may produce an income each round plus have a special ability). Might is like victory points but can be used to activate buildings’ abilities.

Each turn, a player can choose one of 12 different actions which are: to buy characters, buildings or elixirs; use the abilities of the player’s hero, characters, buildings or artifacts; seal a portal; complete part of a quest; gain a treasure; use a sin card; or pass.

Sealing the coloured portals is one way to win the game and, if this is done, the player who closed the most portals is the winner. Sealing a portal requires a player to discard the 7 gifts of a single colour and, once closed, it will not open again. Getting all 7 Gifts of a single colour at the same time can be quite difficult as other players wants gifts for themselves because they can also be used to complete quests which earn Fame and Gold.

To complete a quest, players must discard Gifts, Fame or Gold to complete each part as described on the quest card, i.e. pay 3 blue gifts, pay 3 fame, etc. When a player completes a part of a quest, they place one of their markers on it. When all the parts of the two quests on the lowest of the quest board are fully complete, the quests are resolved. As a result, the player with the most markers on a quest receives some Might and every player gets a treasure card (Gold, Fame, Artefact) for each of their markers on the quest. Whilst a quest is incomplete, a player can remove a marker they have placed on a quest (replacing it with a neutral marker) in order to instantly gain a treasure card.

Players have 3 sin cards each round too which allow them to gain resources, swap buildings, etc. and even negatively affect other players. As you’d hope, indulging in too much tempting sin results in a cataclysm for as soon as the Sin card discard pile has 7 cards in it a cataclysm takes place. As the name suggests, these are bad – very, very bad. A card from the cataclysm deck can destroy buildings, kill characters, reduce fame or gold, and more (and usually multiple effects each time). Cataclysms also happen whenever quests are resolved too.

When a round ends, players gain some income from their buildings and/or characters. If a player owns characters of specific colours then they may earn extra income. Also, players earn Might for having the most elixirs, most fame, etc.

Overall, 7 is a game with a lot of factors and choices. The choice of 12 different actions seems a lot to take in to start with but, individually, they’re relatively straight forwards and manageable. However, working out which order to execute them in to produce the maximum resources is the key. As a single example, you might remove a marker from a quest to get fame so you can then hire a character who will give you gifts which you can use to close a portal. As you can only perform one action each turn, you not only need to work out the order of your actions, but also assess which opportunities may be taken by other players. With resources being tight too, this delivers some very interesting decision-making gameplay.

The cataclysms can be brutal - our first two decimated our characters and buildings - one player was severely savaged. As it takes a lot of effort to earn resources (which makes it a challenge), fear of the next cataclysm is really quite nerve-wracking too as you know they’ll be coming and they’ll be merciless. So, you really need to squeeze out as many resources as you can before the next cataclysm. Also, the Sin cards are a nice mechanic because they’re tempting but have literally cataclysmic consequences, which works well in both gameplay and themeing too.

Whilst being co-operative, the fact that one player can win, created an unusual air of begrudging friendliness. We helped each other but not too much - no-one sacrificed themselves for good of the group like you might see in a fully co-op game, even with a traitor involved. However, when only one portal was left to be shut the game did start to slow down as players tried to play for the win and the main goal of defeating the Unnamed One was set aside.

There are a couple of advanced rules for corruption (players may become evil and play to make the others lose) and also allowing one player to play the Unnamed one. These sounded like interesting additions and I suspect they will make it even harder.

Having played it once, I would use my resources better next time now I know the system - I believe all the players felt that way. The game can be quite harsh though and an unfortunate player can be crippled by a single cataclysm which is especially hard early on. Interestingly, there’s no scaling of the game based on the number of players, apart for a change for two-players, so I’d be interested to see how much harder it is with fewer players, or easier with more players.

The uneasy alliance between the players feels quite fresh and unusual. In theory, a single player can win Arkham Horror on points but no-one really cares about that amongst the people I play AH with but, in 7, it was much more pervasive. I felt it was a shame the game slowed down towards the end as players jostled for position.

On reflection, I’m not quite sure how to feel about 7. I did enjoy playing it as there were interesting decisions to be made and lots to discover. It is quite an epic game (hence the epic report) but it was quite long to play too. The mechanics are relatively straight forwards but there are a lot of them which makes the game relatively complex. The game contains some new combinations of mechanics but I couldn’t really name one specific item as outstandingly unique. So, I have mixed feelings.

On balance though, 7 is a good game, enjoyable and I think people who like games with lots of thinking and lots of systems/parts will like it too. For me, I would willingly play 7 again but it’s not one I will buy because I wouldn’t play it often enough.

One last word on the artwork though which I wanted to point out is very nice indeed.

James.

[Played with 4 players]

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

Review: Ticket to Ride: Europa 1912:: Refrain from disdain, or belay your gateway fears!

Noofy — Fri, 20 Nov 2009 10:53:26 +0000

by Noofy

G'day fellow geeks,
Herein lies a somewhat obtuse view on not just the expansion [thing=53383][/thing], but also the symbiosis with its parent game: [thing=14996][/thing].

I had avoided the TTR franchise for same time, dissuaded by [thing=21790][/thing], the applauded 'gateway' nature of both its mechanics and theme.
May I heartily convince future purveyors of said scorn; belay your initial response! This game (and I would postulate its progeny) are at once simple, familiar and a delight to play... Yet underneath lies a meta-game accessible by a vast range of gaming folk, from the wide-eyed child, to the grizzled wargrog. One of projected strategy and delicious gambles on whimsy, of territorial blocking and fevered negotiation.

In short, my delectable relationship with this game over the past week (yes week!) has blown away any preconceived notions of 'light' or 'family'. Yes Ticket to Ride can be ridden as a joyous foray of set collection and route-building, but also one can plumb its rich veins of balancing cost effectiveness, analysing short term goals and their requisite payoffs vs longterm strategy and end-game reward. All this amidst a climate of furious arbitration and intrigue. One cannot play this game in isolation.

I would hazard a guess that this adaptability of game design lies with its careful addition of 'layering' mechanics. Somewhat like the skin of an onion, or growth rings of a tree, each successive 'expansion' lending a deeper possibility (though not game-changing) to the game experience.

You have to accept my enthusiasm comes from no experience of the TTR 'franchise' methodology. Unlike my experience of Carc, which inevitably began with the basegame and subsequently included nearly every meepled expansive goodness! (strangely, I now almost exclusively prefer playing Hunters and Gatherers...)

So, in specific game terms, I would suggest that the addition of the extra cards representing additional stratagems (both in the 'short' tickets, and bigger payoff 'Mega' routes), combined with the ebb and flow nature of both the depots and stations, allows the TTR Europa game to become one of careful deliberation, especially of initial placement of depots. As the game progresses, these depots become repositories of potential, becoming more and more valuable (until plumbed) as the game progresses. Whereas the stations can be excellent 'investment' in ticket collection at the end of the game, or 'money in the bank' as VPs.

Showering these elegant mechanics is the smatterings of human banter, or in my groups case, the gleeful vindication of a underhand manipulation. Although not expressly stated in the rules and despite the lack of a 'trade' mechanic, deals are wrangled as much or as little as the players desire. Alliances emerge, friendly competition and race-like frenzy ensues.

When playing the 'Big Cities' variant, the game limits the potential destinations, effectively bottlenecking select routes, and forcing players to consider the lesser of two evils in route determination or insidious blockading.

In conclusion I would thoroughly recommend not only TTR Europe, but also Europa 1912 to both 'gateway' gamers and more 'meaty' eurogamers alike. The game stands up to repeated plays, encouraging exploration of various strategies and adaptable gameplay.

If you haven't already bought TTR Europe, I would suggest buying Europa 1912 at the same time as its cost is far outweighed by the depth (and scalability) the game gathers with its components and ruleset.

I only wish I had partaken earlier!

Review: Tsuro:: The Year of the Dragon : A Tsuro Review

Focuscoene — Fri, 20 Nov 2009 06:58:35 +0000

by Focuscoene

I'm a huge Oshi fan (see my review on it in the Oshi section) so naturally I had to give Tsuro a try. And I must say I'm very pleased, despite the cornucopia of un-answered questions that pop-up throughout the game.

Your objective in Tsuro is to be the last man standing on the board. You move about the board by placing tiles with little "lines" on them that you follow like a trail. Sometimes, when you place the tile correctly, you move an opponent's piece as well. Your hope is to stick your opponents in situations where they are either run off the board, or run into one another (in which case they both loose). This tile placing starts out nice and simple, but quickly becomes quite a complex web for you to navigate through safely.

I need to say this before we go any further. The Instruction Manual is awful. Just awful. Oshi's manual wasn't too great either (they could use an updated one with a clearer stalemate rule, I'd admit). You'll realize very quickly a need to establish "house rules". I've heard a rumor that they're re-releasing the game with a new rule book, but until then this is all we've got. We used the following house rules, and after a bunch of plays I'm assuming most people do things similarly:

1. Get rid of the dragon card. It doesn't do anything. Don't try to figure it out, it doesn't do anything. It serves as the bottom. You know, like the table. Just re-shuffle the draw pile when a player puts cards there because he/she has bee removed from the game.

2. You cannot place your first tile directly next to someone else's first tile. (it will kill them in one move, more often than not)

3. All though it is clear that you can only place a tile next to the tile your marker is currently on, it is NOT clear about whether or not it has to move YOUR marker forward. (for example, you could place a tile that sends someone else flying off the board while your piece remains stationary). We believe it is assumed that you HAVE to continue movement of your marker EVERY turn.

Okay, that's out of the way. A poor instruction manual really does loose a lot of points with me, because that's everyone's least favorite part of the game. It's a publisher's responsibility to make this part of the process as painless as possible, especially for people like me who ALWAYS end up the designated rule dictator.

Now that that's out of the way, let's talk presentation. Folks, this game is freaking GORGEOUS. I can say, without hesitation, that this is the prettiest game I own. It even comes with a little slip of so-framable paper with some Japanese writing on it. Just for you. The tiles used are of an even better stock than the Carcassonne tiles, and the shades of color used on the markers are subtle and gorgeous. This game is beautiful, and for twenty bucks that's saying a lot.

They also receive extra points for including an extra rubber-band. I never see that!

The game itself is one of those great examples of a game that's not too light and not too heavy. In fact, I'd even go as far as to say it's one of the best examples of that. I saw hardcore Carcassonne players winning just as much as my friend's girlfriend who wanted to play Jishaku instead.

What's exceptionally nice about the strategy involved is that it's really up to you how much thought you want to put into it. It can be a mindless tile-laying game that you play while having an intense and heated discussion about other things, or it can be played so that each move is a pain-staking decision, it's up to you and the mood of the group. The game will accommodate you.

That all being said, I think it's a great addition to anyone's collection. Personally, I'd rather play Oshi, but that's just me:orangecamel::orangecamel::orangecamel::orangecamel:. As far as which one I'd recommend for you to add to your ever-growing game shelf, I would absolutely recommend Tsuro first. The manual problems are a bit of a pain (more because of the time you'll spend seeing if you're missing something than anything else), but you'll get over it when you see the phoenix design on the board, I promise.

Review: Struggle for the Galactic Empire:: Struggle for the Galactic Empire: A Review

DoctorW — Fri, 20 Nov 2009 04:02:28 +0000

by DoctorW

Science-fiction themed games aren’t all that rare, but it’s been a long while since we’ve had an SF wargame in the grand tradition of the old titles from Metagaming, SPI and GDW. Race for the Galaxy is clever and a lot of fun, but it’s not much of a simulation in the sense that some of those hex and counters games from the ‘70s and ‘80s were. So, the appearance of this new title from a bona-fide wargame company, Decision Games, is something of an event.

And Struggle for the Galactic Empire (SGE henceforth) was a long while in coming. I can’t remember when I first pledged for this game, but it was many years ago. Decision Games would periodically ask me to recommit to the title, which I dutifully did, but the long drawn out experience pretty much squelched any desire I made have to pledge again. So, I was surprised, and pleased, when I learned earlier this year that it was actually being published.

Now, was it worth the wait?

Theme, Setting and Influence

This is a big game, covering the entirety of the galaxy. (To my knowledge, the biggest scale of a game previous to this was SPI’s Outreach, but that only covered a good chunk of the galaxy, not all of it. The game has the whole shebang)

The conflict terms this isn’t a game pitting star empires against each other (as in Stellar Conquest or Imperium). SGE is a solitaire game where the player represents the Empire (not so much the emperor as an individual) trying to deal with the disparate force of chaos, in the forms of aliens, rebellions, usurpers, breakaway independent empires, and unruly citizens, the actions of which are controlled by the game rules.

Designer Joseph Miranda’s idea of a galactic empire strikes me not as George Lucas’ edifice of evil or the decaying stellar caliphate of the Dune books, but more like Issac Asimov’s (from the Foundation series and other novels). That is to say, a fading far future Roman Empire writ large (galaxy large), crumbling more from within than under pressure from without. Several aspects of the game’s setting are very reminiscent of Asimov’s empire. It is human-centric; Asimov didn’t do aliens much and those that appear in this game are random chaos events. And there are a couple of chaos events that owe their inspiration to the Asimov books: “The Institute” (e.g. the Foundation), which in one of the game’s cleverest rules does a good job in emulating the role of the early Foundation in predicting crises by allowing the player to cancel a chaos event each turn, and “The Mutant” (e.g. the Mule) a powerful individual who functions as a super-usurper, seeking to establish a new imperial order. Throw in a little A.E. van Vogt with the Transhuman units and a dash of Olaf Stapledon’s galactic history Last and First Men and one might get an idea of the possible literary sources of the game. And for a more contemporary SF reference—doesn’t the tentacled starship on the box cover remind you of a Vorlon ship from the old Babylon 5 TV show?

Components

The components for SGE are pretty standard for a wargame company. There’s a 22” x 34“ paper map, or more accurately, a display. The center of this is a depiction of the galaxy superimposed by a circular grid divided into sectors, about half of which have a symbol designating that system markers (representing clusters of worlds) are placed. Systems have both defensive and, more importantly, economic value. The game display also contains a whole bunch of tables (as one might expect from a solitaire game). In general the display is attractive and futuristic with white text on a dark background. One thing bugs me a bit though: the 1-100 grid to track income and maintenance /resources/the current chaos level has 11 boxes in each row rather than the more intuitive 10, so mistakes on tracking changing values are more likely.

The unit counters, which include both military units and systems, are well designed and attractive. They are two-sided: Imperial and Chaos, so as units change sides they are simply flipped over. Many of the pieces are chaos events, which are placed in a cup and drawn randomly as needed. You’ll need to draw a lot of these in the course of play, but there’s plenty so you’ll have more than enough to finish a game with a fair amount of variety.

The 32 rule book is OK. It’s repetitive in some ways, yet vague in others, and would have benefitted from more examples of play. And really, in the era of spellchecking software there is no excuse for typos like “Imerial” and “Spectavle” making it into print.

I would hope a game this long in development would have had a tighter set of rules. Lots of simple questions aren’t answered, explanations for some of the table results are vague or misleading, and it seems some of the components aren’t consistent with rules. For example, all of the Usurper chaos events counters have a 3 for leadership, but during rules state that ay a random leader counter is drawn for each Usurper stack. So why have the leadership value on the marker at all? Or better yet, why not just vary the leadership value on the Usurper chaos markers. However, these rules problems are not that big of a deal, (a good FAQ could resolve them), and certainly not reason enough to not buy the game.

Game Play

My experience with Miranda’s designs is that they are workmanlike. He can take an idea and easily fit it into the game mechanics. It may not stand out as particularly clever, but it works. There’s a lot of that sort of thing in this game.

Game play in SGE shares a fair amount with the reworked 1997 version of the old Fall of Rome game in S&T—no surprise there, as Miranda did the newer version. The situations are pretty similar, and both are solitaire games, requiring rules to manage the non-player forces.

The core of the game is the Chaos Index and the chaos events markers. The index is set at the beginning of the game and can rise and fall due to a number of factors, though military victories and defeats are the most common. The current level of the index determines the number of chaos events that are drawn each turn, so the higher the level, the higher the turmoil. (As I used to tell my students when I taught history: excrement occurs.) Consequently getting the level down is both a victory determinate and one of the main goals during play. Most of the events are bad, and in the case of rebellions, independent empires and the dreaded usurpers, result in systems and units being flipped over to their chaos side. That big stack you’ve put together to take on that independent empire? It’s now lead by usurper and headed for the core. There are also alien incursions and invaders, and some truly nasty empire-wide events (like the economically costly “Citizens Demand Reforms” event. Some of the events are good (free leaders and units) and others can go either way, like the “Expedition Possible” chits which lead to Star Trek-like encounters that can help or hinder the Empire’s efforts. For the most part, the chaos event system works pretty well, which is important as it is the lynchpin of the game design.

Military units are the player’s prime means of dealing with these problems. Units are rated for movement and capacity in two types of combat, military and morphogenetic. The two combat styles work pretty much the same, sharing the same combat results table, but the big difference is that successful morphogenetic attacks result in the conversion of units to the victor’s side. Fleets have only military capability and control groups have only morphogenetic, while the more expensive worldships and Imperial Order units have both. Units rated for only one type of combat are extremely vulnerable to the other type. Systems participate in combat as well, though they only defend, and can be destroyed during military attacks or converted via morphogenetic attacks.

In many ways more important that units, are leader counters. Leaders are rated from 1 to 3 and their leadership is critical in many aspects of the game, by providing favorable die roll modifiers on the game’s many tables. A good leader can make a small military force more effective, expand an independent empire, aid in a usurpation attempt, or successfully deal with aliens and expeditions. Also useful are Nexus markers, representing centers of Imperial power and culture, which can be purchased and placed in systems. They provide helpful DRMs for some endeavors, but must be maintained and are vulnerable to the system they are located in being lost or converted.

In addition to military units, the Empire has a few other tools at its disposal. A more systemic, and considerably expensive, method of stemming chaos is to try and revitalize the Empire by venturing a roll on the Extropy Table and possibly knock down the index. A good leader at the Core (the Emperor?) can help out here. The player can buy “Repression” and “Illumination” markers, functioning as of Imperial carrot and stick tools to perhaps counteract a bad event, though sometimes at a cost on the Chaos Index or enhance combat or extropy rolls.

A game of this nature needs an economic system, and SGE has a very simple one. There are 33 sectors on the display (the Core and 8 spots per quadrant) that can have a system. Systems units are drawn randomly when setting up the game and are rated 0 to 4 for defense in both types of combat and 1-4 for resource value. The imperial economy is the sum total of controlled (Imperial side up) resource values, with the income being spent to buy new units and maintain existing ones. Stored resources may have to be expended as the result of certain chaos events. As one can imagine, the loss of systems can seriously drain the Empire’s treasury, and if the money disappears, so do the units and the opportunities to use the Extropy table.

Here’s one last note on game play. Many of the “chromy” rules are listed as optional rules. However, I would not suggest playing without some of the simpler ones, such as the rules for Nexus markers and Repression/Illumination—these are useful options no stellar emperor should be without. The rules for expeditions, Transhumans (powerful Ubermenschen with variable combat abilities) and stargates add quite a bit of science-fictional flavor to the game and are fun, but can be more safely left out of early plays, as one is getting a feel for the game.

Assessment

After a half dozen plays in several scenarios I feel I have a pretty good sense of how SGE is. It is pretty much what I thought it might be, but didn’t exceed my expectations. Some of my sessions had some interesting stretches, but never did I find that the game was strongly compelling.

While the chaos event system at the heart of SGE works reasonably well, it’s also, well, pretty random. As a result, the game stresses reaction over governance. The player’s task is less that of trying to govern a decaying empire and more job of the Imperial Fire Department flitting around dousing the flames, a sort of galactic whack-a-mole. There’s little relation between the player’s actions and the type of chaos events he/she will face. For example, what if the Empire’s economic situation had some sort of relation to the likelihood of rebellions occurring. Or, if the presence of powerful leaders commanding fleets of ships made usurpers more likely? I just think SGE might have been a more interesting game if the player had to make more choices about how to run an empire than which rebellion or alien incursion to deal with that turn.

The final assessment? I’m rating it a 7. I think SGE a good game, competently done and doing justice to its topic, but it is not a great one. I'm glad I bought it and will certainly try it again.

Review: Senator:: A bad Silver line game? Say it isn't sooooooo!!!!!!

halbower — Thu, 19 Nov 2009 22:33:52 +0000

by halbower

Senator is a Silver line game from Fantasy Flight Games. Designed by [person=1533][/person] who brought us the marvelous [thing=37111][/thing] board game, Senator pits players as factious senators in Rome, vying for the throne of Rome.

The components of Fantasy Flight's games are outstanding--and Senator is no different. The cardboard bits are thick stock with nice artwork. The cards, while not linen, are thicker stock than most and will hold up to a decent amount of wear.

To win the game, a player must accumulate more agendas than any other player. Players win agendas by bidding cards from their hands. All players start with the same hand: two 1's, three 2's, one 5 and one assassin.

The value of the cards is the amount of the bid. You must bid higher than a previous bid to win; you cannot tie. If anyone plays an assassin, all cards bid thus far are discarded for the remainder of the round. The player bidding the highest total claims the agenda originally chosen for the bidding. That player may keep the agenda or may give it to an opponent.

Players accumulate agendas in their player area. Agenda are placed above the player's scroll marker. When a player later claims the "consul" token during a bid war, the player may "complete" the agenda by moving it below the scroll marker. Agendas below the scroll marker are yours permenately; those still above the scroll are volatile and may not endure to game end.

All agendas except the "Imperial" agenda are opposed to two other agenda types. If you have two opposing agendas, you lose all of them. This can lead to lots of backstabbing!

There are also event cards that modify how the bidding will take place. These events may allow players to only bid with up to two cards; may require players to bid with at least two cards; or may cause all cards to be lost regardless if you won the agenda or not.

When a player claims an agenda, he may immediately take advantage of the agenda's special ability. The special abilities are thematic with the type of agenda it was. For example: if you win a "Public Works" agenda, you may return a previously discarded influence card back into your hand.

Each round ends when all players have exhausted their hand of cards or when the docket is emptied. After each round, players return all of their 7 cards back to their hand and resume play. After three such rounds, the player with the most agendas is declared the winner.

Senator has some potential for the intrepid varianteer. But as a base game, it leaves a lot to be desired. Mathematically, the game is almost broken. In a five player game, for example, there are five players with six influence cards and one assassin card each. Thus, there are going to be five agendas killed by assassins. This will drastically cut down the amount of influence cards and agendas. Either you will claim an agenda without resistance (which is unlikely) or someone will assassinate the agenda. The assassin-to-influence card ratio is much too high. This means the scores will be quite low.

In addition, you can have your whole set of agendas wiped out by someone who sticks you with an opposing conflict. This yields a rather unsatisfying game--one in which I am very hesitant to repeat.

Variant to make Senator unbroken:
To solve the major problems in Senator, I would suggest you use two sets of influence cards. All players will have double the influence cards but still have only one assassin. This would yield much more interesting bidding wars and force players to be far more judicious with their precious lonely assassin.

Review: Ricochet Robots:: Easy accessible non-gamer filler for any number of players, from 5 minutes and up!

Zimeon — Thu, 19 Nov 2009 22:31:52 +0000

by Zimeon

a review of Alex Randolph's 'Ricochet Robots'

(Image courtesy of user sbilbey)
]]>

I begin with the verdict
Ricochet Robots is one of the most played games in my collection. It's the game I about always bring when going to a game meet, no matter the clientele. It's the game that I've found most broadly appeals to new gamers and non-gamers. It's the game I can play with my 40 year old non-gamer sister and my 10 year old nephew at the same time - and my nephew might just beat me.

It's also the game with the most stretchable playing time and number of players. It's so fast to set up that you can play it as a 5 minutes filler, and just stop in the middle of everything and it doesn't really matter. One round is about 2 minutes, and each round is a game in itself. It allows for people to just walk past, look, and suddenly join in. And if someone wants to leave the table - fine. It doesn't matter in Ricochet Robots. You can play it on any number of players, and a player can leave in the middle of a round without disturbing the others.

Ricochet Robots is the only game where I time and time again experience that we stop caring about the points, and just go on and on instead, and laugh and applaud when someone has found a slick solution.

And it's a non-random game, apart from the setup. And there is no downtime.

From 5 minutes to 1 hour or more, any number of players, immediate setup, easy to explain, fun for all ages, Ricochet Robots is outstanding as the best filler game I've ever had and ever seen. In fact, it's mostly so fun to play that it's not just a filler. Also, it's cheap.

And, the different versions of this game (next to identical) expand eachother.

Components
Ricochet Robots is a small box containing four double-sided cardboard boards (that you put together for the game board), 17 cardboard tokens and five solid plastic robots with cardboard markers in corresponding colours, and a sand timer of 60 seconds. Perfect. This game needs no more.

The difference between editions (blue box or red box) is that the boards are different. Also, with the blue box you get a black robot. With the red box you get a silver robot instead.

Game play
Ricochet Robots is a game where all players, at the same time, try to find the shortest path for a certain robot on the board to reach a certain goal. A bit like a computer puzzle. And it's dead simple to explain.

First of all, the board is set up. There are 4 boards that are put together to form a square, and they're printed on both sides, so there's quite a bit of variation to get. The boards are square gridded, and contain a total of 17 goal points and the occasional wall here and there, and looks like this:
Image courtesy of user kilroy_locke
]]>
The robots are randomly placed on the board, with their place marker beneath.

Each round starts that one of the 17 goal chits are selected at random. The chit is identical to one of the symbols on the board, which is this round's goal point, and the "target robot" (the robot you're trying to guide to the goal) is the same as the chit's colour.

All players must now try to figure out, without physically moving any of the robots on the board, the least number of moves to get the target robot to the goal point. One "move" is to push a robot in any of the 4 directions, and let it slide, like on ice, until it hits a wall or another robot, where it stops. A robot can never stop just like that, it doesn't stop until it hits an obstacle.

Not just the target robot may be moved – moving a robot to a good place and let it act as a "stopper" for another robot is often the fastest - sometimes the only - way to get the target robot to its goal. But no robots are to be touched while the puzzle is being solved.

If a player finds a way to get the target robot to the goal point, he/she announces aloud how many moves his solution consists of, and the sand timer is turned, announcing there's only 60 seconds remaining. When the sand timer runs out, the player with the shortest solution shows it to the other players, moving the robots accordingly, and gets the chit as a point (unless there was something faulty with his/her solution of course). And a new chit is drawn, and a new round begins.

The player with the most chits when all chits have been drawn is the winner.

Verdict again
As I've already stated, Ricochet Robots is in my eyes completely unbeatable as a game to just pull up and just start to play. It sets up in less than a minute, it's fast to explain, and by some reason or another it appeals to about everyone I introduce it to. The only one who doesn't want to play Ricochet Robots is my cousin who, while being very smart, thinks slowly in the case of RR, and he says the game makes him feel stupid. Also, the timer stresses him out. I can see where he's coming from - although this game is mostly visual attention and not that much thinking, I do understand that it might for some feel like just a stressful speed thinking contest, leaving them with nothing but a feeling of being dump.

But I've pulled this game out to gamers, non-gamers, kids, adults, teenagers, and about everyone likes it. The rules are so simple, people grasp them immediately, and though it's a thinker puzzle, the basics are so easy that it seems like people can't help themselves trying to find the solution. I can't count the number of times where some non-gamer shy guy or girl at a party or a teenager activity club have declined playing a game but said "I can sit and watch" and ends up winning Ricochet Robots, because before they knew it, they were playing and winning.

You do get better at this game as you learn to think backwards, and remember certain tricks, and sure, when I introduce this game to new people, I tend to not mention that first seven-move solution I find, but instead wait for the others to get used to the game. But before I know it, this 48 year old woman who might have played a total number of 5 board games in her life says "five!" and has found this quick solution I never saw. When playing it with RR enthusiasts, we always end up sitting there ignoring the timer, almost working together to find the best of all solutions, not caring about who has points, only caring about doing the slickest solution for the next round.

Variations? Although the 4 pieces making up the board have an outer wall and thus can't be aligned totally freely, having a backside (that on the blue box versions have diagonal coloured walls with special rules, making the game a bit more taxing) makes for many varied boards. But really, just the random positioning of the robots make up for variety enough.
Expansions? The game itself! I owned the blue box version, and bought the red box version as a present - and discovered that the red box had different boards - which after some 200 plays actually was very welcome - you did get used to some of the board sections. (And I got more robots to play with – a silver neutral one and another set of the coloured ones).

But in reality, you don't need expansions. Making the game harder is easy - pull two chits and try to solve both at the same time. Invent other rules for the neutral robot.

It plays in 5 minutes to hours (although more than 1 hour is rare), it can be played with any number of players who can come and go as they like in the middle of the game - as a filler Ricochet Robots is utterly unbeatable. This is a solid 10 for me. I will suggest it, I always want to play it, and I expect that this will never change.

Review: The Settlers of Catan Card Game:: A Catan veteran plays this game a decade late

Aurendrosl — Thu, 19 Nov 2009 21:41:11 +0000

by Aurendrosl

The original [thing=13][/thing] was my entry into the word of board games (okay, into the world of non-Monopoly and non-Clue board games). My dad and I bought it the first year it came to the States. Our family has played it for years, and we still bust it out of the closet to play a game every once in a while. We have several of the expansions also.

But the Settlers of Catan Card game (SoCCG henceforth) didn't catch my eye due to my long history with its older sibling. I knew it existed, but I never tried it out. I was itching for a new two-player game that I hadn't played before, though. My friend recommended SoCCG a month ago, so here I am - over a decade late to the party - offering my review of the Settlers of Catan Card Game while also comparing it a bit to the board game version.

The prodigal Catan player returns home

"So what's it like to play a game for the first time all the rest of us have been playing for 13 years?" you're probably thinking

For starters, it's not like the Settlers of Catan Board Game. Okay, okay, I take that back. There are some similarities. You roll for resources, you build roads and cities, and you have the option to trade your resources with your opponent. However, I feel if the original Settlers of Catan is played with any fewer than four people, it's as boring as watching dust gather on a windowsill.

SoCCG addresses this problem head-on: it's a two-player-only game. Unlike Catan Board Game (which has limited interaction and even that interaction is very passive/aggressive), this game is very confrontational, meaning you'd better play with someone who doesn't mind that type of game. There are cards allowing you to destroy the opponent's additions, steal cards from their hand (not resource cards like in the original board game, mind you, but Expansion cards that let you improve your settlements and cities), and steal their resources. As a veteran Catan player, I gleefully torched my girlfriend's aqueducts and killed off her knights. Hahahah! I can do so much more in SoCCG, whereas before I was limited to stealing a resource card if I played a Soldier or blocking someone's road. SoCCG allows you to be very devious in ways that the original Catan never allowed. If I was to make a comparison, SoCCG is similar to [thing=478][/thing] in the ways it allows you to attack your opponent.

And we haven't even talked about how the game itself is devious. Every turn, an event die is rolled. I immediately liked this mechanic. It adds flavor to the game and makes each turn interesting. One thing about Catan Board Game I've noticed over the years is that it's easy to disconnect if no one is trading and you're just waiting for a certain number to roll to build the road you need. The event die helps cut down on this problem.

More often than not, you roll a question mark symbol on the event die, and then you draw a special event card. It affects both players, and the effects range from mildly helpful to incredibly aggravating. "Oh, you wanted to build a City next turn?" the game asks politely. "I'm sorry. You're going to be drawing a Plague card. Say bye-bye to that wheat and ore you needed!" Still, I'm not complaining. The event cards add a lot of flavor and variety to the game. Since they apply to both players when they're drawn, they don't upset the game's balance too much.

I feel that SoCCG doesn't rely on luck as much as the original Catan did. Each game has felt a bit different. In one game, sheep may be in low supply. In another game, the Tournament side of the event die might be rolled a lot. There are still plenty of random aspects to SoCCG, but there are also enough non-luck rules (does that even make sense?), allowing a player to make a solid strategy and stick with it.

I'll trade you one ore for one wheat

There are some limitations in SoCCG. One limitation is the player limit. I haven't played any of the expansions, so I don't know if they increase the player limit. Still, the game is finely tuned to work well with two people, so I guess I can't complain about the two-player limit when it was designed for that very purpose. And I can't think of any reason why extra people couldn't join if an extra copy of the game was on hand.

The biggest departure from original Catan, and SoCCG's biggest limitation (IMO), is that trading is not as potent in SoCCG. Looking back to Catan, I realize the winning player is usually the best at trading. I like the trading in Catan. It helps balance out the luck factor of the dice rolls. In SoCCG, you can just as easily steal what you're looking for, and since you're constantly harming your opponent, they're often not in the mood to trade with you anyway. Plus, SoCCG changes the way you keep track of your resources (described later) and leaves it out for the opponent to see. So, they can see if you're close to building a city, and it will likely kill any trade opportunities for wheat or ore.

When I saw that the designers had diminished the importance of trade in SoCCG compared to the original board game, it caught me off guard. It actually made me realize what I liked about the original Settlers of Catan. I came to understand that - while the resource gathering and road building aspects are fun - the board game shines when you have a good group of 4 to 6 players all haggling, trading, and begging one another in order to advance their own selfish strategies.

I like games that have expansions, because if I enjoy the core game mechanics, playing the expansion often increases my love of a game ([thing=40849][/thing] comes to mind as one such expansion). Despite my love for expansions, they have a tendency of killing the "vanilla" version of the game. Either that, or you feel as though the original game is incomplete and you begrudgingly buy the expansion to see if it addresses your gripes. I'll give credit to both the Catan board game and the card game in that they're solid games when played on their own. In other words, you don't have to get the expansions to fully enjoy the game (even though we all know you're going to get the expansions anyway), nor is the "vanilla" version of the game spoiled once you play expansions. Well, I haven't played with the SoCCG expansions yet, so I'm referring to Catan with that last statement. SoCCG has slightly more variety than the board game due to the special event cards, the event die, and the city expansion cards, so I have to doff my cap to the card game.

You don't need to grab a bunch of Ziplocs.

From a practical standpoint, the cards and box size are nice. The box is small, and the cards are square, which requires less table space as you set up your principality. And one thing I immediately noticed was how the box wasn't crammed full of pieces. Catan Board Game has a lot of pieces to set up before each game, and that number only increases if you add players or add an expansion. So, that's a nice benefit for people who want to pick a game off the shelf, play it, and put it away with as little set-up time as possible. I do wish the box insert had more spots to put cards. I'll admit it: I've been spoiled by Dominion's box layout, so I can't help but feel a bit disappointed when I have to separate out cards into piles.

The square cards work really well in the context of the game. To keep track of your resources, you simply rotate the resource card and have the number of resources pointing at yourself. To spend, spin the card down the appropriate number of resources. It's simple and effective, but as I mentioned before, it allows your opponent to see your resources.

If I was to compare the gameplay mechanics of the card game and board game, I think I would say I like the card game more. SoCCG is just a better-made game in that regard. There are more surprises, more strategies, and more ways to achieve victory. However, SoCCG loses the fun trading aspect of the original game, so I won't say that SoCCG is overall better than the board game, only that the mechanics are better.

When it all boils down, I'm very glad I finally played The Settlers of Catan Card Game. It's fairly light, yet I'm always satisfied at the end of the game whether I've won or lost (though winning feels especially satisfying). It is a very confrontational game, so I need to be in a good mood in order to enjoy it. Otherwise, I get frustrated too easily. A worthy buy in my book. If only I had played this ten years ago...

Review: Call It A Day:: Fun for a Family

pupq — Thu, 19 Nov 2009 21:40:13 +0000

by pupq

Call It a Day is a imagination game: you construct a story from a series of cards, using quick thinking and imagination to string together your narrative.

There are two types of cards:

- "Alias" cards, which give you an identitity ("cheerleader", "mad scientist", "video game player")

- "Activity" cards, which have actions or situations ("going to the bank", "using scissors", "raising a white flag")

You are dealt a single alias card and several activity cards. In the basic game, you play down your alias card and begin a story: "As a mad scientist, I have a secret lab buried in my basement". You then play your activity cards, adding to the story as you go: ".. Of course, all this equipment costs money, so I have to go to the bank often for cash withdrawls--I couldn't write checks with 'Secret equipment' on the memo line, now could I?"

There are several rulesets provided with the game, from the most straightforward (where you choose the cards yourself, in the order you want) to more interesting variations (such as where you turn over your facedown, so-far-unseen activity cards, not sure what activity you'll have to thread in until it comes. There's also a variation where other people play activity cards to you, so that you have to work in their suggested activities into your growing narrative.

The Components

The game ships in a 7-sided box (interesting, but sure to annoy the OCD storage people). It contains hundreds of activity cards and dozens of alias cards, which are decent quality. The components are fine, neither detracting nor adding anything particular.

The Game

This is essentially a party game, and the type of party game where the "game" part is pretty thin. Much like [thing=74]Apples to Apples[/thing], it's essentially a group activity that, in the right group, can be amusing and entertaining--but, in the wrong group, could be leaden.

I've played three times: once with a mixed-age group including two children and three adults, once with a group of gamers at a game store, and once with my partner. In the mixed-age group, it was lots of fun--the kids, in particular, enjoyed the chance to shine in a social situation, mixing in their imagination and humor. The adults enjoyed the game of telling their stories and encouraging the kids.

With the all-adult crowd of almost-strangers, it fell rather flat: everyone scored the same number of points for finishing their stories, and the stories and the experience of making up the stories didn't seem to have the same spark. It was quickly put away.

Overall

I don't own this game, but, if I had kids in the 7-16 year old range or played with them often, I'd consider getting it. It's a nice change from party games that rely on trivia or wordplay, or where kids have a significant disadvantage over adults.

Review: Pandemic: On the Brink:: A look at the new roles and special events

MrScaryMuffin — Thu, 19 Nov 2009 21:25:51 +0000

by MrScaryMuffin

There are already some really good reviews for On the Brink and its various challenges. So I thought I would go a different route and take a look specifically at the new roles and special events.

General Notes
As usual, roles are selected blind and randomly. With more roles to choose from, games can be a bit harder since the more powerful roles will see less play. If you are playing with fewer players, chances are worse.

In playing with fewer players, you actually make the game harder for yourself. According to the new rules, in a two player game, only 4 random special event cards will be added to the deck, instead of the usual 5. This makes the game a bit more interesting since you cannot rely on things like One Quiet Night or Air Lift to come up and save the day.

]]>
Meet the Team

Containment Specialist: When you enter a city with 2 or more cubes of the same color, remove 1 cube
Once a cure is found, the Medic gains what I call "Jesus touch," the ability to heal just by being there. The Containment Specialist is a much weaker version of that. If there is ever a chain outbreak, she can be very useful, especially with a Dispatcher around as well. However, her ability is a bit too specific and defense orientated. It does little to help complete the game's objectives.

Generalist: You get 5 actions to spend each turn
The Generalist is actually a fairly decent role as you get 5 actions per player card draw, which will add up and stack the odds in your favour. But like the Containment Specialist, the Generalist lacks any real capacity in helping you get those cures faster.

Operations Expert: You may build a Research Station in your current city for one action. Once per turn at a Research Station you may spend an action and discard any city card to move to any city
At the very start of the game, the Operations Expert is incredibly powerful thanks to his new ability. With two actions and a single discard, he can build a research station anywhere in the world. This also opens up the option for a quick trade and vaccine as other players can shuttle over to the city and trade the card of that city.

Throughout the game, the Operations Expert can open up ways for people to move and trade cards quickly and easily. As long as you have an Archivist around, you won't have to worry about all his random discards either. As a kind of Researcher/Dispatacher hybrid, the Operations Expert is not spectacular at either job, but provides tonnes of options that will be appreciated.

Troubleshooter: At your turn's start, peek at the number of cards on top of the Infection Draw Pile equal to the current infection rate. When performing a Direct Flight action, you reveal but do not discard the card.
Having a constant forecast on the Troubleshooter's turn is more often than not neglible as you should almost always be striving to cure those triple cubed cities anyways. His other ability, however, does allow him to trade cards in a timely fashion, which is not so bad.

Epidemiologist: Once per turn (on your turn only) you may spend an action to take a non-matching city card from a player whose pawn is in the city you are in.
A weak reverse Researcher who cannot take cards outside their own turn? No thank you. The only time that the Epidemiologist is worthwhile having is at the start of the game, when all the other players can pool their cards together for a quick vaccine. At any time, the odds that another player is close to a vaccine is always better than the single Epidemiologist player being close to a vaccine. However, if there is no Researcher, but there is a Dispatcher or Operations Expert, then the Epidemiologist can act as the middleman and help two other players pool cards together at the cost of one round of turns.

Field Operative: Once per turn you may spend an action to move 1 cube from your current city to your Role Card. You may Cure a Disease following normal rules but using only 3 cards plus 3 matching cubes from your Role Card.
Offering an alternate method of creating vaccines and a better cure method makes the Field Operative a fairly decent role. Keep in mind that the Field Operative can always return the cubes on his role card back to the supply if necessary, so there is no real cost to it at all.

Archivist: Your hand limit is 8 cards. Once per turn, you may spend an action to draw your current city's card from the Player Discard Pile.
The Archivist gives a lot of options to the team. The hand size doesn't really come into play that much as it would if it was for the Scientist. However, the ability to pull cards back from the discard pile makes the Archivist into a makeshift Operations Expert, Troubleshooter, Epidemiologist, and Researcher as cards can fly around without worry about dwindling the odds of drawing a specific colour.

New Roles Overall
There is a pretty good mish-mash of new roles. Some are pretty much useless while others give plenty of options that allows players to tackle familiar situations from a different angle, adding fun and replayability to the game. There is still nothing as overpowered as the Medic and Dispatcher, however, but this is probably a good thing as people have been craving a bigger challenge. In that regards, On the Brink delivers.

]]>
Brand New Lifesavers Flavours

Special Orders: During this turn, the current player may move one other player's pawn (with permission) as if it were his own.
A half-Dispatcher special card is not that bad depending on what roles are in play at the moment. It's too bad that one cannot use the hand of another player and complete that vaccine that was one action away.

New Assignment: Any player (including the current player) may discard their current Role card and select a new one from the unused ones in the box.
One of the most overpowered special cards available simply because it gives you access to the overpowered roles. Definitely a lifesaver, and maybe a balancer for the increase in the number of roles, but hacks the challenge of a game in half.

Mobile Hospital: The current player may remove 1 cube from every city he Drive/Ferries to during this turn
Hasn't come up in a game yet for me, but looks to be another weaker "Jesus touch" ability that is useful in very specific situations (chain outbreaks).

Borrowed Time: The current player may take 2 additional actions this turn
Very powerful, especially if played at the right time. A great addition to the game as it forces you to weigh your choices frequently. Sometimes games are played with the card never leaving your opening hand because you are still waiting for the best time to use it. That sort of agony improves the gaming experience.

Rapid Vaccine Deployment: Play immediately after a cure is discovered to remove up to 5 cubes of the cured disease. These cubes must come from connected cities.
Pretty much useless as the conditions and situations for using it is too restrictive.

Remote Treatment: Remove any two cubes from the board. Play at any time during any turn before the infection phase of that turn begins.
Not too bad but hardly a lifesaver.

Re-examined Research: The current player may draw any one city card from the Player Discard Pile and add it to his hand
Commercial Travel Ban: The Infection Rate becomes 1 until the start of the current player's next turn
A good pseudo-Archivist card that gives lots of leeway for vaccine development. Also gives lots of options as you can build an operation station, get the city card back and cure.

Special Events Overall
There is a good mix in here and not knowing what specials are coming to you makes the game more tense and interesting. However, adding two cards per player to the deck may be a bit too much as it seems that they come up all the time and get abused too much for an easy victory. However, if you're playing Legendary, I doubt you will complain.

New Cards Overall
While there are some weaker cards in the batch, the new cards do add a good amount of variance and replayability to Pandemic. More options and a bit more randomness doesn't hurt the game at all. Even if it was just based on these cards, I would still recommend getting On the Brink.

Review: Kingsburg - To Forge a Realm:: A good game just got better!

halbower — Thu, 19 Nov 2009 21:22:12 +0000

by halbower

Kingsburg is my favorite gateway game. I have found no better game to connect the nongamer with our hobby. Having said that, Kingsburg had a few flaws, most notably the winter combat die roll. Well, to their credit, designers [person=6838][/person] and [person=8106][/person] have responded. The result: Kingsburg first expansion--and it's a dandy!

The rules for the expansion are a mere eight pages long. They are in full color with lots of accompanying diagrams. The artwork in the rulebook is quite nice. Even the pages themselves are yellowed like they are from an age-old parchment.

The rules come with five modules. These modules each come with a complement of game pieces. Players are allowed to add these modules ala carte. This is nice. You can sweeten the game to satisfy any sweet tooth.

Module 1 is the replacement building mats. I recommend this module. Instead of five building rows, the expansion gives alternate building mats with seven rows. This allows for a lot more strategy and more synergy!

The top and bottom rows are new. Also the alternate building mats are lettered from A to G. This is used with Module 2.

Module 2 are alternate bulding rows. The game comes with overlays so that your particular building mat can be different from your opponents'. The overlays are of the same quality material that the full size mats are made of, some sort of paper stock with a vinyl or rubberized back. These should endure quite a bit of wear.

The alternate building rows are lettered from A to G. When choosing to play with an alternate building row you must lay the alternate row over top of its counterpart. I highly recommend using this module as well.

Module 3 are the new governor cards. Players may select a governor card from a amongst a hand that they receive at game start. The governors do various things from granting resources to adding combat strenght to your city.

The governor cards are made of high quality linen. They should hold up well to lots of playing. Personally: I'm not that impressed with the governors. Some of them seem unbalanced. They will add more replayability to the game but at the cost of more randomness.

Module 4 are the destiny cards. The destiny cards are various random events that affect the kingdom. Maybe the king will get sick. Or a famine may strike when you least expect it.

As a matter of personal taste, I think there is enough randomness in Kingsburg so I don't recommend the destiny cards. Those who like the governor cards will almost certainly like the destiny cards.

Module 5 are the soldier tokens. These tokens are a huge improvement! During the winter battle, players will select a token from their remaining soldier tokens. The tokens are numbered from 0 to 4. This value replaces the king's support die roll. This gives players a stronger strategic impact on the winter battle. There are six tokens for each player. There are only five winter battles. The extra soldier token you have left over is converted into victory points equal to its soldier value. Thus if you can keep that "4" soldier token, you will be awarded 4 victory points at the end of the game.

This module is my favorite. I highly recommend it to anybody who has played the base game and dismissed it. This module will bring you back to Kingsburg!

The production values of this expansion are quite nice. But what else would you expect from Fantasy Flight? But aside from the production values, the modifications to the game are stellar. This module is for anyone who likes Kingsburg or who found a few issues with Kingsburg. Come back to Kingsburg: the realm needs forging!

Review: Walter Wick Can You See What I See?:: Kid Game Review: Can You See What I See?

gamemark — Thu, 19 Nov 2009 20:49:40 +0000

by gamemark

Good games for younger kids are hard to come by. Most of them are simple memory variants or spin'n'move (or roll'n'move) games, gussied up with some kind of licensed tie-in.I'm happy that while Can You See What I See? is a licensed tie-in (to the book series by Walter Wick), it doesn't feel like standard kid game fare. At the same time, it's simple enough for small kids to join in & play right along with everyone else at the table.

The game is easy to learn. Each player is dealt 10 "Keep Me" cards, each of which have 4-5 overlapping objects pictured on them. (With two players, each player gets 12 "Keep Me" cards.) Then you turn over the top tile in the "Find Me" deck, which has one object on it. Players who have that object on one or more of their "Keep Me" cards get to discard them. The first player to discard all of their cards wins.

I know what you're thinking... I can hear your thoughts shooting through the Internet. (Either that, or I left a podcast running on my iTunes.) Seriously, I know that doesn't sound like much. But my 4 year old son asks for it on a regular basis... and my wife & I actually enjoy playing it with him.

I have some theories about why this works as well as it does:

•It is really well-made. Games published here in the USA (esp. those for kids) tend to be made out of flimsy cardboard & cheap cardstock. The cards & tiles here are thick and beautifully printed.
•It is not terribly difficult to find the various objects... but does require a little bit of work from younger players. The designers have wisely calibrated that difficulty so that kids have the joy of discovery without the frustration of not being able to play well.
•Honestly, it's a Bingo variant... and, though Bingo is barely a game, it's easy to enjoy the tension of "will the number I need be drawn next?" That's the heart of Can You See What I See?
•Another excellent bit of design - the game is short enough to invite multiple plays in one sitting.

The game also includes a set of advanced rules, in which player have hands of tiles and claim cards from a central tableau. There's a little more "game" with these rules, but I think the game really shines with the base game & younger players.

For more kid game reviews, check out my blog at http://akapastorguy.blogspot.com.

Review: At Full Throttle:: Kid Game Review: At Full Throttle

gamemark — Thu, 19 Nov 2009 20:46:23 +0000

by gamemark

[person=285]Robert Fraga[/person], the designer of At Full Throttle, is the Genius of Real-Time Gaming. He's the mad scientist behind [thing=35865]Treasure, Ready, Go![/thing], [thing=8924]Dancing Eggs[/thing], [thing=5711]Squad Seven[/thing] & [thing=25537]Trötofant[/thing]. (For the non-gamers in the audience, "real time" games are those in which players are racing against each other simaltaneously. A common real-time game that a lot of non-gamers know is Double Solitaire, also known as [thing=943]Dutch Blitz[/thing] or Ligretto.)

This time around, Mr. Fraga manages to wring an excellent little game from 14 cards, a color die & six tiny wooden cars. (There are actually 2 different fourteen card decks in the game - but you only use one at at time.) The colors on the die match the color of the six cars... and the pictures of the cars on each of the cards. Every card has 3 pairs of cars attached by squiggly lines that cross each other.

For each round, three cards (or more, if you're playing with the difficulty ramped up) are turned face up, then the color die is rolled. Starting on the leftmost card, players find the car that matches the color die & trace the line (mentally!) to the next car. Once they've found that car, they jump to the next card & trace the path from that car to the next car. Repeat that one more time... but when a player finds to the final car, he grabs the corresponding wooden car from the middle of the table.

The player who is correct gets one of the track cards to show that he has won a round... then you deal three new cards, roll the die & you're off to the races again. The first player to win three rounds wins the game.

Following a dashed line isn't difficult... or at least it shouldn't be difficult. But the time pressure & the competition conspire against my brain and I jump lines or mistake colors or just basically have a couple of synapses blow out, thus giving my son the opening he needs to beat me.

Once you've mastered the basic skills needed to play the game, you can move up to the second deck of cards, where the lines are MUCH more twisty. You can also play with longer races (more cards in the tableau).

The age recommendation (5+) seems spot on - my 4 year old thinks the cars look cool but otherwise doesn't enjoy this, while my 8 year old enjoys beating his old man and chortling about it. I especially like how portable it is - it's in a smaller box to start with & could easily be transferred to a baggie to make a great "waiting somewhere" game.

For more kid game reviews, check out my blog, http://akapastorguy.blogspot.com/.

Review: Hungry Wolves:: Kid Game Review: Hungry Wolves

gamemark — Thu, 19 Nov 2009 20:44:53 +0000

by gamemark

One of my favorite Haba games from 2008 was the delightful push-your-luck dice game, [thing=34381]Cheese Snatching[/thing], which was part of the "Bring-Along" line from Haba. ("Bring-Along" is Haba-ese for "small yellow box that's slightly larger than a paperback book.") So when I saw that Haba was doing another dice game, I was very excited.

Hungry Wolves isn't a push-your-luck game, however... it's a real-time race, complete with player making animal noises & rushing about the room like, well, hungry wolves. It's also an absolute blast to play.

Each player gets a single custom die & a wooden dog. The board is put together (it's a 4 piece puzzle - it's not daunting, ok? My 4 year old can do it) and the dogs are placed on the track at an equal distance from each other. (A nice touch from the folks at Haba: the board is double sided. One side is for 2 players & the other side is for 3-4 players.) The sheep counters are placed next to the board... or, if you're the Jackson family, they're placed on the sheep pictures on the board, because that's the way Collin likes it.

At an agreed-upon signal (you can yell "Go!" or shake your fists a la Rock/Paper/Scissors while saying "Woof! Woof! Woof!"), all the players begin rolling their dice & doing the appropriate action:

•If a player rolls a dog, he says "Woof!" and moves his dog one space forward.
•If a player rolls a sheep, he says "Baa!" and does not move.
•If a player rolls a wolf, he runs around the table. (Or, if space is tight, he stands up & spins around.)

Players roll & do their various actions simultaneously... and as quickly as possible. There are no turns, per se... as fast as you can roll, make animal noises & do whatever you're supposed to do, you can roll again.

When one of the dogs catches up to another dog, the player yells "Stop!" and the round ends. The player who ended the round gets a sheep token and the game is reset for another round of controlled mayhem. The first player to get three sheep tokens wins the game.

It is as loud & crazy as you can imagine... and kids as young as 4 can easily join in the fun. What's unusual with Hungry Wolves is that it works as well with 2 players as it does with 3 or 4 - typically, raucous "run around the table" games don't work as well with smaller numbers of players.

As always, games like this come with the standard "don't play in a room full of collectible knickknacks or valuable electronics" warning. Of course, I think that's a feature, not a bug.

For more kid game reviews, check out my blog, http://akapastorguy.blogspot.com/.

Review: Ca$h 'n Gun$ - les Yakuzas:: I'd rather be playing Live

MrScaryMuffin — Thu, 19 Nov 2009 20:21:03 +0000

by MrScaryMuffin

The Yakuzas expansion for Cash 'n Guns is an interesting idea in concept, but has a lot of things going against it that makes it hard for me to recommend buying the expansion to anyone.

Overview
Yakuzas expands the game to accommodate up to 9 players, who are split into three teams. Two teams keep the signature foam pistols from the original game while the third team are the yakuzas and get foam swords and ninja stars.

For the most part, the game plays the same. The pot is revealed, people load up a bullet/sword card and the Godfather counts down from three, whereupon everyone points their weapon at another player in a chaotic Mexican standoff. After another count of three, players immediately throw their hands up or shout BANZAI! and hope that they won't die.

Cowards gain a shame token, but Yakuzas lose a finger, symbolic of lost honour. Any player that was victim to a loaded weapon takes damage and, along with the cowards, sit out of the split. If any portion of the pot can be split evenly among the survivors, then it is done so. Left over cash is added to the next round's pot.

The major changes in the game come from the yakuzas and from the team play itself. At the start of the game, you meet in secret with your team to discuss strategies. At this time, secret signals to your teammates are used. Things like placing a bullet card right side up = real bullet, and touching your right knee to indicate the target being the person on your right helps to synchronize attacks, making them more scarier and effective.

At the half point of the game, your team gets to meet again to finalize plans. The winners of the game are determined by the team with the most cash.

As for the yakuzas, aside from losing fingers, they are also hampered by their weapons somewhat. Their swords can only attack those immediately next to them. However, they do get one ninja star card that allows them to stand up, take three steps back, and physically throw it at another player. Should it hit a player (even a teammate!) that player takes damage.

Convicts
Most of the fun and enjoyment that can be had with the original Cash 'n Guns is still in Yakuza. However, there are a few things that ruin it. I personally feel that adding the Yakuza characters changed the game unnecessarily. It would have been more fun if everyone were the same. The Yakuza expansion is a lot like the Cities and Knights expansion for Settlers of Catan to me, it changed the game so that it lost a bit of its soul and original appeal. Of course, this is a subjective thing and some people absolutely love the swords.

The other thing that Yakuzas did to Cash 'n Guns that doesn't agree with me is lengthening the game. The two meetings and eight rounds makes the game go way too long. This is bad for any players knocked out early on in the game as they will have nothing to do while the eight other players continue. The original Cash 'n Guns game could be played out in 20-30 minutes, but eight rounds for 9 players is just a bit too much.

Conclusion
What really works against Yakuza is Cash 'n Guns Live, the party version of the game, which works great when you have too many people to play the original game. There are only five rounds in Cash 'n Guns Live and players are never eliminated. Games play out chaotically and quickly and people are normally up for another round.

While Yakuza changes the base game too much with unnecessary complications and lengthiness, a better alternative for your money is available in Live. This is why I find it hard to recommend Yakuza, as there is something much better that will give you more bang for your buck.

Review: Battlestar Galactica: Pegasus Expansion:: Four player hostile cylon leader balance, any thoughts?

jrhawk003 — Thu, 19 Nov 2009 20:08:19 +0000

by jrhawk003

Since obtaining the Pegasus expansion I have only played a few times. The most interesting times have been the cylon leader gets the sympathetic agenda in a four/six player game or they pull the hostile in a five player game. However in the case where the cylon leader pulls one of the two agendas that go the other direction I have had less than spectacular results. For instance this game:
Zarek (Jeremy)
Tigh (Dylan)
Starbuck (Michelle)
Caprica 6 (Sara)

I went first which was good considering the cylon leader goes last. Once we got to Sara her true nature was revealed. She pulled the objective where the cylons win and less than two Galatica locations are damaged. Usually that is not even an issue. She didn't hide that she was not on our side. After her turn we got a total of six new attacks. Toward the end of the first jump we had two attacks, however we used the engine room prior to one to get a jump. The human players decided that we should just jump the ship even if it cost one pop, which it didn't. So a distance of 2 and we got another few attacks.

We had trouble fending off the attacks as Caprica 6 was using the fleet every turn. Good for her. We lost several civilian ships due to attacs. A this point I believe this is where we made the mistake. We decided, mostly my fault, that we should just jump to get to the clear. Before the sleeper phase we were all human, which is what I figured, so by getting to the sleeper phase quickly we were now playing a two against two. I figured that we still need to give ex orders to be effiecent and figure out who the cylon was. Well Tigh let me know by throwing me in the brig (I suppose Zarek belongs there anyway) and that is where me and Starbuck spent most of the rest of the game watching the dials run down till we lost. We didn't even get to new Caprica that game.

When the four player game is a two against two with the cylon leader against you from the beginning, it would seem that the humans don't have a chance, especially if the other cylon gets their card. The 4/6 player cylon agends are too easy. They usually happen when the cylons win anyway. I think that they should have to balance helping the humans long enough to still try to destroy them. In a five player game if the cylon leader gets a human objective then it is a four against one and the cylon doesn't stand a chance, especially if they get it during the sleeper phase.

My thoughts for the four player game is if the cylon leader is trying to destory you and you believe everyone is human, this is the one instance that you should try to make the game last a few jumps to get cards. As for the other instances, it would seem that you should die as quickly as possible and play another round. Any thoughts?

Review: Domaine:: Deep and engaging game of medieval conquest

halbower — Thu, 19 Nov 2009 15:05:19 +0000

by halbower

Domaine is a game of medieval conquest. Players take on the roles of powerful dukes to create the most valuable domaines in the land by claiming mines, villages and forests. When the game ends, one player will win the king's favor and be declared the winner.

Domaine was designed by [person=11][/person]. Why does that name sound familiar? Because Teuber happens to be the designer of the ubiquitous "Catan" seriers. After designing [thing=13][/thing], Teuber did not rest on his laurels. He went back to the grindstone and created Domaine--and it is deep, engaging game!

The game comes equipped with a robust storage system. All the components have a proper place in the tray. Kudos to publisher Mayfair Games!

The game pieces are durable polystyrene. Each player has a complement of castle and knights. The material should hold up to years of playing. The game board is a thick cardboard which is also high quality. This fine game has worthy components.

Players attempt to create the most valuable domaines in the land. Each domaine a player controls is worth victory points. The player with the highest victory point total at the end of the game is declared the winner.

Domaine has a card driven combat engine. There are four decks of action cards. Players draw from the decks in order. When the "A" deck is exhausted, the "B" deck is drawn from...and so on. The actions available on the cards have a cost in ducats. As players progress from the "A" deck to the final "D" deck, the cost in ducats increases, thus forcing players to be more judicious in their strategic choices.

Players have a choice of two different actions: sell an action card to the chancery, collecting some ducats; or play an action card by paying the ducat cost. After completing this action, players draw a card from the top of the deck or choose a card from the chancery. Each card has two values on it: one is the value when sold, the other is the cost when played. Sold cards are placed in the chancery.

There are five different actions depicted on the action cards. These actions are build borders, recruit knight, expand, deserter and alliance. To create a domaine, you must have a castle (and their complement of knights) completely enclosed by borders. To expand or resist expansion, you must recruit knights. To gain victory points, you will want to expand your domaines, usually at the sake of your opponents' weakly held domaines. You can play a deserter in order to force your opponent to lose a knight while gaining a knight yourself. When you play an alliance card, you place a border piece sideways. The two domaines this border piece stradles may not expand into each other the rest of the game. Some action cards have multiple actions on them. Players decide which of the two actions they want to execute.

By using these action cards, players will attempt to eke out a collection of valuable domaines. The value of a domaine is based upon the territories it has. Forests are worth 1 point; villages are worth 3; and the royal city is worth 5. When you claim a territory, you score the points immediately. If you lose the territory due to an opponent's expansion, you lose the point immediately.

In addition to the scoring squares, there are mines. Players gain ducats based upon how many different types of mines they control, up to four. This will help assuage your need to sell cards to the chancery. Also, if control three or more of a type of mine, you gain 5 victory points. This will keep players at each other's throats!

The game ends when the action card decks are exhausted or when a player scores a certain victory point total. This total depends upon the number of players.

Domaine is good game. The pieces are of high quality. The board is changeable, giving the game more replayability. The learning curve is quite small. Probably not the best gateway game but still accessible to the non-gamer. Domaine plays 2 to 4 players but plays 3 players best. I recommend Domaine to anyone looking to add a three player game to their collection!

Review: Kaleidos:: [French] Presentation of Kaleidos with video !

FabienC — Thu, 19 Nov 2009 14:21:09 +0000

by FabienC

Cet article est paru originellement sur Joca.ch

Voici une présentation d'un jeu très simple qui est basé sur le même principe que le petit bac : Kaleidos.

Vous pouvez voir la présentation complète du jeu sur cette vidéo avec Fabien en présentateur.

Vimeo Video

En gros, chaque équipe a la même image devant elle. Une carte est retournée et elle indique la première lettre des mots qu'il va falloir trouver.

]]>
Le matériel du jeu

On retourne le sablier et hop, c'est parti ! On se dépêche, on se stresse et on essaie de trouver le plus de mots qui se trouvent sur l'image et qui commencent par la lettre. Sauf que dans les mots, il peut y avoir des concepts, des prénoms, des adjectifs... et du coup, il va falloir justifier tout ça lors de la phase de lecture.

]]>
Les images regorgent d'une multitude de détails.
À chaque nouvelle partie, on découvre de nouveaux détails qui nous avaient échappés jusque-là

En effet, chaque joueur, un à un, lit les mots qu'il a trouvés. Certains mots sont acceptés d'office (par exemple, si un arrosoir apparaît sur l'image, il n'y a pas à discuter sur le mot "arrosoir"). D'autres par contre vont devoir être justifiés :

- "Mais oui, voyons, la petite fille sur l'image à l'air assommante !"
- "Mais non ! Elle a l'air plutôt aguicheuse"

Et tout le fun du jeu est là. Mis à part la phase de stress qui résulte parfois en une belle page blanche ("Euh... j'ai pas trouvé un seul mot"), la deuxième phase la plus drôle est bien celle des justifications. Et la mauvaise foi est évidemment de mise !

Pour compter les points, c'est très simple. Vous recevez 3 points pour un mot qui est accepté, si vous êtes le seul à l'avoir trouvé. Par contre, vous recevez 1 point pour un mot qui a été trouvé par d'autres joueurs.

Vous faites autant de manches que vous le voulez et l'équipe qui a marqué le plus de points à la fin gagne.

Je vous ai présenté ici un jeu rapide, drôle et qui peut se jouer à beaucoup. D'ailleurs pour qu'il soit vraiment intéressant, il FAUT jouer à beaucoup. Une extension avec quelques images supplémentaires sera disponible dès le 20 novembre.

2 à 12 joueurs, dès 10 ans, env. 35 €

Quelques photos prises lors d'une soirée jeux Joca à Genève:

Review: Neuroshima Hex!:: That's one game that didn't get the acclaim it deserved!

brunogaia — Thu, 19 Nov 2009 13:50:13 +0000

by brunogaia

When I play Neuroshima (usually with my loving partner whso might more of a fan of the game than me) that's exactly hat I think:
Why didn't it get universal acclaim?
It deserved at least as much buzz as Dominion and I LOVE Dominion, so it's not a way of belittleing that brilliant game.
Neuroshima makes tiles games reach new levels and, what is more important, it makes itself reach new levels every time you open the box again.
Apart from being a fast-paced game of tile positionning, I think Neuroshima Hex is one of the best games I've seen when it comes to learning curve.
As you start playing, the game is almost undecipherable for three to ten plays.
Violence is here, and the feeling of the fight lingers, but you stay in the fog when it comes to strategy most of the time.
But as you master the game's subtleties, the randomness that you felt at the beginning fades away (not totally though, it's not chess that's for sure) and leaves its place to an extremely satisfying sense of improvement.
I've played NH for more than a thousand games altogether (both off and online) and I'm still not bored of it, and that means a lot to me cause games usually lose their interest to me after less thana hundred plays or so (the best ones I mean, the others lose their interest after the first game of course...)
Neuroshima is violent and set in a univers that certainlky could be a put off for many people, but, just like my girlfriend did, you should try it nonetheless. Look at my sweet heart: she began saying "what are those mad-max like people you brought?" and ended playing ten games a day online like mad until she stopped because (I quote) she had played it oo much (with more than a thousand games online on the site that provides NH on the web... to be added to the numerous plays we had together...)
NH is clever and makes you feel cleverer and cleverer as you keep on playing it. That's not something we often see those days!

BG

Review: Power Grid - Factory Manager:: Factory Manager - not just another power grid map :)

eikejmeyer — Thu, 19 Nov 2009 13:40:15 +0000

by eikejmeyer

As a fan of the original [thing=2651]Power Grid[/thing] I was more than happy to get my hands on the successor at the Spiel 09 in Essen. In this review I will try to give an overview of the elements of Factory Manager (FM) and go into a comparison between FM and Power Grid (PG), since the name of FM implies more relations between the two games then there eventually are.

Overview
Each player takes up the role of a manager and must balance the different elements of his factory:
- workload, which is performed by 7 workers and up to 2 seasonal workers
- production capacity, which is mainly effected by machines
- storage capacity
- power usage, depending on the amount and quality of technical equipment in your factory
and of course his cash (the good old elektro from PG).

The game runs for 5 rounds, each consisting of 5 phases. The player with most elektro at the end wins.
Phases:
1. bid for turn order
2. fill market with machines and storage space
3. buy from the market
4. update factory settings (production, workers, storage, energy consumption)
5. receive income

Game dynamics
Workers - There are only 7 workers available and these are needed for bidding on the turn order marker, fill the market, buy and install / uninstall machines and running your production. So there is always more than enough workload available and you have to choose carefully where the manpower is needed most.

The factory inventory - Buying new inventory for your factory is crucial to success, but in order to maximize your long term revenue you must decide carefully wether to invest in storage, machines, computers; as each influence your factories capabilities. A good balance between production and capacity and low energy consumption are important as well. Otherwise you will end up seeing half of your hard earned money being spent for paying your electricity bill.

Growing energy price - The energy price is the multiplier for your energy consumtion to calculate your costs. It starts off at 1 and will continue to rise throughout the game (between 0 and 2 per round). You should keep it in mind as you starting building up those big production capacities in your house...

Summary - Factory Manager compared to Power Grid
With the round limit comes also the most obvious and important difference between both games:

Factory Manager is considerably shorter and depends a lot more on taking opportunities (especially factory inventory) as they come than planning for the perfect collection of plants you will need in the end. So flexibility is key to success. Most of our games took about half the time we spend on power grid, which means about 1 hour instead of 2h.

Both games have a bidding mechanism at the start of each round, but during later phases Factory Manager challenges you with its greater complexity as you have to manage more aspects than in PG (energy consumption,workload,production,storage, factory space vs. resource market, cities and power output).

In the end, FM is also less beginner friendly: the least successful player doesn't get much of a bonus as income is rising consistently. So mistakes will cost you dearly, but success is also fairly rewarded. In PG this was very different, where it was actually often more rewarding to generate less income.

Personal Opinion
In my opinion, both games deliver their own flavour to the gaming table. Factory Manager is my personal favourite as it brings many good aspects from Power Grid along with the dynamics I have loved in games like Year of the dragon, where the strategy is often more damage containment. The higher complexity along with the quick and intense game feeling will definitely keep me coming back for more!

Review: Carson City - The Indian:: Review: The Indian personality card, it's effects and impact on the base game

Uncle G — Thu, 19 Nov 2009 13:28:24 +0000

by Uncle G

Review

The Indian bonus personality card

Overview

The Indian is an expansion for Carson City. It was given away as a promotional item at Essen 2009 to those who pre-ordered the base game. I don’t know what subsequent availability will be.

Where it fits with the base game

Carson City comes with seven personality cards (Sheriff, Banker, Grocer, Chinese Coolie, Settler, Captain and Mercenary), each of which is double sided.

]]>

At the start of each turn players select one of these role cards, and receive a certain benefit. Since each role is double sided, the players must agree before the game begins which side of the personality is in use for each game.

The Indian is an eighth personality card which can be added seamlessly to the existing cards, and provides an additional option for the players.

The abilities of The Indian personality card

As with all the personality cards, The Indian is double sided. The rules refer to the [BGCOLOR=#FFFF00]yellow[/BGCOLOR] side (recommended for beginners) and the [BGCOLOR=#FF0000]red[/BGCOLOR] side. The colour is indicated by the colour of the number at the top of the card.

All personality cards have numbers which reflect their impact on the turn order. The Indian is numbered 8, which means that if selected the player will go last when placing his/her cowboys.

If the [BGCOLOR=#FFFF00]yellow[/BGCOLOR] side is being used, The Indian gives the player two parcels of land, randomly determined through the roll of the dice.

If the [BGCOLOR=#FF0000]red[/BGCOLOR] side is being used, The Indian limits the price a player must pay when buying parcels of land to $3. the player may buy more than one parcel of land, and each one would cost $3.

Normally the price of land is calculated as $1 plus a dollar for each adjacent mountain, house or building, and in central locations this can be expensive.

]]>

The Impact of the Indian

The Indian is obviously a nice thing to have, and there will be people (like me) who will enjoy having the extras which surround a game. Having said that, while it’s nice to feel that you own a complete set, I don’t feel the Indian changes Carson City significantly.

In the games that I have played, and in session reports I have read, The Indian does get selected and can form part of a winning strategy. However the effects seem to be balanced with the other personality cards so the gaming experience isn’t really affected.

The main thing to note about The Indian is that it is the only personality card (on the [BGCOLOR=#FFFF00]yellow[/BGCOLOR] side) which provides benefits equivalent to TWO actions (most only provide benefits equivalent to one.

For example, The Sheriff provides an extra cowboy which may (with certain restrictions) be placed in the same way as any other cowboy, and may not be challenged. The net effect is approximately the same as one extra cowboy.

Similarly, The Settler provides one free parcel of land. The plus side is that the land is free, but the minus side is that the extra action HAS to be used to gain a parcel of land. The net effect is approximately the same as one extra cowboy.

The same is true for most of the other personality cards. The Mercenary provides the same benefit as placing a cowboy on the ammunition spot (3 extra firepower) – equivalent to one extra cowboy. The Banker and The Grocer (in their simple form) provide extra money equivalent to a good roll on the gambling income action space – again equivalent to one extra cowboy. The notable exception is The Captain which provides an affect which cannot be simulated by placing a cowboy.

However, The Indian clearly provides a benefit which can only be simulated by placing two cowboys, through the acquisition of two parcels of land. This is potentially game breaking, but has been handled by making the placement random, by giving the player the lowest position in the turn order and by having a low cash limit.

The random placement is interesting. I believe there are three different strategies, which I term the Hotel – Saloon; Ranch – Drugstore and the Mine – Bank. Each of these are dependent on obtaining the right pieces of land to be most effective, and for each strategy the requirements are subtly different. The Indian may therefore provide a significant advantage if the player is lucky, and the land they receive works with one of these strategies, but may find themselves with land placements which don’t really work with any of the strategies.

Opinion

I like The Indian and will play with it as standard – I can’t imagine any reason for not including it – especially with 4 or 5 players where the increased number of roles available for selection will be a benefit.

However I don’t feel that the experience of playing Carson City is diminished by not having it. This card is a ‘nice-to-have’ rather than a ‘must-have’. And it would be easy enough to make your own copy if you really wanted to include it in your game, although the quality of component would be difficult to simulate.

Rating

Review: San Juan:: Great 2-player game!

UanarchyK — Thu, 19 Nov 2009 12:51:35 +0000

by UanarchyK

After some research, I decided to buy my gaming-inclined girlfriend San Juan for her birthday. From reading the reviews, I felt pretty certain she'd like it, but what I didn't expect is how much I would like it...

Overview
In San Juan, the players compete to have buildings worth the most by game end. I won't delve into the gritty details as I'm sure other reviews will have covered that -- and if they haven't, you can simply read the rules on RGG's website [which are VERY well written].

First Impressions
The first game you play of this, you really don't have a clue about the value of various buildings. Sure, you suss that a more expensive building is better, but what to play and when isn't readily apparent. Fortunately, with the interesting mechanics and role selection, it's still fun. We both came away from our first game wanting to play again (a good sign). However, we weren't yet convinced that this wasn't a luck dominated game.

2player vs 3 or 4
In the coming days we would play more of San Juan, including 3 and 4 player games. These were enjoyable, but fell flat relative to the 2-player game. In the 2 player game you choose the role half the time, whereas in the 3 or 4 player variants you are choosing the role that much less often. Which means that all players have less influence on the game and the randomness of cards dealt comes into play more and more.

Impressions after 10+ Games
While we're both a long way off from being any good at this game, our play has gotten tighter, we're gaining an awareness of the value of cards in different situations. Cards which we inititally branded as pointless (I'm looking at you Crane) have shown their utility. Most importantly, the best player seems to consistently win (that is, the player who plays the best). This is a good sign and it suggests what I've come to suspect, that this isn't a game dominated by luck, but simply one that utilises luck to enforce new and creative gameplay.

I've fallen in love with this little game, to the point that I find myself wondering if it was really a gift for her or for me!

Pros
*Good length at 20-40 minutes
*More passive-aggressive than aggressive
*Plays well with 2
*Not too luck dependent
*While being a card game, doesn't FEEL like a card game
*Fun to play!

Cons
*Doesn't work as well with 3 or 4, doesn't support 5+
*Thin cards means worry about durability/longevity of copy
*Might not be suitable for those who want more direct interaction
*Everyone you play with will consistently whinge about this or that card being over/under powered

Review: Nostra City:: Nice, mean and clever

HavocIsHere — Thu, 19 Nov 2009 09:15:09 +0000

by HavocIsHere

When I first read about Nostra City, I thought it would be a "take that" game that i could like; I was a bit put off by the art. Well finally the art works form me, and Nostra City is much more than a "take that" game. I love it.

Bits

The art and the board layout are nicely done. While Nostra City is mostly a game played with cards (but not a "card game" in its usual acceptation), the board is definitely needed to keep track of things, and look very nice.
To nitpick, there is not perfect fit for card sleeves, and the cards do not sport that linen finish that I prefer.

Rules

The rules are clearly presented, with enough examples.
However, one might ask quite a few questions about some cards. To be fair, the rules are clear and these problems are solved by a strict application of the rules even if it might appear off at first, but a faq would have been welcomed.

Theme

The theme is very present, even though violence might be a little too subdued for some. Think "The Sopranos" and you'll be on spot.
The mechanics reflects both the usual mafia businesses and the trial of the godfather quite aptly.

The game

As I wrote in my introduction, the game's description and rules seem to describe a "take that" game and the game can be played simply like that.
However, it is actually a very clever game mixing several tried mechanics under the guise of a card game.

The game happens in six turns, each turn being a month in the trial of the godfather; the underboss players must both expand the business and try to corrupt the jury.
Each month is divided into four phases, and in each of these the player will send one or more of his lieutenants to act, so it's a bit of a worker placement game with two remarkable differences: the first difference is that this allotment will take place accross the phases, and the second is that each of the lieutenants has a specialty, a power that is activated when he is performing his usual business or that needs a separate, ad hoc activation.
The first phase consists in collecting money; each of the lieutenants owned by the player can start to gather money on a player owned turf, with one activity among drugs, girls, gambling or racketing. The player takes random cards with varying amount of money and corrupting power (either corrupting jury member to vote for innocence or guilt), one card for the number of turfs he does business on (with a matching icon) among his own and other players' turfs. Then he distributes the money, one money card for each turf thusly exploited, or, if he does not and keep the money for himself, he shows disrepects and the offended player(s) take one vendetta card for each missed money card.
The second phase is a secret auction hapenning after a discussion between the players; that is when you can expand your territory by acquiring new turfs, and when you recruit new thugs to expand the number of actions you can take. You can also buy marks of status and respect, which do nothing to improve your business, but with earn you respect points, which are very few and determine the winner (things like a yacht, a movie star mistress, or an authentic sicilian birth certificate) Some players will get nothing and thus will feel disrepected, so they will get a vendetta card.
The third phase is the corruption phase when the available lieutenants will be used to corrupt the jury.
The fourth phase is the cleanup phase.
The vendetta cards are used following the instructions on the cards.

At the end of the third month, a first trial occurs; the banknotes are tallied and the culpability marker is moved along the track representing the jury; initially it it put in the red and the players must do their best to put it in the blue (innocent) part of the track (unless they are undercover agents - more about that later).
After six month the final trial occurs and, if the godfather is innocented, the player with the most respect wins the game.
Unless of course the godfather is found guilty; then the winner will be decided among the FBI agents. You become an FBI agent if you draw one of the two snitch cards in the vendetta deck. There is also a pair of cards with the unique role of raising suspicion; the attention to detail in this game is very high.

I make it sound like it is mostly a take-that game wit a co-op element and it can be certainly played withot second thoughts.
However, by explaining a strategy of the undercover FBI agent, I hope to convince you than there is much more to that game.

When you are an FBI agent, you quickly realise that your best bet is to have a second FBI agent on the table; the way to achieve that goal is of course to make sure that all the vendetta cards got distributed, without taking too many yourself (because you could get the second snitch card).
Take heed that the stack of money cards is quite thin, and that when the re-shuffle card appears, more vendetta cards are distributed. Your aim is to control the number of available money cards low, so bid low and keep money cards between turns.
Also, sow dissension so that vendetta cards become valued. You'll find that people with a low respect might also be wanting to collect many vendetta cards in hope to change side, so disrespect them a lot!

There are also two respect points cards attributed to the player with the largest street presence, the biggest sum of money (which is quite stressful because choosing to keep money to that end is a delicate decision) and the most (unplayed) vendetta cards.

Oh and I forgot to talk about the FBI,NYPD and IRS cases cards which require collaboration to get rid off but earn respect points at the same time.
This game is full of details that you can genuinely just use as theme bits, but if you give them a second thought, you'll see how these parts fit in a coherent whole and will make you want to come back just to try something new.

Conclusion

An obvious suggestion would be to play the game while listening to an Italian opera, but the game play is so enthralling that you won't hear it anyway.

I have not tried all the famous Essen 2009 releases yet, but Nostra City will be a though game to better in this year's crop.
Not only Nostra City manages to mix a few game styles gracefully, but it can be played on differing levels, adapting to its audience.

Nostra City might be a little more complex than the usual card game but achieves much more. In my opinion, it also sports the absolute best traitor mechanism in a game; it is simple, streamlined, there is no special rule when you are a traitor; unlike Battlestar Galactica for example, it is also designed from the start to be perfectly enjoyable and challenging without a traitor!

The mix of strong theme, cooperation, competition, resource management, treason, negociation and wit makes this game really shine. I am curious to see how the game shall be received when it gets translated.

Review: Dixit:: Dixit: The Prettiest Party Game on the Block

revengeisnotjustice — Thu, 19 Nov 2009 08:18:08 +0000

by revengeisnotjustice

I bought Dixit because I picked it up in a game store, looked at the back of the box and thought, “This is gorgeous. I have to have it.” I looked in my wallet. No money!!! Oh no! I went back to the game store a few days later and it was gone. I was crushed. I put an order in for it, and then spent a bunch of time on the Dixit page looking though the images, reading and rereading every thread on Dixit’s forum. I was seriously excited about playing Dixit once I finally got it. The best part about my Dixit purchasing experience was that it lived up to the stalking I did before I bought it. It’s in my game bag every time I go to a game day, and I am always excited about a chance to play it.

How do you play Dixit?

It’s a party game where one person, the storyteller, picks a card from their hand and uses a word or phrase to describe that card. Then, each of the other players pick the card from their hands that matches the storytellers word or phrase the most closely. After each player has selected a card from his/her hand, all of the players other than the storyteller vote on which card they think prompted the clue. The catch is that if everyone or no one votes for the storyteller’s card, the storyteller gets no points, so the storyteller wants to pick a word or phrase that someone, but not everyone, will understand. It’s a delicate balance between being too obvious and being too vague.

Each player takes turns being a storyteller until the deck of cards runs out, and the person with the highest score wins.

Dixit is very accessible.

With simple rules—one page, front and back—Dixit is easy to teach to non gamers. Many people compare Dixit to Apples to Apples, and since Apples to Apples is a game many non gamers have played, describing Dixit that way can be a way of getting non gamers interested in playing Dixit. Many people find that Apples to Apples can get random and silly pretty quickly. Dixit does not suffer from that problem because there is one right answer. In that way, Dixit is really more like Balderdash.

The easiest way to get people to play Dixit is to show them the cards (or even just the gorgeous box!). The cards are irresistible in their beauty and intricacy. Also, I’d recommend having first time players go late in the turn order because it can be intimidating trying to figure out what word or phrase to choose for a first time storyteller. Having a few examples will go a long way towards giving new Dixit players confidence. These cards should illustrate what I mean about the variety and beauty of the Dixit cards.

]]>]]>

Is Dixit replayable?

Many people fear that the small number of cards will limit the replayability. Until I actually played the game, I had this fear as well. But each card has so many small details that the more it gets played, the more each storyteller will have to pick up the small details to trick the other players who have also played the game a lot. Additionally, you can play a theme game where each clue has to be a line from a movie or song or really whatever interests your group of friends or game buddies. I frequently play Dixit with people who haven’t played before, so I don’t find that I need the extra themes.

What might you not like about Dixit?

I usually play Dixit with one person I know and a group of people who haven’t played before. It can be tempting to give a clue that no one other than the person whom I know well would have a chance of understanding. I would never do that because I want to have groups of people desiring Dixit time as much as I do. But it could be a problem. I do not find it such a big problem that I would not want to play Dixit. But if I played with players that acted like that, I would probably not invite them to my Dixit game again.

Other than that, the only negative aspect I’ve found is that new players can get AP about which card to pick and what to say. Usually, the other players just chat about the last round for thirty seconds or so and then stare at the storyteller until they make a decision. It’s good to recommend to new players that they think about which card they want to use before it is their turn in order to keep the game clipping along.

When should you play Dixit?

Right now.

Seriously though, I like to play it after a heavy game to refresh and recharge. But it’s not a mindless filler. That’s what makes Dixit so invaluable to my collection, and why I recommend it to anyone looking for a party game or a filler to play with non gamers. The great thing about Dixit is that there is plenty of game for gamers, while still being approachable for non gamers or for a party atmosphere.

Review: Rummikub:: Yummy, Yummy, Yummy I've Got Kub In My Rummi : A Rummikub Review

Focuscoene — Thu, 19 Nov 2009 05:22:11 +0000

by Focuscoene

Rummikub is Rummi made simpler through the use of numbered/colored tiles instead of regular playing cards. Your goal is to take these tiles and attempt to create "runs" of either numbers of the same color in order (i.e. blue 2, blue 3, blue 4, blue 5...) or the same number in different colors (i.e. blue 2, red 2, orange 2...). The strategy comes into play because, upon placing these "runs" face-up on the table, the player can them utilize these "table runs" to make room for more tiles.

For example, if there's a run of blue numbers going 4 through 8 on the table, and the player has a blue 3 he's itching to get rid of, he can just slap it on the beginning of that run and he's gotten rid of it.

There's a whole myriad of different ways to go about manipulating these "table runs" so you can place tiles, to go into them with too much detail would make for a wretchedly boring review, so I'm going to abstain from doing so. Just know that you can end up moving around four or five different "table runs" just to place one or two tiles on the table yourself. In fact, that is what will happen. A lot.

And it can be pretty darn tricky to finangle your way into placing. You'll be doing a whole lot of brain wracking, and to be honest, it very rarely feels particularly rewarding. You're supposed to play with a two-minute timer ticking down the back of your neck. We did not. And it was still brain wracking.

Here's the deal, folks. The strategy is all in randomness and convoluted re-arranging, which honestly isn't that much fun. It's kinda fun, but only a little. Before the game was even over I was glancing at my game shelf wondering what else I wanted to play (which we never got to play because Rummikub took freaking forever to finish).

The biggest problem with this game as a strategy game is that there's no real way to make a move against my opponent. If, upon rearranging, I happen to do something that screws him over a bit, that's great. But I have no way of setting this up. To me, THAT is the whole point of strategy games. Not the re-arranging of tiles, but the re-arranging of tiles in such a way that puts your opponent in a pinch. In Rummikub, you're all in the same random pinch, and you're each just fussing about trying to get out of it. Whoever wins isn't the winner due to outmaneuvering his opponents, he's the winner because finangled something before they did.

So the ultimate question. Does Rummikub have a place on your game shelf? Honestly? No. It doesn't. If you seriously get a real itch to play something like this just bust out your deck of cards and play regular-rummi, there's no point in pretending it's an abstract strategy game. It's a luck-of-the-draw game.

Review: Runebound Second Edition:: Unboxed Review - Runebound

The Duke BGG — Thu, 19 Nov 2009 00:20:14 +0000

by The Duke BGG

Hey guys, I'm back with another Unboxed review as posted on my Blog http://unboxedbgb.blogspot.com/. Usually I try and edit the posts here to not include references about what is coming up on the blog or has been up previously, but that was a little difficult with this one as you'll see when you read it.

"Ok, so earlier this year I started researching games for my Birthday, mainly using Tom Vassel and The Dice Tower as a resource. After much weighing up of options and switching things around I managed to work out what I felt was the perfect mix of presents for Birthday and Christmas and I was really happy that I managed to squeeze both Seafarers and Runebound into my budget.

However after buying everything and wrapping it up, (I know very sad) I began to read more reviews on Board Game Geek. I could find very few people who enjoy this game with four or more (there are potentially five people in my family who would be playing) and I began to worry. This, coupled with the fact that my family can occasionally suffer from analysis paralysis, left me feeling terrified that this game would be more torturous than our nightly outings in the world of Talisman.

So now we’ve played twice… I’ll tell you how that went a little later on… but first, lets take a look at the concept.

Fantasy Adventure

So I bought Runebound because I love fantasy, in particular D&D, but most of the fantasy boardgames we own are from my own childhood and are now either too dated or too simplistic for me to enjoy. To give you an example we own Dark World, Heroquest and Dungeon. I hoped that Runebound would offer a more strategic fantasy quest that would satisfy my appetite, without excluding the members of my family that cannot comprehend complex rules.

So Runebound is a fantasy adventure where you take control of an ambiguously heroic character and attempt to stop Vorakesh from resurrecting the Dragon Margath. Each turn is like a session in D&D, while the game as a whole is comparable to a campaign.

Gameplay

The game, I think, is pretty simple. In fact I didn’t bother to explain the rules for the first game and just supplied the relevant information as we went through. Each character, monster and ally in the game has the same statistics, so once you can read one card you can read any of them. These statistics are Mind, Body and Spirit, however, as can be a little confusing, these also double up as Ranged, Melee and Magic combat. Each hero and ally also has stamina. As you power abilities or fail skill tests you will take exhaustion, if you have more exhaustion than stamina then you will start to take wound damage instead. All heroes, monsters and allies, have a number of wounds, if they take wounds equal to or exceeding their total they die, or are knocked out in the case of heroes.

The object of the game is to move about the board defeating challenges until you are powerful enough to defeat 3 dragon lords or Margath himself. You move by rolling 5 custom dice with different terrain symbols on them. If you or an ally is wounded you roll only 4 dice. The challenges themselves are colour coded based on how difficult they are. Green is easiest, followed by yellow, blue and then red.

Each deck of adventure cards contains 3 types of cards. Events, these effect everyone. Encounters, these are generally quests your hero can undertake, most give benefits for success, but some give a penalty for failure. And Challenges, these are monsters, sometimes with a skill challenge proceeding them. On your turn, if you end your turn on the same space as an adventure counter, you draw cards from the correct deck and resolve them until you resolve a challenge, then play passes to the next player.

You also have the option of visiting towns to get healed and buying items.

Combat in the game is pretty straight forward. You begin by resolving any “Before Combat” effects the challenge has, then any “Before Combat” abilities your heroes or allies wish to use. Then combat ensues. There are three phases to each combat round. Each challenge has a mind, body and spirit result. You roll 2 ten sided dice and add your appropriate stat in each phase, if you beat the challenge number for that phase you either defend or inflict damage, depending on whether you were defending or attacking in that phase. You may only attack in one of the three phases, so you must defend in the other two. Once you inflict enough damage you defeat the challenge and take the experience points for it. Experience points can then be exchanged for bonuses to mind, body, spirit, stamina or wounds.

Repeat until you defeat three dragon lords or Margath.

Important Erratum

So far we’ve played twice and it wasn’t until after the second game that I thought to check the FAQ. Had I done so before the second game, I don’t think it would have been abandoned!

After your hero is knocked out, despite what it says in the rulebook, you do not lose all your unspent experience points.

A Long Trek in the Wilderness

So, what did I think of the game? Well, technically I haven’t actually played it. In both games that were played I acted as a living rulebook, playing on my little brothers team to help him, but I still think I got enough of a feel for the game to pass judgement.

Firstly, it is long… too long! Our first game was over four hours but the second game ran to nearly six before it was abandoned (more on that next week). Depending on what you want from a game, I don't think this is a bad thing, but the way we play games as a family, it was just too long. However, there are ways to fix the length, check back next week to see what I intend to try.

The game itself is enjoyable. I like the way the dice work, how you can opt to not roll to automatically move to the next square or roll fewer dice to recover your stamina. Combat is interesting because, unlike, for example, Talisman you can’t just boost one stat and hope because, in each fight, you have to fight in Ranged, Melee and Magic. I really like the event cards and how they affect the entire kingdom. I also like the encounters and the way they give you quests to make your travelling a little less aimless.

There a couple of things I didn’t like. The spread of monsters seems limited. I think, because there is no difference between which cards you draw in the mountains and the plains and forests I would have preferred a more diverse group of enemies, rather than just ferrox, undead and dragons. I realise that this is why there are so many expansions, but I just wish the core set had more variety. Also the gap in difficulty between the yellow cards and the blue cards seems too big, but that’s a minor gripe.

I have read a lot of complaints about things in Runebound. The characters for one thing. I personally have nothing against them, the art is nice, the cards are a good enough size, all the information is on them and they feel balanced and varied to me. However the major complaint people seem to have about this game is the fact that there is little interaction between players. To me this didn’t seem to be a problem. We play games as a family and there was plenty of chatter as we played and for the first few hours everyone was having fun. The game is certainly affected by having other players involved, as encounter gems disappear quickly and you are forced travel further a field.

Unboxed

The core game of Runebound contains:

12 Hero Cards
84 Adventure Cards (35 green, 25 yellow, 16 blue, 8 red)
84 Market Cards (29 Allies, 55 Items)
12 Plastic Heroes
60 Wound Counters
54 Exhaustion Counters
58 Adventure Counters (22 green, 16 yellow, 11 blue, 9 red)
60 Experience Counters
6 Undefeated Challenge Counters
50 Gold Counters (28 one-gold, 12 five-gold, 10 ten-gold)
8 Doom Counters
2 Ten-sided Dice
5 Movement Dice
1 Game Board
1 Rulebook

This is a reasonable amount of stuff, although I find it odd that the market deck is the same size as the adventure deck. I feel it could have been smaller with a more varied selection of adventure cards. The tokens are, as always, wonderful, thick, colourful and practical. The heroes are woefully poor when compared with other games, but as a miniature gamer maybe I’m just picky. The dice are great too, really nicely designed, but they are a little big, but that’s nothing major. The board is beautiful and small enough to fit on most tables, with places for all the cards printed on it. The cards, too, are nice and thick, with great art and simple, easy to understand text that tells a great story.

Conclusion

Despite all the bad things and the second game being abandoned, which I will talk about next week, I really like this game and I can see a huge amount of potential in it. The components live up to FFG’s high standard. The amount of support this game has been given, in the form of expansions, is superb. The theme is great and I really enjoyed just watching the game unfold, can’t wait until everyone is comfortable enough with the rules for me to actually join in.

Next week I’ll be Rambling about what rules changes I intend to implement to speed the game up and what it was that went so disastrously wrong to cause the second game to be abandoned. Check back soon and until then, keep on gaming!"

As a final request, sorry to make this review even longer, but I'm hoping to add one or two expansion packs to the game by Christmas. Firstly I have limited them by price to just the cheapest expansions as they will be stocking fillers. I think I want to expand the challenge decks so I have a choice between The Dark Forest and Traps and Terrors. If I have enough money left I might also pick up a market deck expansion from the following: Weapons of Legend, Rituals and Runes, Relics of Legend or Artefacts and Allies.

So my question is, if you had to choose, which would it be?

Thanks in advance

Chris

Review: Power Grid:: Power Grid.... turn out the lights... the party's over.

AMartin777 — Wed, 18 Nov 2009 22:16:11 +0000

by AMartin777

Power Grid is still listed among the top 10 of BGG's renowned ranking system and lately, I'm beginning to wonder why. After mulitiple plays with a diverse set of players, various strategies employed and tatical decisions carried out, this game excells in one particular aspect... it gets more aggrivating and therefore less fun with each play.

Primarily, the game suffers from mechanics that are extremely awkward and lacking in any true design elegance. Just playing the game requires an inordinant and unnecessary amount of work on the part of all players. A large amount of time and effort is required to simply move the play through a cumbersome serious of card swaps, parts placements and resolution steps. This results in constant distraction when trying to concentrate on each phase of the turn ultimately resulting more in annoyance than fun.

Purchasing Resources and the Resource track:

This mechanic is the games only saving grace and I believe, the sole reason for its initial poularity and interest among gamers. it stands alone as the basis on which the game was founded with everything else placed in sloppy dissarray around it. This is by far the most interesting and compelling aspect to the game. The brilliant placement of the various resources on a track oriented to result in creating supply and demand pressures is wonderful. it's implementation is eligant and appropriate. Unfortunately, there is a messy mechanic as a result of its intention ... it doesn't move the cost of the resources
up in tandem with game flow. The fix? Allow players to purchase and store double the amount needed to fire the plant. Why not adjust the layout of the track instead? Now resources must be able to move between plants to compensate for the fix. Not good.

The Auction:

Thematically, the auction phase makes sense in the context of the game. However, the market manipulation in this phase results in a small variance in the order of power plants from game to game. Add to this the multiple conditions that must be evaluated with each sale simply to keep the market order correct and game viable and you become instantly
aggrivated. The auction phase lacks a graceful flow which is also thoroughly confusing and annoying to new and experienced players.

Order of play:

Another aspect requiring constant readjustment is the player turn order. Clearly this was established as a step to deal with an inherent "runaway player" problem. I have come to see this as a bad correction to a significant design flaw. The runaway issue arises from
poor design in the build and payout mechanics. This runaway possibility should have been corrected as part of the redesign of those phases. Instead, it was corrected with another awkward series of evaluations simply to prevent a possible game imbalance.

End of game:

The end condition for the game appears to be completely arbitrary while the winning condition is simply a last chance to perform the payout phase again. I liken this to a bad book or movie that is based on a great concept but in the end doesn't have any sensible or satisfying resolution. The ending of this game always feels like it just stumbles up to you and falls at your feet with an "oh, by the way... the player who can do this ONE thing again at a greater amount than everyone is uhh... the winner." Arguably, that player has had to move through a series of decisions and actions that created this winning condition
and therefore has "earned" the win. However, because the ending condition based on the number of city builds is so arbitrary, it falls flat as a tension builder. It can become a rush to the finish once the market has moved beyond mathmatical affordability for anyone close to the leader in money and power plant capacity.

Conclusion:

In the end, Power Grid feels like one of the greatest game concepts never fully realized. It has the feel of something that was rushed, that was not given enough time and testing to evolve and blossom into something with greater elegance and simplicity. Many, many issues became apparent with the testing of this game and were solved by pigeon-holing quick, awkward phase changes and fiddly mechanics as compensation. Runaway leader issue? add a step to rearrange player order. Players are earning too much money from firing plants? Just make them earn less even though they've invested more money and time into supplying more people with power... ??? Market imbalance? require the lowest plant be removed every time. The biggest plant coming out to early creates another market imbalance? Make sure its at the bottom of the deck. The game time is not advancing? Change the game steps by inserting an addtional card just to move into a new phase. The game is going on too long? Just pick a number of oh...say... the number of cities built into and make that the end condition. Around 15 to 17 ought to do it. Can't decide who wins? Oh, lets go with whomever can do the most in say....the plant firing phase at the end.

Have I enjoyed Power Grid through multiple plays. Yes, in the beginning. But with each successive play, the game has become less and less about playing a fun game and more about moving bits and cards around to satisfy flawed mechanics and poor design. A top 10 game? oh, let's rank it high because of the cool resource market track. What else? Oh... not much.

Review: Castle Panic:: Castle Panic: worth a try, but not worth a buy

Aurendrosl — Wed, 18 Nov 2009 20:54:49 +0000

by Aurendrosl

I heard "It's a co-op game" and jumped at the chance to play. After all, some of my favorite board games are Pandemic, Red November, and Arkham Horror. My friend had just bought this game and he hadn't yet found the time to play it. Being the benevolent and generous person that I am, I sacrificed my time to try out Castle Panic with him and see how it all worked out. I'll tell you right up front that I do not enjoy Castle Panic too much. It ended up being a disappointment. If you own this game and you love it, all the power to you. If you are considering this game, then I hope my review will shed some light on the game's weaknesses (in my opinion).

This review comes after having played two 2-player games, one 4-player game, two 5-player games, and one game using the alternate "Overlord" rules for a total of six games.

What's in the box?

The game comes with a rule booklet, monster tokens, a deck of cards, some small cardboard walls and towers to construct your castle, a single 6-sided die, and a few other game-related chunks of cardboard. Everything is functional, although not all that pretty. The game art is cartoony and fun. The card quality is average. For the price, Castle Panic doesn't rip you off, but don't expect sunrays of beauty to shine forth from the box every time you open it.

My first impressions

The game is easy to learn, easy to play, and easy to set up. Almost everything you need to know is written right there on the board. Speaking of the board, it is divided into four rings extending out from the central castle. These rings represent the range of your attacks: Swordsman is closest, followed by knight, followed by the archers, and finally there is the Forest zone where monsters are placed and cannot be attacked (under normal circumstances). The rings are cut into six equal sections that serve as the monsters' path to your castle walls, and these six paths are divided into three colors (Blue, Red, and Green). The colors tell you what cards you're allowed to play.

So, say that a Goblin is in range of the Knight on the Red portion of the board. If you'd like to hit the Goblin, you will need to play and discard one Knight card. You can play as many cards as you want per turn, and this is good because even though you hit a monster, it doesn't automatically kill it. Most of the monsters in the game have more than one Health Point. So, an Orc with two HP needs to be hit by two cards that match its location on the board if you want to kill it outright. If you can't, it survives to the next turn with one less HP. Each turn, all the monsters advance forward one space. Two new "monster tokens" are drawn and the effects are resolved. In most cases, you simply put a new monster on one of the six paths leading to the castle. The game ends when either all of the monster tokens are exhausted (in which case you win), or if all six castle towers are destroyed (and that's a loss).

My friend and I played through our first two games rather quickly. The balance was good. We always felt as though our castle was about to fall, and we breathed a sigh of relief if we drew that lucky card to kill off a pesky monster. In our first game, we lost three out of our six towers. In our second game, we only lost one tower. I enjoyed the game and wanted to play with more people...

...And that is where the game fell apart.

See, your hand limit is based on how many players you have in the game. For two or three players, it means you will only have 12 to 15 cards available at any one point during the game, which isn't too many. When you have five players, that number jumps to 25 cards, and since people can trade cards, you can usually kill at least one or two monsters each player turn. There are a couple of monster tokens aimed at disrupting the players: there are plague cards that force everyone to discard a certain card type, there are monster tokens that move all monsters in a color up one space, there are "boss" monsters with special bonuses, and there are boulder tokens that destroy castle walls. But even these event cards are easy to manage if you have enough players in the game, not to mention the fact that the two truly potent ones -- boulder and plague tokens -- only appear a sum total of six times during the game. In most co-op games, the game board will have the advantage. Players will struggle to win the game, and that's the point. Winning the game should be a challenge. Not so with Castle Panic. The favor of the game leans toward the players, and then it stops being a game of co-op and more of a game of "who can kill the most monsters".

The player cards add to the imbalance. Most of the cards only allow you to strike one spot on the board, and a few cards allow you to strike anywhere within a color or anywhere within a certain range, but some card combos are downright broken. There were multiple times during the same game when one player used the Barbarian card (slay any monster on any spot of the board), and the next player used the Scavenge card (take a card of your choice from the discard pile). When the game board is set up, there are six monsters on the board, and during this initial rush is where most of the damage is dealt to the castle. During the course of the game, there are a few other times when more than two monster tokens will be drawn, but those surges of enemies are fairly easy to handle.

There were even times during our five-player game when a player said "just let that troll with one HP destroy our wall. It'll kill it and I will use these cards to rebuild the wall next turn", since a monster loses one HP when it destroys a wall. A sound strategy to be sure, but it certainly didn't seem balanced or fun, and when the players were using this same tactic five or six times per game, it felt cheap in the end. Best yet, when the player cards run out, you simply reshuffle them. What's that? Another Barbarian card?

Another major problem is that the number of tokens you draw each turn remains the same for the whole game. Two per turn. That's it. Compare that to Pandemic, where Epidemic cards increase the number of cards you draw per turn PERMANENTLY. The intensity of Castle Panic stays the same for the entire game, save for a brief spike here or there. It doesn't feel like there's any escalation. By the end of the game (when most of the good tokens have already been drawn), you're just waiting for the game to end as you mop up the few remaining monsters.

This imbalance became even more apparent when I volunteered to play as the "Overlord". Having played games like Last Night On Earth and the bio-terrorist mode of Pandemic: On the Brink, I knew what this sort of mode would be like. I'd be struggling to kill off the other team. I'd have to construct careful strategies and overwhelm them with my minions. Oh boy, I was disappointed. As Overlord, you don't have many options. You can place one monster anywhere, or you can assign two monster tokens randomly using the die (which is what the board itself does anyway).

You can also opt to randomly assign one monster with the die and then play an event token (like a boulder). But your "hand" is limited to three tokens, so you have the choice of rolling the die to place two monsters of your choice at two random spots (BORING!), or you can place monsters one-by-one and watch them get slaughtered handily. There's no strategy or tact involved. Sometimes you'll get a good combo (like playing a boulder and then playing the "draw four monster tokens" token), but those opportunities are few and far between. Against even an average board gamer, I imagine that winning as the Overlord is impossible, so what's the incentive to play as the Overlord? None, I say.

Verdict:

In good co-op games, the experience should be a bit different each time you play. Whether there are random aspects of the game based on board set-up or cards, or perhaps there are different playable characters or different scenarios, a co-op game needs some variety. Otherwise, it grows old quickly and is tossed aside in favor of better games. Castle Panic ignores this rule of variety. No matter what order you draw the tokens, it feels like the same game. You kill the same boss monsters. You use the same strategies. You almost never feel overwhelmed. As someone who loves co-op games, I cannot recommend Castle Panic. It feels too thin, too easy, and too imbalanced. The other co-op games I've mentioned still surprise me, they still challenge me, and most importantly, they're still fun. Castle Panic started off fun -- and I'd imagine it would still be a decent game to play with just two or three people -- and then fell apart the more I played it.

Review: At the Gates of Loyang:: Full Review - At the gates of loyang

crobledo — Wed, 18 Nov 2009 20:34:12 +0000

by crobledo

Overview

At the Gates of Loyang, by Uwe Rosenberg (Bohnanza, Agricola), has been recently published by Hall Games at Essen 09. I was lucky enough one of my friends had a copy imported and got some plays in, and also ordered one for myself.

In this game, Uwe takes us to Asia to become harvesters and traders. You start the game with some cash and a field of veggies, and it is your job to plant, harvest, and sell all your goods for a good return, and use that money to buy victory points (VPs). Keep in mind that money is the ONLY way to obtain VPs, so in its core it is an economic engine-building game.

What you get in the box

Lots of goodies in this box, though less than Agricola... All the goods are wooden vegiemeeples, if you have the ones that lookout produced for Agricola they are the same mold but smaller (thank you!). The cards are the same solid stock as Agricola and Le Havre, and are beautifully illustrated. There are two decks, a communal deck of cards and also all players get a small set of cards, the private fields, as well as one player board (with VP track and store) as well as places to put the cards you will acquire during the game. Each player also gets a small wooden token to mark their VPs and a turn summary card.

The cardboard money tokens are neat, pretty standard fare.

Setup and Gameplay

Overall, it is a very simple game, but there are many different things you can do in a turn. The game is also SLIGHTLY different with different amount of players, but I will cover the 4-players rules here since they are the most complete.

First, each player gets their board, player marker, your home field (9 squares), your store card (place to put veggies available to you) and a turn summary card. All players then need to take all the veggies needed to fill their stores. This would be 3 grain, 2 pumpkins, 2 radishes (turnips), 2 cabbages, one bean, and one leek. The game will be 9 rounds and at the end of the final round the player with the most VPs wins.

Before the first round, all players in turn order select one vegetable to plant on their home field (instantly filling it, more on this below on the 'sow seed' action). Then you split your private fields in two stacks as instructed in the rulebook, which will make sure you can't get screwed out of certain fields the whole game.

The first part of every round is the harvest phase. During this phase, all players:
- Harvest ONE veggie from EVERY field. Any fields that become empty are discarded.
- Turn over the top private field card and add it to your available fields.

The second part is the card drafting phase. In this phase, all players:
- Receive 4 cards from the draw pile.
- Starting with the start player, you MUST either drop a card to the center of the table (the 'courtyard') OR select ONE card from your hand and ONE card from the courtyard to add to your board. Any extra cards in your hand you chose not to play are added to the courtyard as well.
- No other combination is possible. This does mean that, yes, the start player must put a card down and can't go out his first time, and yes, if you only have one card left in your hand you MUST go out. If you are the only player that hasn't gone out, you also immediately MUST go out when it's your turn.
- The last player to select their cards becomes the start player. The second-to-last to go out becomes the "second start player".
- Finally, the start player selects one of the other players (except for the "second start player") to become their 'partner' for the action phase. The other two players logically become partners as well. Cards that affect "other players" only apply to your partner for that round.

Before we move on, let's talk about the 5 types of cards:
1. Markets - These are the orange cards. Markets will allow you to trade any veggie for one of the three veggies displayed on the card. The rate of trade is either 1:1 or 2:1. When you obtain a market, place the 3 veggies available to you on the card to remind you of the supply. Once you have traded for all 3 veggies on the card, you discard it.
2. Helpers - These are the white cards. Each helper has a different ability. They are all one-time use, and are discarded as soon as they are used. Any helpers that reference "other player" mean your partner in the action phase. Helpers that affect other players also have a purple lantern symbol to remind you and others of that fact.
3. Regular Customers - These are the blue cards. Regular customers have to be supplied with their desired veggies every single round, for 4 rounds, or suffer a -2 coin penalty. All of them want 2 veggies every round, but the veggies they want varies as well as the cash you get. Whenever you get a regular customer, you also place on it a satisfaction token, on the happy side. The first round you fail to supply a regular customer with their vegetables, you turn it over to sad instead of paying the 2 coin.
4. Casual Customers - These are the red cards. They all want 3 veggies, and when you fulfill their order they pay you the money on the card and then are discarded. Like the regular customers, the amount of cash you get is based on the rarity of the veggies they want. Additionally, whenever you fulfill a casual customer's order, you need to look at how many regular customers you have out. If you have the same amount, you get paid the face value of the casual customer. If you have MORE casuals than regulars, you get 2 coin less. If you have MORE regular than casuals, then you get 2 coin more.
5. Extra fields - These are the green cards. They work the exact same way as your private fields, but cost 2 coin when you obtain the card. They go up by your revealed fields, and can be planted and harvested just like regular fields.

The third part of the round is the action phase.
In this phase, players take as many actions as they want until they choose to pass. Players do all their actions before passing. When all 4 players have passed, players are allowed to spend coins to purchase VPs, and the next round starts.

Since you can only affect your action phase partner, the game recommends that the start player and second start player take all their actions simultaneously and then their partners to speed up the game. From my experience, this NEEDS to happen or the game will drag on for a very long time.

During their turn, player can choose from a huge range of actions, and as many times as they want (with one exception) until they pass:
1. Sow veggies on a field - Simply take one veggie from your cart (your personal supply) and place it on an empty field. immediately fill every space in the field with the same veggies from the supply.
2. Buy veggies from your shop - take a veggie from your shop and place it in your cart. You pay the light-side coin value for it. For example, pay 3 coin for a grain.
3. Sell veggies to your shop - take a veggie from your cart and place it in your shop. There must be space for it. You receive coins equal to the dark-side value. For example, Beans are 2 coin.
4. Trade veggies at a market - If you have a market card, you may use it to exchange veggies. If you deplete the market, discard it.
5. Play or discard a Helper - Helpers are the only cards in Gated of Loyang that can be voluntarily discarded (see the two-pack action for why would you want to). You may play or discard a card as an action. Follow the instructions on the cards, and remember that if the card states "other player" it will only affect your partner in a 4 player game.
6. Deliver veggies to a regular customer - you deliver the two required veggies from your cart to the lowest unfilled space in a customer's card and take the coins for that row. The value increases as you deliver more veggies to them. You may not deliver to the same customer twice in one round. If by the end of the round you have not done this for every customer, the ones you did not deliver to flip their satisfaction marker to red. If they are already on the red side, you need to pay 2 coins.
7. Deliver veggies to a casual customer - you deliver the three required veggies to a casual customer. You get paid immediately the face value of the card plus the following modifiers: +2 coins if you have more regular customers than casual ones, and -2 coin if you have more casuals than regulars. Discard the card afterwards.
8. Buy a two-pack - this is the only action you can do only once per round. You first pay coin equal to the amount of MARKETS OR HELPERS you currently have, whichever is HIGHER. This is the reason you might want to discard helpers voluntarily. Once you paid the two-pack cost, you draw the top two cards from the draw deck. You may chose to keep and immediately play both, one or none of them. All cards work as if you had acquired them in the drafting phase, so fields need to be paid for, and regular customers need to be paid THIS round. One exception: if you chose to keep both cards, you must place one of the cards under the other card you kept. The card on the bottom only comes into play whenever the card on top is discarded.

End of the action phase:
At the end of the action phase, all players:
1. Store unused veggies - only one veggie can remain in your cart. Any extras are discarded. You may permanently upgrade your storehouse for 2 coin in order to be able to store up to 4 veggies.
2. Move scoring maker - This is how you obtain VPs. You ALWAYS spend 1 coin to move to the next step of where you start that round. Any further steps you need to pay the value of the step in coins. For example, if you are currently on at 7 VPs, you pay 1 coin to go to 8 but if you want to go to purchase another it will cost 9 additional coin. So if you want to go from 7 VPs to 9 in the same turn, the total cost is 10 coin.

Loans:
At ANY point during the game, a player can take 5 coin and one loan card. Loans are not repaid, just kept until the end of the game.

End of the game:
At the end of round 9, players subtract one VP for every loan card they have, and that is their final score. Most VPs wins, and tiebreaker is remaining cash.

Impressions

Well, to be honest I was a bit underwhelmed by this game. I love Agricola and Le Havre, but this fell a bit short for me. I noticed that on the geek it is rated highest with 2 players, and I can absolutely see why. But even then, though it is not as refined and polished as his other 2 games, it is still solid fun and mind bending tension.

Things I liked:
- VERY tight game: I read in another review that this was the most family-friendly of the harvest trilogy. NO WAY. This game is mind-numbingly tight and unforgiving. You can be short a few coins to have your perfect turn, and I like that. When you miscalculate something, you can be one coin short from buying that extra point one turn. Or you could buy that extra point and have NO money to start the next round. Are you ok with that or play it safe? Decisions like this are Rampant in this game. It reminded me of Power Grid in that sense.
- Interesting mechanics: I liked the card drafting mechanic of phase two, though I know some people disagree. I think a lot of people got used to the "Agricola way" that your hand is yours and that is that. In Gates, you may be dealt a hand of four cards you want one turn, and the next turn you get zero and are basically hoping puts something down that you want. The VP-buy system is also very interesting and refreshing, as well as the interaction between the casual and regular customers.
- Variable helper powers: some helpers are definitely more powerful than others. Unlike Agricola, that is ok in this game since relative value means it will be worth more or less come draft time.
- Vegiemeeples: Loved these for the goober factor. MUCH improved over the lookout games grain and pumpkin ones, which for my taste were huge, bulky and hard to stack. I would love to get an extra set of these to replace my Agricola ones.
- Totally different from the other 2 harvest games: I like that it has absolutely nothing (well, almost) in common with Uwe's other games. You can own all three of the games without feeling guilty that you have 3 games that do the same thing.

Things I didn't like:
- The "multiplayer solitaire": If you didn't like Agricola because there was no/little player interaction, then you are going to hate this game. To even stress this more, they added the partner mechanic which seriously limits interaction even more. I really want to play this with two players, as it seems like it was designed for two in mind!
- General "clunkyness": Like I mention above, I just think the game is not as polished. It's hard to keep track of two-packs sometimes, and god forbid someone bumps the board, since there is no way to retroactively count up points. Recommendation: get a pen and pencil and have someone track points on the side!
- The components (or, value in the box): At the time of this writing, Gates is an expensive game; $75 and hard(ish) to find. Unfortunately, I don't see the component value in the box. Don't get me wrong, I'll pay top dollar for a top game no matter what the components are. Lord knows I have spend plenty of cash on D&D books back in my time and that is just paper and ink. But when a game is so-so and expensive, sometimes components make up for it. All the wooden veggie-meeples are fine, but other than that the whole game is pretty much 4 small player boards and a few cards (lots fewer than agricola).

At the end of the day, I do have fun with the game. Over time however, I see us playing a lot more Agricola and Le Havre (I think Le Havre is a better game, but I might get lynched here for that) than Gates, simply because they are more refined games. Gates does have a few interesting unique mechanics that I will want to play from time to time though.

Review: Space Hulk (3rd Edition):: Newbie’s Review of Space Hulk

jhsjhs — Wed, 18 Nov 2009 19:22:13 +0000

by jhsjhs

Special Space Hulk Note: My reintroduction to boardgaming (I am a long-time wargamer and card player) happened to overlap with the recent peak of Space Hulk madness. I discover the BGG site only to wonder why it wasn’t called SHG. I had never heard of Space Hulk, never played Warhammer, had no particular interest in it, but thread after thread drew me in. Finally, I saw the downtime town video review, and was so amused that I tracked down a copy at my FLGS, and paid my $100 (ouch! ouch!). How could the game that leads to that review be bad?

This is my fourth “newbie review”. In my few months of rediscovering boardgames I came to the realization that there are some games that show all signs of being very good that are not so for people like me, those at the start of the learning curve. So, these reviews are for the beginners in the crowd, who have only recently discovered boardgaming, maybe found a gaming group, and are trying to get up to speed. I have steered away from judging the quality of the game overall, focusing more on what it is like for the newbie in the crowd, whether you or someone you know. Will the beginner pick up the rules quickly, will they spend multiple turns with blank looks on their face finally throwing up their hands and shoving some pieces randomly around…will they have fun? I should note that this is not asking whether they will do well, as I don’t think that really matters, just whether the learning experience will be enjoyable in and of itself.

Quick Overview: Space Hulk is a two-player tactical miniature-based wargame. The game comes with many (and I mean many) pieces representing hallways (short, medium, long), rooms (with one, two, three, and four entrances), and 90-degree bends (hallways that turn). These all can snap together to create endless possible floor plans representing parts of a huge “space hulk”, a derelict space ship. One of the two players plays the “space marines”, the good guys, and the other is the “genestealers”, the alien bad guys. Each side has a set of plastic miniatures representing their guys, in the case of the space marine player each with identifiable weapons, which have different powers and abilities. A “mission book” is included which outlines a dozen different battles, each with a different layout of the board (requiring different floor pieces in different combinations), and different units on each side. The quality of the pieces (and their weight) is pretty remarkable—it is a big, heavy, beautifully done game.

The players move in succession, space marines first. Each piece has a number of action points, allowing movement and/or shooting or hand-to-hand attacking. The space marine player typically starts with all his pieces on the map to begin with, and the genestealer starts with few or none, but picks us new pieces each turn. In a twist new to me, the game comes with a small timer, which only the space marine uses—during each of his turns, the timer is turned over, and if it runs out before he finishes his move, tough—his move is done. These last two mechanics (ever-increasing number of genestealers, timed moves) create a great, almost cinematic feel of ever-increasing desperation for the space marine player. Very neat. The space marine typically has fixed, simple victory conditions, the genestealer is trying to prevent them. My impression is that the scenarios are often unbalanced, with some favoring one side, some the other. Combat is decided by dice, lots and lots of dice. It does go quickly, though.

Ease of Introduction: Though the rulebook is not short, Space Hulk is not a complicated game. Particularly for the genestealers, the mechanics and goals are very straight-forward. However, I would not put it in the “Dominion” class of games for those that you almost immediately play at least semi-strategically; there are a few if not tricks, at least non-obvious aspects of the game that are best learned by experience, making the first game or two a bit of a challenge. I think watching one game and asking a few questions may eliminate this, though, and playing the genestealers side in the first scenario (which is solidly in their favor) is another good way to get rolling where the mistakes you make may be forgiven. It has the advantage of being pretty quick, too—the early scenarios can take 30-45 minutes, on the high side if the players suffer from AP. Oh—and make sure if you play the space marines that you don’t use the clock your first few games. That could get ugly.

Game Experience: Oh, to be 12 years old again! Or 13 or 14, really. Even being 40 the combination of beautiful pieces, changing and big maps (really big—like barely fits on a 6-person dining room table big), constant game-hangs-in-the-balance dice rolling just brings out the excited kid in me. The two sides play very differently, and their differences make the game. The space marines have deadly ranged weapons; the genestealers only fight hand-to-hand (though devastatingly well). This leads to a common situation where one space marine holds a long hallway using “overwatch”, an action that allows him to shoot every time a genestealer moves even just one space in his line of sight, and a long row of genestealers running into the fire to get next to him. Each step closer the marine gets a shot, and has a good chance to hit, but if he misses four times in a row, or his gun jams…I have never seen this approach in a game before, and it is really smart—instead of one 50%-50% role, the game has the space marine player take three 80%-20% rolls. Same odds (more or less), but wow, much more dramatic. There is real stress with this game, and it is genuinely fun.

Externalities: I find one of the challenges as a new gamer to just jumping into the game is the sense that you will diminish the experience for others. Will the person who goes after you benefit disproportionably from your mistakes? Will you make the game random? Space Hulk is a two player wargame, so when you are new you will get steamrolled unless playing someone else new. Your opponent will know this, however, and will not play with you unless they are cool with it. So don’t worry about it. Demand to play the genestealers in the first mission, though.

Final Thoughts: Space Hulk won me over pretty quickly, and definitely gets a thumbs up for new players, but occupies a weird place in my gaming collection. I don’t want to play it every day, but sometimes it really captures the mood. Sort of like when I come home from a long day of work and want nothing more then to have a few beers and watch reruns of Xena, Warrior Princess. I genuinely like the show, but the beer helps, as does having the long day before it.

However, if I was 12 again, this would not only be my favorite game, it would be my favorite thing. I would be creating new scenarios during math class, drawing new maps, reading all the novels about the space marines. If I had a 12 year-old, or a less then 12 year-old, same deal (without the math class)—I would be completely excited that one day I could play this with my kid. As a 40 year-old, well, it thoroughly captures the moment at times, and I am glad I bought it.

One last thing: if there is a downside to Space Hulk, though the pieces are beautiful (particularly the map/floor pieces, to me at least) and legitimately account for it, it is the cost. I don’t spend much time thinking about how much the games I review cost, but can’t avoid it with Space Hulk. Certainly, if you are rich, get it! If there is a budget here, though, and your choice was Dominion + Small World or Space Hulk…well, if I had a kid anywhere in shouting distance of 12, I would buy Space Hulk and wait. It is fun and I can’t imagine how great it would have been those decades ago. Otherwise, probably the other two. Which is a shame, because Space Hulk really is a fun game and one that I believe many, many people would enjoy (every once in while!). But the cost/limited run/whatever makes it less likely that people will have it when they have had that long day and a couple of beers, which is a shame.

Review: Finca:: Worker management for those who hate worker management games

Aurendrosl — Wed, 18 Nov 2009 18:11:52 +0000

by Aurendrosl

Last weekend, my girlfriend and I picked out Finca during our usual jaunt to the local board game store. Well, I'll be honest: SHE picked out Finca. All it took was a quick look at the back of the box and she cried, "Oooooh! Look at the little fruit-meeples!" I took a look at the back of the box and was not impressed.

"If I'm going to be farming or selling goods," I thought. "Then I'll play Agricola or Le Havre or something like that." I didn't want it, but I bought it anyway.

And I'm glad I did.

I won't do an in-depth overview of everything this game has to offer. Instead, this review is about how Finca surprised me and where it might fit into your board game collection.

What's in the box?

Finca's board and pieces are better than I would have thought. The fruit pieces and farmer pieces are large, colorful, and easy to identify. A great deal of the game's components are made of thick, easy-to-punch cardboard, and while a ton of cardboard in a game is sometimes a turn-off for me, I'll admit that the cardboard is well-made and it fits the context and function of the game. The board is big enough to accommodate everything, which is a plus (I'm still caught off guard when a board game's board isn't quite big enough for the game).

When it comes to the pieces, Finca delivers. There are certainly more beautiful and higher-quality board games on the market, but there are also more expensive board games on the market. Finca's pieces offer quality and functionality without putting you back a hundred bucks.

So, what's the game like?

Two words: smooth and fun. Now, please don't misunderstand where I'm coming from. I really enjoy "heavier" games such as Agricola, Caylus, and most recently, Le Havre. But there's something very smooth and enjoyable about Finca's light gameplay. You take one action per turn with the choice of gathering fruit, delivering fruit, or using a "special action" (and everyone is limited to four of those "special actions" per game). Based on the arrangement of everyone's workers on the resource wheel (represented by a windmill), you can move multiple places and gather multiple pieces of fruit. Everything moves along quickly. The rules are easy to grasp and even easier to remember. You won't once run into those situations where you're reminding Aunt Susan "you have to pay two food per worker, and you can't just kill your sheep. You need a fireplace!"

Yet, there's still room for strategy. Do you go for the fruit you need, or do you move one of your farmers to disrupt your opponents' plan? Oh, but you only have one move per turn! Will they take that point token next turn if you decide to gather fruit? Still, you rarely have those brain-burning moments (some may take this as a bad thing). It is easy to mess with your opponents plans, but impossible to completely screw him or her over. It is easy to pull ahead, but impossible to have a runaway lead. Those aspects really stood out to me. A lot of resource-gathering and worker-placement games punish a player's early mistakes for the entire game. Finca does not (again, some may take this as a bad thing). Certainly, making mistakes will cost you, but it won't ruin your chances of winning. And, unlike Agricola, you aren't constrained by a "survival" mechanic, constantly having to gather food and scramble up one of everything to avoid negative points at the end. You simply gather fruit and deliver it for as many points as possible.

Also, since my girlfriend and I are the "board game evangelists" among our respective families and friends, she and I are always on the lookout for a "gateway game" in the genres we enjoy. We both love Agricola, but we both know we won't be able to bring it to my parents' house for the weekend and play it casually with them. They need a gateway game, and in the case of Finca, it will likely serve as our gateway game to play with people who aren't accustomed to worker-placement or resource-gathering mechanics yet.

How long is set-up and gameplay?

My girlfriend and I opened the game, punched the pieces, learned the rules, set up the board, and finished our first game of Finca in about 90 minutes. Our second game took half that time. Finca's quick set-up and quick gameplay pleased me. "It's like playing Agricola, but for half the headache and half the time," my girlfriend said, and while Finca and Agricola have a lot of differences, they are also tied by more than just the farming theme. Both games hinge on your ability to jostle for key points on the board, which brings me to the end of this review...

What's the verdict?
I mentioned Agricola in this review a LOT, but for good reason. It's a popular game that many people enjoy (including myself), yet even the most die-hard Agricola players have to admit that it has a steep learning curve. And even after learning the game, some people feel that Agricola is "just too much": too much thinking, too much strategy, too much maintenance, too much to keep track of.

Here is precisely where Finca shines. It gives you that tense feeling as you fight for key points on the board, just like in Agricola, but it's easier to set up, easier to learn, and I daresay a smoother and more fun game for people who think Agricola is "just too much".

Don't expect Finca to be as deep as Agricola, or most other worker-placement/resource-management games for that matter. It's not. It never pretends to be. For people who simply want to gather some fruit and scramble for points in less than an hour's time, Finca is a great choice. For people seeking another deep Agricola-esque game, look elsewhere.

Review: Goa:: [BGR] Goa - Review

usagi-san — Wed, 18 Nov 2009 16:42:47 +0000

by usagi-san

Goa - Review
(Originally published on BoardGame-Reviews.com)

Goa was published in 2004 and is designed by Rudiger Dorn who also designed another one of my favourite games, Jambo. This is a resource management game with a bit of an auction mechanism thrown in.

Goa:

* Designed by: Rudiger Dorn
* Published by: Rio Grande Games
* Number of players: 2-4
* Playing time: 90 minutes
* Player ages: 12+

A Quick Overview

Each player takes on the role of merchant at the beginning of the 16th century. The goal here is to become the best company by trading spices, sending out colonists and developing various cities of India.

This game is a resource management game which means that the goal of this game is to develop certain parts of your company whether it be plantations, shipping abilities, income generating abilities and so on.

Player interaction in this game is generated by the auctions which occur eight times during the course of the game. It is here that players compete with each other to procure items that will help them develop their trading companies.

The winner is the one has succesfully developed the strongest trading company.

Game Play

The game is broken into 2 rounds of four turns each. Each of the turns is then further broken into (at least) three player actions.

Each turn begins with an auction that will give players a chance to bid for tiles which provide certain benefits for the player’s company. After the auction finishes, each player then takes their player actions.

Player actions are the biggest part of this game. Players must be careful and plan accordingly to make use of their limited actions to develop the best trading company.

Each action is a "micro" step which builds up an economic foundation for their company.

Do players advance in finance instead of developing their shipping capabilities?

Or do they balance their developments?

Observations

I like Goa very much. I think this game is an excellent game and that it plays well for 2, 3 and 4 players. It is also definitely a "gamer’s game", a term used for games that have more involved mechanisms.

If you are interested in exploring the possibility of a more complex game (than the ones that have been reviewed to date) then I would strongly recommend this one. I find it to be a very rewarding game that plays in about 90 minutes.goa-4

What I like about this game is that there are many things going on and it is a challenge to keep track of these things. Money management and the auctions are very rewarding. "Do I bid on this tile? Or hope that another one will open up?"

If you get the Rio Grande version of this game, keep in mind there is a rule change from the initial, German printing. With Rio Grande’s rule change, the "Expedition" development track becomes overly powerful and, in my mind, prevents this game from being as fun as it should be.

One of the things that I like is that points are awarded on an additive basis. For example, developing two tracks to the fifth level is far more rewarding than developing five tracks to the second level.

You have to begin the game with a few general strategies and refine them as the game progresses. During the early- to mid- game, if you haven’t gotten a firm strategy going, then you will have a hard time with the rest of the game.

Unfortunately, I don’t believe this is a game that the younger players (12 and under) can easily take to because it is very involved.

As well, finding this game will be difficult as it is out of print currently. I have heard that a reprint will be available sometime in 2010. In the meantime...

Happy gaming.

Review: Chinatown:: Chinatown - Opinion, Opponents selector and Mood building tips.

WebKoala — Wed, 18 Nov 2009 15:30:28 +0000

by WebKoala

This review is part of my series of reviews. In my reviews I like to tell the reader (prospective buyer) about my opinion of the game, but I also want to include information about what kind of people would be most likely to enjoy playing this game. I do not explain the rules, as these can be foundhere

My review of [thing=29259][/thing] in this series can be found [thread=451930]here[/thread]

Chinatown has been high on my want list for a long time. I try to have a very diverse collection of games and a good negotiation game was lacking from it. Chinatown would definately fill up this terrible oversight. But, alas, as Chinatown was OOP for a long time and a lot of people wanted to complete their Alea Big Box series, this game became too expensive for my taste . Well, long story short, my heart jumped with joy when I saw this game for a mere 10 euros at Essen this year. So here's my review about the new edition of Chinatown

Components

This game is quite good looking. The board is quite big and depicts an overview of New Yorks' Chinatown. I could even make out the hotel I stayed at when I was there

The tiles are sturdy and come with a cloth bag. That's a plus, I don't like it when you need to fetch all kinds of cups for drawing tiles. (I am looking at you Arkham!)

Cards are standard issue, nothing special.

The money is made of cards as well, this being a negotiation game, I would have liked to see the money be more well... moneylike. This would IMHO add to the atmosphere of being a shrewd Chinese businessman developing all kinds of stores and becoming filthy rich.

]]>
(Image by -mIDE-, pm if you want this image removed from this review)

Overall I think this game looks very attractive and is, apart from the money, nicely done.

Verdict:

Gameplay

This game is fun! It is very simple and the rules can easily be explained in under 5 minutes. The setup time is almost non-existent, meaning you can have this baby from your shelf and into full action within mere minutes, even with new players.

Basically this game resolves around negotation, bartering, threatening, pleading and blackmailing. Players get ownership of areas on the map and tiles representing different store types. 90% of the time spent during each of the six turns is spent swapping tiles, money, areas (both occupied and free) between the players in a free for all negotiation phase.

As you get more areas and store tiles each turn, you'll continually have the feeling of owning a growing business empire. Even if you're losing badly, you won't feel like it.

]]>
(Image by Annagul, pm if you want this image removed from this review)

Overall this is a very simple, but strategic game, that with the right players will be tons o' fun.

Verdict:

Advice to play this with:

Eurogamers:
Ameritrashers:
Wargamers:
Casual gamers:
Game haters:

To get into the mood

- Order Chinese food
- Fry some Dim Sum
- Make a cd for background ambiance with the music that can be found at this location: http://music.ibiblio.org/pub/multimedia/chinese-music/html/m...

Classification

Luck:
Strategy:
Diplomacy:

Playing time (personal): 1.5 hours (but can be dependent on your group and how long negotiations generally take)

Overall:

Review: Balloon Cup:: Enjoy Landing your Balloons!

madhujith — Wed, 18 Nov 2009 15:22:20 +0000

by madhujith

Why review Balloon Cup when it has been out there in the market for so long? Answer to me is simple- Just to motivate non-owners of Balloon Cup to pick this one up at the earliest

This is another game that is a very good introductory game and I have introduced atleast 8-10 new players to boardgames through this game and they have become hooked onto boardgames and Balloon Cup

I played for the 1st time at my friend's boardgame cafe Brew Haha with my wife and she loved it. It was only after this that I got this game. Now having played this game for more than 35 times, I can tell you that this game is pure fun. Very light, fast, but definitely loads and loads of fun. In fact I would say most people I have played it with find this more fun than Lost Cities- don't ask me why because I don't know (I own Lost Cities, Odin's Ravens, Caesar & Cleopatra, Jambo, Kahuna and of course this one)- but somehow of all the 2-player games this one gets asked most times.

What do you get in the Box?

Really nice components. What you come to expect from any Rio Grande Games (who BTW is one of the most popular game publishers).
- Nice cards 45 cards with Colorful Balloons (5 different colors)
- 5 trophy cards
- a cotton bag with 45 cubes in 5 different colors and
- 4 tiles (double sided tiles)

How does this play?

Really simple rules. Each player gets 8 cards and on their turn they can either play a balloon card on their side or their opponents. Well the 4 tiles are laid out with alternating diagrams- Mounts and Plains ( Each tile has a number 1-4 and cubes are randomly chosen from the bag and placed 1 cube on the tile 1, 2 cubes on tile 2, 3 on tile 3 and 4 on tile 4). Players need a high total to win cubes on a mountain tile and low total to win the cubes on the plain tile. The tile number is also the number of cards required on both the sides to decide the winner (Eg: 3 cards on each side to win 3 cubes on Tile three)

The fun element in the game is the fact that you can completely screw up your opponents plans as you can play a card on his/her side as well , so the game constantly changes after every card is being played and tensions rise as people start winning cubes. After a tile has been decided it is turned over- a mountain is turned over to get a plain and vice-verse, which means the kind of cards that you have in your hand might have to be used differently :-). So all in all it is really fast paced and people continue to play up until they achieve the required number of cubes for a particular trophy. Say 3 gray cubes for Gray trophy. The 1st to 3 trophies wins the game.

There is also another cool mechanic in that if there are cubes of a particular color for which the trophy has already been won, you could use 3 of those to make up for one short of another trophy. So is a person has 3 gray cubes (and gray trophy card has been won) and the player is having 3 blue cubes (blue requires 4 blue cubes), you could now use the 3 gray cubes as a joker to say so and win the blue cube. So all in all lots of fun

How long does this play?

This typically takes between 30-40 minutes max. Personally I feel Lost Cities is more competitive, but as mentioned before I have seen that Balloon Cup hits the table more than Lost Cities whenever I give an option for players . I guess compared to Lost Cities the decision making is easier and the game is lot more forgiving (meaning even if you commit a mistake on one tile, you can make in the other, as opposed to Lost Cities, which can be very unforgiving.

Who would you recommend it to?

I know that this game is not really ranked high up on Boardgame geek, but who cares, I really like this game in fact over Lost Cities and highly recommend it for everyone. Lots of fun!

Any downsides?

As I said before this is a fast paced game high on tactics and low on strategy. Not deep at all an a lot of randomness as players can play on either sides, that makes planning difficult unless you are really observing which cards are on the table and which ones are discarded- Some people might not like this dynamism and randomness.(I'm really nit picking by calling this a downside, in fact I like this dynamism, but people have complained to me that they can't control the game)

Final Thoughts!
Go get this one and enjoy landing your balloons. This game is for fun and not brain burn. I would say any casual/hobbyist should have this in their game collection! I might add even gamers should find it very neat

Review: Peloponnes:: Peloponnes as a 2 player game

sa266 — Wed, 18 Nov 2009 13:27:04 +0000

by sa266

Peloponnes has been our most played of the Essen purchases, mainly because of it's quick play time, and the fact that it scales up to 5 players (we've had 5 players quite a lot recently!). So it's not surprising that we've also tried it 2 player to see how it works.

Rules - how are they different in a 2 player game?
There are no rules differences as such with 2 players. The number of tiles available for auction each turn is equal to the number of players, so with 2 is just 2 tiles, with 3 being in the conflict line.

How is the game different with 2?
Most of the game plays out very similarly, but it somehow feels more solo with just 2.

The auctions still require the same evaluation as before - am I going to get overbid on this tile, and if so, where do I move to? However, with only one opponent this is often trivial - especially as 3 of the 5 tiles are in the conflict row anyway, with no overbidding. As this is the only real interaction in the game, it does feel slightly reduced.

Strategy choices in what tiles to buy seem a little more limited - again because most of the tiles are in the conflict line, and the cost starts getting expensive, so you can't afford to buy tiles from this line every turn. However, the basic strategies seem unchanged, and as in the multiplayer game do seem to be most dependent on the start tile you're allocated.

Verdict
Although the gameplay is relatively unchanged with just 2, Peloponnes does lose a little something when played without the extra players. However, it's still fun with 2, and I expect will get played more that way - especially with it's quick play time.

Review: Shogun:: Shogun = Wallenstein reforged

Containerguy — Wed, 18 Nov 2009 11:51:05 +0000

by Containerguy

Alright folks, lets me make this point clear befor I even start with the review itself:

Shogun is a re-themed Wallenstein - I know that, You know that, Everyone knows it, so no need to brag about it, especially since Shogun is not only a re-themed Wallenstein, but in fact a refined Wallenstein.

Author: Dirk Henn / Publisher: Queen Games / Year published: 2006

What´s in the box:

1. A double sided mounted color (abstract) map of Japan in the Sengoku period (1467-1573) , split into 5 different regions.

2. Province cards (53) corresponding to the mounted map, each one showing the number of rice/gold, which can be sourced from that particular province, as well as the available building slots.

3. Twenty-five "chests" cards, used for bidding on the player order/special ability, or for bluffing

4. Five special ability cards, which are allowing specific advantages for the players during one season

5. Ten action cards, to determine the order in which the actions are carried out

6. Twelve Event Cards. The upper half indicates the special event, affecting the players actions this turn, the bottom part is indicating the loss if rice during winter time

7. Five Daiymo (The players Avatars) Cards - and one individual board for each of the Avatars:
Takeda Shingen (Black)
Hashiba Hideyoshi (Purple)
Uesugi Kenshin (Blue)
Mori Motonari (Yellow)
Tokugawa Ieyasu (Red)

8. Sixty-two colored army cubes per player, plus 20 green cubes, representing the peasants forces

9. Fifty-five chests, the ingame curreny (White=1 Gold / Orange=5 Gold)

10. Eighty building tiles, representing castles, temples and theatres

11. Forty revolt markers

12. The almighty cube tower

What´s it all about ? (Scope of play)

The Five Daiymos are wrestling to ascend as the new Shogun, by scoring points, the scoring will be done after the end of each 4th (winter) turn. Victory points can be earned by the following means:

A: Controlling territory: Each controlled region will earn you one point
B: Constructions: Each building, irrespective which type = 1 point each
C: Majority of buildings per region: The player with the most castles/temples/theatres per region scores 3/2/1 point each region

Getting ready to play:

The dice tower is set up and loaded with an initial load of 7 cubes per player and 10 green cubes. All cubes which drop out of the tower are returned to the stock

Next, the provinces are assigned. two province cards are revealed, and the player can decide to occupy one of the two provinces with their forces, or to randomly pick a province from the stock.

The game starts:

The action cards are shuffled and the first five will be revealed, determining the order of actions, the remaining five are placed face down and will be revealed one-by-one

The special ability cards are shuffled and places on the respective spaces, for the player order bidding.

Now, the players are planning their actions by placing the province card face down on their individual map. These actions can be:

A: Build a castle (3 Gold)
B: Build a temple (2 Gold)
C: Build a theatre (1 Gold)
D: Collect rice (will increase your stock of Rice)
E: Collect taxes (additional Gold)
F: Buy 5 units (cost: 3 Gold)
G: Buy 3 units (cost: 2 Gold)
H: Buy 1 unit and move to adjacent square (cost: 1 Gold)
I: Attack/Movement A
J: Attack/Movement B

Additionally, the players are bidding for the player order/special ability cards, by placing "chest" cards face down.

Finally on out of four "event" cards is randomly chosen to determine possible modifiers / loss of rice (Winter only)

=> Resolving the plans:

First of all, the bidding for the player order takes place. The highest bidder may chose a slot/card first, in case of a draw, a random selection takes place.

And.... Action !: The individual actions, as determined before are resolved one-by-one, following the player order. Should you have lost a province (due to combat or revolt), it may happen, that you can no longer carry out the action planned.

Resolving of combats:

The attacker decides how much cubes will be used to attack a adjacent province, leaving at least one cube behind to keep the posession of his province (provinces may not be abadoned willingly)

Player VS. "Free" Province = Attacker cubes VS. green cubes (add one green cube from the stock),

Player Vs. Player: Attacker cubes VS. Green cubes* (the peasants are defending their homeland)

Cubes are substracted against each other, the remaining cubes of the winning party will be placed in the province, the winner is awarded with the respective province cards, third party cubes (other players forces) remain in the tray.

In case, all forces are eliminated, the provine will return to neutral status => all buildings and revolt markers, as well as the corresponding province card are returned to the stock.

*= if no revolt markers are present. In case one or more revolt markers are present, the peasants remain passive.

The peasants are revolting - Squelch them !

Everytime you are pressing the peasants for food or money, one revolt marker is added. If your are attemping to press the peasants a second or more times, they are revolting. One green cube per revolt marker will attack your forces.

After three rounds (Spring, Summer, Fall), the Winter (feeding your provinces/scoring) round takes places.

In the winter round, no actions are taking place (all players remains passive)

You need 1 unit of rice for each of your provinces, if you fail to feed all your provinces, a famine occurs and the peasants will revolt in some of your provinces (depends on how little provinces you can feed)

After all players have fed their people, the scoring takes place:

A: Controlling territory: Each controlled region will earn you one point
B: Constructions: Each building, irrespective which type = 1 point each
C: Majority of buildings per region: The player with the most castles/temples/theatres per region scores 3/2/1 point each region

Once you have done the scoring, the second (and last) year starts. However, you can always agree to stretch the game further, by playing additional years.

==================================

How does it feel ??? / Commonly known as "impression"

The game mechanics are very elegant, and the cube tower is a BLAST

Despite of the long play time (about 2 hours for a 5 player game, or even longer with slow (AP) players), the game is really nice.

The theme fits the mechanics very well and the look and feel of the components is great.

New players may find the start a bit challenging, however, after the first season is played, the will certainly adapt to the flow of the game.

Be aware, this is not a wargame, since combat is only 2/10 of the actions, however, the combat is still a vital part of everyones strategy (Why build castles, when you can conquer the castles, your oponent built for you ? )

My rating: 9/10

Review: Shipyard:: 1st Impressions from Essen 2009

Brokito — Tue, 17 Nov 2009 23:29:24 +0000

by Brokito

This article was initially posted in [geeklist=47966][/geeklist]

In Shipyard the players become the manager of a ship construction company. They have to build ships and let them sail on a Shakedown Cruise. The manager with the most successful constructions wins.

Shipyard can be considered as a rondel driven game. Marc Gerdt's inventions was used several times.
First and most important usage is the so-called action track, which drives the decisions and actions of the game in a very innovative way.
The action track consists of 22 fields which are arranged in a circle. On 8 of the fields, the so-called action cards are placed next to each other. In the 1st round, the players decide which action they want to play and place a token on this action card and perform the action. The token remains up to the next round and indicates that this action is not available for the other players. After the first round each player has a token on the action track. In his next round, the player will have to select one of the available actions on the track and moves his token to that field. Simultaneously, the former action card is moved to the front of the action cards. In that way, the action cards "crawl" around the action track. The game finishes, once the action cards circled the action track 4 times.

Each turn, the player can generally choose one of the following actions (if not occupied by another player):
- take one fright train: 5 trains are available for selection (1 for free, 2 for 1 coins, 2 for 2 coins). Each card depicts 3 wagons. The wagons are filled with 3 types of commodities (gold, stones or coal)
- take 1 shipping canal which depicts the route for the shakedown cruise.
- recruit crew / get propeller: in a 4 space rondel, the propeller and 3 "crew" (captain, soldier, businessmen) are shown. If this action is selected, the rondel token is moved one space and the players receives the respective part. Or the player pays additional 1 coin/space to move the token further and to receive that crew.
- buy equipment: in the same manner as crew rondel, the equipment rondel allows the player to receive one equipment (sail, chimney, cannon, crane).
- exchange commodities: in another rondel, the player can exchange commodities to either crew, equipment of money.
- hire employees: This rondel has 8 fields which each offer 3 employee cards: these cards provide powerful additional features to the player and last the whole game (e.g. receive an additional crew/equipment when choosing this action, allows to put more equipment on the ships, allows to move a rondel marker further steps for free, etc). This action is typically picked at the beginning of the game. In total 48 cards are available.
- take up to 3 ship cards: ship cards can be distinguished between bow, middle and stern cards. 5/10/5 cards are openly available for selection and can each cost 0/1/2 coins. Once selected, the player has to put them on his own shipyard (9 fields available). If a ship was completed (includes a bow, stern and at least one middle section). it will sail for its shakedown cruise. Each ship card can be equipped with 1 or 2 equipment and/or crew (based on the chosen card). Generally, the longer the ship and the more equipment/crew, the more VP. On top, based on the selected canal/s, additional VP can be generated, if the ship is adequately equipped.

After this action, the players can choose to play 1 additional action for 6 coins. They can choose any action (also occupied actions but except the one they already played). For this additional action, no action card or token is moved.

Once the action track is circled 4 times, bonus VP are given for so-called "government contract" cards which are chosen by each player during the game (2 each). At the beginning of the game, each player has 6 of these contracts and successively will reduce them to 2.

Shipyard is a well designed strategy game. The players need to have a long-term strategy: which type of ships shall I build ! A first direction is given by the government contracts.
In order to successfully sail a ship, several actions are required: hire the appropriate crew, equip the ship, select the right shipping canal for my ship, buy the right ship cards that allow to attach the selected equipment/crew and select the right equipment cards.
In this game, the players usually want to do everything at once and usually an action, which is already occupied by another player. So, the key to success is to adjust the short term strategy to the current situation - and eventually perform an additional action if the preferred action was not available - but this costs more money... In our game of 4, each player sailed ~3 ships).

Due to its complex "economy" and mechanisms, Shipyard requires lots of decisions and constant adjustments to the strategy. The players are always part of the game, as they have to follow, what the other players are doing and hence their next options are changing. They can somehow plan ahead, as for most actions, the upcoming options are always visible.
I assume a high level of re-playability as the government contracts change each game leading to different strategies. Beside this, the material is excellent and the theme works very well.

Review: Shipyard:: My Smokestacks Have Smokestacks: A Review of Shipyard

Marlowe_PI — Tue, 17 Nov 2009 22:45:21 +0000

by Marlowe_PI

Yes, ladies and the other 99% of the Geek's user population, I had the opportunity to try out Czech Games' brand-new heavy Euro at Euroquest 2009 this weekend (I didn't have sufficient time to play Endeavour, the convention's designated "Hot New Essen Game"). This was a shakedown cruise for everyone concerned, after some instruction from (thanks) David Fair.

Gameplay

I know the publishers frequent these boards, so, if anyone feels the detail is too much, please shoot me a Geekmail and I'll take care of it.

Overview
Players score victory points by completing ships out of piece tiles with certain mixes of components, by performing shakedown cruises with those vessels, during which they score points based on spaces they land on within a set of geomorphic canal tiles purchased by the player for the purpose, and by completing secret victory conditions. In addition, certain bonus tiles also score victory points. Ships score points for equipment, crew and speed. After the action tiles lap their track four times, the game ends.

Action Track
The board is dominated by tracks of various kinds, some of which are rondels, others of which are market tracks. The most important of the bunch for driving gameplay is the action track, where the players choose an action to perform during their turn. There are several actions available, each keyed to one of the other tracks:

Market Actions:
All market tracks have three available tiers, 0, 1 and 2, representing the number of guilders each tile costs. Players can purchase trains, canal tiles and ship pieces with separate actions.

Shipyard: The heart of the scoring system, this is where you buy ship pieces. There are sterns, bows, and two tracks of middle pieces. The player picking this action may pick up to three of them, placing them on a nine-space "shipyard" track at the bottom of his player mat. A player completes a ship when he joins together a stern, a bow, and 1-7 midpieces. At this point, you can score the ship (see below, "Scoring").

Rondels:
Rondel actions allow the player to move a marker token one space clockwise on the rondel and collect the indicated reward. The player has the option to move one additional space at one guilder per, and take that reward instead. The only proviso is, you can't move ahead to the same place the token started from.

These allow acquisition of ship equipment, crew, cash, and bonus tiles, depending on the action.

Other Action:

Cash (4-player game only): The player collects 2 guilders from the bank.

Movement on the Action Track:
Essentially, this involves picking a space occupied by an action tile. If you move off an action tile to get there (i.e., every time but the first turn), the old tile moves to the head of the line. For every player ahead of you when you perform your action, collect one guilder. Only one player is allowed on a tile at a time, like Le Havre's player disks.

Buying Actions:
By the way, if one action isn't enough for you, you can spend 6 guilders to purchase a second, with no occupation restrictions. The only thing you can't do is repeat the action you just did.

Scoring:
Once you complete a ship, you set it aside for scoring, at which point, you load it up with all the equipment and crew you want to score with it. The various pieces have features that allow you to place this equipment (e.g., cabins for crew, mounts for sails and smokestacks, etc.). Scoring the ship depends on the crew, the installed equipment, and the ship's speed (a function of whether the ship has a captain, a smokestack, and a propeller, and what other additional "speed" equipment is aboard). However, if you've neglected to provide a captain, you get nothing! Good day, sir!

Once you've scored the ship, you move a ship marker X number of spaces on a canal tile (purchased in an action), depending on the ship's speed. As it hits certain scoring spaces, you get additional points. For example, the gun space scores a point for each gun and soldier aboard; the lantern scores a point per lantern on the ship, and the blue ribbon scores points equal to the number of spaces you traveled to reach it (but if you hit two ribbons, you only get the bigger of the two scores). Once you finish moving/scoring, you set the ship aside for any endgame scoring.

Government Contracts:
You also have secret victory conditions in the form of three blue and three green government contracts dealt out at the beginning of the game. As the game progresses, you discard contracts until you're left one one blue and one green contract. Depending on how well you've fulfilled their conditions, they score megapoints at game end.

Game End:
The game ends after the action tiles complete four laps around their track. At this point, all the players get one action of their choice with no occupation restrictions. After this, the players score points from their remaining government contracts and any bonus tiles. Remaining cash is the tiebreaker.

Observations:
Gameplay was satisfyingly deep, with all three of us spontaneously commenting on how much we liked the game during play. I wish the fourth player had stuck around for the whole thing (Euroquest has tournaments, and one of his rounds was starting), but, oddly enough, things were pretty easy to adapt mid-step to the three-player version. The only things we had to do were remove the cash action and discard the contracts at different times. One player felt the bonus tiles weren't particularly useful, and, indeed, I was the only one who collected them in bulk (for the corresponding contract), but I got a good deal of mileage out of them--particularly the foreman tile (extra movement on the bonus rondel for free) and a tile that allows you to place propellers without a mount (or an extra propeller on a stern with a mount). The third player focused on selling trains and wound up winning with a big ship at the end. I found myself at a loss to maximize my final score after scoring my last big ship with 1 turn to go, but realized later I could have used both actions to squeeze 4 more VP's out of trader bonus tiles.

Another minor bit of confusion involves what constitutes a "lap" around the action track. It took a little convincing that the "head of the snake" is what you need to pay attention to--when it winds up at the original head's start space, that's a lap.

Like "Le Havre," action choice and purchases from the market represent the bulk of player interaction, enough to avoid allegations of "multiplayer solitaire" that tend to dog games like Race for the Galaxy. On the other hand, it's really not a cutthroat game. The number of ways in which one can screw one's opponent is limited, which means this game will appeal to the less-confrontational gamer.

There's no "runaway leader" problem, and, indeed, we were all very close until the final scoring. The fact that the winner lapped the victory point track twice, though, may indicate that a slightly longer track is needed, since none of us had any particularly big scores. Then again, tracks that aren't "nice round numbers" (50 or 100, for instance), tend to be harder to keep track of after you lap the track.

The art direction is very nice, but there's a serious problem with the components in the Essen prints. It appears from anecdotal reports that the cardboard punches weren't complete, leaving some of the tokens and tiles partially unperforated, leading to rips and--in the case of a few of our set's tiles--cardboard layer separations when one attempts to punch the pieces. This is really very unfortunate, but easily corrected in later print runs.

Final Scoring:
The three of us had a very nice time with this game, to the point where I'd have no reservations against recommending a play. It sounds like there's a lot to the game (and there is), but it's not a brain-burner like Caylus. The core mechanic is straightforward enough to render the details very manageable. I even think this compares favorably to Le Havre, my favorite from last year, and I'm looking forward to my next game of this when it becomes generally available in the U.S.

Review: Dominion:: Newbie’s Review of Dominion

jhsjhs — Tue, 17 Nov 2009 21:29:07 +0000

by jhsjhs

Note: This is my third “newbie review”. I am a long-time wargamer and card player, who has recently rediscovered boardgames and BGG. These reviews are directed to people like me or people playing with people like me—those entering the surprisingly broad world of boardgames, enjoying it, but a bit overwhelmed and always three expansions behind. As a newcomer, I don’t think I can genuinely answer the question “is this a good game”, but do think I can address how it is to be a newcomer in it. I will write about things like: can the rules be picked up quickly enough to at least get you started, will you spend each turn with a blank look on your face and no real clue as to how to proceed (which, by the way, is very different from “will you do well”), and will you have fun.

Quick Overview: Dominion is a card game in a board game box. It is easiest to describe referring to collectable card games such as Magic, so hopefully you are at least a bit familiar with them. As any CCG player knows, from a fair amount to a legitimate majority of time spent “playing” these games and the fun derived from them is building a deck—choosing exactly which cards to put in your 60-card (or however many) deck that you will use to play with. I only was introduced to these games a few years ago and initially found this incredibly weird, and was both impressed and concerned with the fact that a big part of the game was to be done to a large degree alone. Deck-building can be a genuinely interesting challenge, but wouldn’t it be better if it was more social…and now we have Dominion. This is a deck-building game. There are ten piles of “kingdom” cards (chosen out of 25 different types in the base game, so there is lots of variety game to game), copper/silver/gold money cards, and Victory cards which don’t do anything but provide victory points. Each turn you draw five cards from your deck, play one action (if you have a card that allows for it), and buy one additional card (money, a kingdom card, or a victory card) if you have sufficient money to do so. You then put the cards you drew from your deck and any cards you purchased in your discard pile. The kingdom cards are the heart of the game, each of which provides one or more types of action (which include drawing additional cards from your deck to stealing cards from your opponent to getting additional actions or buys that turn, and many more varieties). When you run out of cards in your deck, you reshuffle all the discarded cards, and this becomes your deck and you start again—thus all the cards you just bought you can now play with. The game ends when either the most valuable Victory card pile is empty, or three piles of any other cards are empty. At that point, you count up your victory points, whoever has the most wins. The challenge of the game is to buy kingdom cards that interact, along with more valuable money (silver costs three copper, but gives you two money to spend in future turns compared to copper’s one, etc.), and when the time is right start loading up on victory cards. You don’t want to do that too soon, as it will just clog up your deck—having three of your five cards drawn being useless-until-the-end victory cards pretty much ensures that you won’t be able to do anything for a turn. It really is a deck building game.

Ease of Introduction: Many games say they are easy to learn, but few are easier then Dominion. Within five minutes of being introduced to the game you are buying kingdom cards, picking up a few gold pieces, and worrying about whether it is too soon to buy that Province (the most valuable Victory card). If you lean towards AP, maybe you will find the first game difficult, but only because you will be making lots and lots of choices in the game (should I spend my four copper on a kingdom card, or waste one and pick up a silver?). Personally, I found the first game completely entertaining. When in doubt, I bought something new, and the game turns over so quickly that I had the chance multiple times to see how the new cards interact. Before I realized it, the game was almost over, and the more experienced players were notably shifting their strategies. I followed in their lead, and the game came to a close. Victory points were counted, another ten randomly chosen kingdom cards were put in place, and we were playing again.

Game Experience: Dominion manages to balance two things remarkably well for the newcomer—incredibly simple mechanics and victory conditions, so you can jump right in, and a rapidly expanding view of the underlying strategy. This is completely impressive to me. I have played maybe a half dozen rounds of Dominion, enjoyed each one, and came out of the each game seeing something I hadn’t before. It is the kind of game you want to play again, and again, as new thoughts and strategies show themselves and ask to be tested. Now, there may be a limit to how long this will continue, and my impression from looking at the BGG site is that players have largely agreed on some cards being over/under costed, and there being a few dominant strategies (if cards x andy are out, buy both), but I can’t say this troubles me. It is such an easy game to learn I have to believe that there will always be newcomers joining the fun and playing more or less at my level (I have already taught one). If I get to the point where the cards are redundant, I will thank Dominion for giving me many, many fun games, and play the expansions.

Externalities: I find one of the challenges as a new gamer to just jumping into the game is the sense that you will diminish the experience for others. Will the person who goes after you benefit disproportionably from your mistakes? Will you make the game random? A criticism I have seen of Dominion is that the level of player interaction is not great, and my limited experience leads me to believe there is some truth to this. I think this is a potential negative for the game (maybe when I play a bit more I will give it an 8, instead of 9, whatever), but it minimizes the externalities issue. If you play poorly all you will do is lose, and you will have fun until then. Don’t sweat it.

Final Thoughts: If there was a gaming award for clever, that slap-your-forehead-wow-what-a-good-idea thing, Dominion would have owned it. Five minutes into my first game, all I could think was “what a great idea”. I don’t want to get too caught up in this, but it is worth mentioning that the game designer deserves credit for a brilliant idea. A deck-building card game! Wow. Well done.

Now, back to newbie-world, clearly I think this is a no-brainer, learn/buy/borrow/teach/put-on-the-top-of-the-list game. It won all sorts of awards, and you will rapidly see why. Ten minutes in you will be glad you started. Go! Go!

One final “final thought”, a bit off topic: one thing about the game that seemed interesting to me is that it is a very low feedback sort of game—as you play, it is hard to see whether you are playing well. The only score is the final score, and until then any tally of victory points would be extremely misleading. The best decks seem to get a “final rush” where they are consistently drawing enough gold and silver to pick up highest value/multiple victory cards again and again. It is a credit to the game that this doesn’t make it frustrating as a newcomer. Unlike in a traditional wargame, where you may do “x” and then get crushed (learning not to do “x” next time), here you just play along and then (quite possibly) lose. It can be completely non-obvious what just went wrong. Yet it is still fun. This kind of amazes me.

Review: Hive:: What's All The Buzz About? : A Hive Review

Focuscoene — Tue, 17 Nov 2009 16:53:34 +0000

by Focuscoene

As I helplessly lay back and let my newfound board game addiction slowly consume my entire life, I'm finding out all kinds of things about myself. Namely that I'm a bit of an abstract strategy nut. In addition to that, that abstract strategies can be rather difficult to review. After all, the beauty of abstracts is the way the mechanic works for and against you during play, not so much just "how it works".

So Hive. Hive is like Chess. With bugs. Not really. Well, kind of. Hive is like Chess in that each piece has it's own unique way of moving, for example the Grasshopper can leap only straight across a row of other pieces (it cannot leap over a blank space), or the Spider can move along the edges of pieces three spaces, but no more and no less. It is not like Chess in that there is no board.

Your goal is to completely surround your opponent's Queen Bee piece (which can move one space at a time) without allowing this to happen to yours. The trick here, however, is that you cannot break the hive. What does this mean? This means that all pieces played must stay connected at all times, no one piece can be left hanging un-attached from the rest as a result of a move; even if by the end of the current move it would end up that way, you still cannot do it. This makes things pretty tricky, as you end up having to use a piece simply to prevent your opponent from using his/her Worker Ant.

Here in lies the problem, I think. The Worker Ants. You each get three of them, and they can go absolutely anywhere. So when it boils down to it, no matter who you're playing, it really feels like your finding ways to stop the Worker Ants (usually with Worker Ants) while the other pieces are being used to make-up the hive itself. Now I know what you're going to say, "a good player shouldn't need to rely on Worker Ants". Well, as a self-proclaimed "good player" (I get real nasty with the Beetles and Grasshoppers) I can still say that it all boils down to the Worker Ants. Almost like you're playing Chess with three Queens. Is this a flaw? I'm not sure, but it certainly makes gameplay a little bit more repetitive than other abstracts with more balanced pieces.

So when it boils down to it, this game is freakin' great for it's purpose. Which is what? The same as most abstract strategies: a quick, 20 minute battle of the brains that requires absolutely no set-up whatsoever and explanation is figured out in the first game or two. After three rounds you might be ready for something else, but you'll always come back to it, it will be a recurring favorite, I guarantee it. Young or old, gamer or casual gamer, this will be a winner, both thematically and strategically.

Oh before I wrap things up here, I wanted to talk about that theme. It's loose, it's bugs, but it's a theme. Very rarely in this genre is there any kind of visible theme whatsoever, but Hive has got one, and seriously makes it work really well. The way each of the pieces is able to move corresponds to it's bug remarkably well. It's refreshing really, to not have marbles battling in some fantasy looking grid in space.

With that in mind, I have not played with the Mosquito expansion yet. From what I understand, the Mosquito piece takes on the power of whatever piece is to attached to and pointing towards. This is unique feature that certainly sticks with the theme well, however (remember: I have NOT played it yet, so I could be wrong) I feel that perhaps having ANOTHER piece that you can make into a Worker Ant so easily seems like a bit much to me, but I could be totally wrong once I see it in action.

Anyway, all in all, I endorse this product 100%, no matter what kind of gamer you are. This game absolutely belongs in your collection. Absolutely. Did I mention the bakelite pieces are really pretty?

Review: Ra: The Dice Game:: Ra the Dice Game: captures some of the fun of the original...but not all

halbower — Tue, 17 Nov 2009 15:17:17 +0000

by halbower

Ra the Dice Game is Reiner Knizia's offshoot to his successful Ra (the tile) Game. Ra the Dice Game is published by Rio Grande Games so you know the quality of the components is going to be pretty good.

In Ra the Dice Game, players roll five different colored dice. Like Yahtzee, players are allowed to keep the dice they want and reroll the dice they don't. There are various symbols on the dice. Players use these symbols to place their wooden cubes to various parts of the board in order to maximize their scores. The player with the highest score after three epochs (read: game rounds), is declared the winner.

Players are not allowed to reroll any "Ra" dice. These dice move the game forward like the Ra tiles move the game forward in the original game. If you roll 3 Ra dice, you score 3 points. If you roll 4 or more Ra dice, you declare a disaster instead of scoring 3 points. Disasters force your opponents to lose two cubes they placed on the board, thus reducing their scoring potential.

Players will try to score points in several areas on the board. Players place cubes on the board to in accordance with the dice they rolled.

These cubes will go in one of four areas: 1. Pharaohs; 2. the Nile; 3. Civilizations; 4. Monuments. The player who has the most pharoahs will score 5 points; the player with the least will lose two. Any player with three or more civilizations will score points; players with no civilizations will lose five. Players will need to boost their Nile and flood markers to get some points for the Nile area. Players can score immediate points by rolling pairs of Ankhs (wilds) or three Ras.

Unlike the other areas, players score points for their monuments at the end of the game. Monument scoring is based upon how many monuments you have in each row and how many you have in each column. Thus, you can block an opponent by claiming some of the monument squares he was vying.

Ra the Dice Game has excellent components.The dice are high quality.

The symbols are molded into the dice so the dice will last many years. The board is quite attractive and gives you the sense that you are in Egypt.

In addition to this, the box has adequate storage for the game and its components. The box is smaller than most so Ra the Dice Game won't take up lots of space on your gaming shelf.

It takes only 30 minutes to play a game of Ra the Dice Game--and there is minimal set up. You can enjoy a game in no time once you understand the rules.

Ra the Dice Game definitely captures the scoring elements of Ra (the tile game). The way you score pharoahs, civilizations, monuments and the Nile is quite similiar. Having said that, I still like the original Ra better. The lack of auctions in Ra the Dice Game makes it a lesser experience.

Due to its brevity, Ra the Dice Game would make a decent gateway game. Nongamers who are familiar with Yahtzee may wander into the gaming hobby via Ra the Dice Game. I recommend Ra the Dice Game as a gateway game but I recommend the original Ra for the more serious gamers.

Review: Power Grid - Factory Manager:: Factory Manager Replay (follow-up to my initial review)

Eisley — Tue, 17 Nov 2009 15:17:11 +0000

by Eisley

I enjoyed Factory Manager a lot when I played it (initial review here). A second play (again with experienced gamers) was just as enjoyable and a chance to try my gained knowledge to improve my efficiency.

Like my initial play, I found there were lots of decisions to make which is not common to find in a relatively short game. So, it held my interest as before and kept my brain very busy. I still really like how the turn order is balanced by the later players getting discounts on all their purchases. It’s a really nice game mechanic as it means that turn order doesn’t over-dominate the game, which means players who have more workers available because they’ve gone the manpower efficiency route don’t automatically get to dominate the game. I can’t tell yet if it’s almost too balanced as few players have bid for these tiles in my games and no-one’s ever bid more than one worker, but it’s a nice system.

I’ve not seen the seasonal workers used very much at all so have yet to fully appreciate if there’re further strategies to be found within them. Also, I haven’t seen anyone use the tactic where you can bid more workers than you need to to win a turn order tile. The rules suggest you can do this so that, when the time comes, you don’t have to draw down as many tiles into the market. Doing this would restrict the choices of machines to buy because there would be fewer available. I can see that, if you have a lot of unused workers and play first or second in a round, then this could be a very interesting tactic to use because you’d get first or second choice of the tiles and the remaining players may then have little to choose from. However, I don’t think I’ve seen this overbidding for a turn order tile yet because tiles get drawn down into the market in their cost order; this means that if you only get to draw down one or two tiles, you probably won’t be able to guarantee you’ll get to purchase the higher value machine(s) that you want because you only got to draw down the lower value machines. I like the idea of the tactic but I will be interested to see if anyone uses it.

My only slight concern about Factory Manager is that there isn’t much variety between each game so that may impact on its longevity. There will be differences between each game because the machines that are available for purchase each round will vary which will affect which routes to efficiency are available, plus purchases/decisions by other player’s will also need to be factored in. So, I’m not certain the difference between each play will be very great. This makes Factory Manager a very solid and enjoyable game (especially if you like some thinking involved) but may be a game you won’t play over-and-over in short succession. However, this is a relatively minor issue given how enjoyable the game is.

Overall, I’m starting to think I may buy the game now because I rarely get to play Power Grid due to its length and relative complexity (which rules it out of being played by one of my gaming groups).

All 3 other players I played with, who were all experienced gamers and only one had played Power Grid before, really liked the game. It took them a turn or two to fully get into the process. One player managed to end with an income of 150 (which was amazing as the maximum is 160) and no workers required to run the factory - incredible efficiency.

James.

[Played with 4 players]

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

Review: Pony Express:: [Video Review] Pony Express

TomVasel — Tue, 17 Nov 2009 14:03:46 +0000

by TomVasel

Youtube Video

Direct Link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ExTVPkVw2LI