This Uwe Rosenberg entry (with Hagen Dorgathen) in Kosmos' two-player
line joins games such as
Lost Cities
and
Tally Ho!.
But if the first is a race
and the second a "back-and-forth", this is a full out boxing
match with plenty of knockdowns and recoveries before it is over.
In fact the options of the offense are so strong it is almost as if
the players are eggshells armed with hammers.
Precariously then, they race to build a minimum number of
towers on five sites (artificially tied to Persians, Sumerians,
Hittites, etc.). Each of these has a special power as if this were a
GMT game (see
Galaxy: The Dark Ages,Ivanhoe,
Battleline).
Most players will probably find that luck of the draw has
too much influence although some report relief from a variant
which permits any pair of cards to stand in for a card of the
discarder's choice. Kosmos' typical attractive presentation continues
here, including two unusual marker stones.
Uwe Rosenberg; 2000
Early 80's-era Ravensburger game designed by American Alan M. Newman.
Building on the concept of
Halma (Chinese Checkers),
adds the wrinkle that pieces may not travel backwards. In addition,
the pawns which are nicely-made top halves of Russian babushka
nesting dolls in three sizes may cover one another, preventing the
smaller ones from moving. Interesting for the same reasons as
Halma, but probably too many playings are going to be
decided a bit prosaically by one player having one of his small
pieces trapped until too late. Four-player version appears to
be more interesting than two. Three is disallowed.
Classic abstract apparently dates back five thousand years to
Mesopotamia. May share a common ancestor with Pachisi.
Probably related to the Egyptian game Sennet (not
described here) and spread everywhere by Roman legionaries.
Popularity surged in the United States during the 1970's and
continues today as it is of interest for
gamblers. The inclusion of luck via the dice has probably made this one
more accessible to a wide audience, even though there is still plenty
of interesting and difficult decisionmaking as well.
Tric Trac is the name in French and Russian.
[10 Most Famous Board Games]
"Tigers Moving", the national game of Nepal, is a two-player pure
abstract, but an above average one. For one, there are
dramatic assymmetries in powers and numbers. There are twenty
goat pieces, but only four tigers. Tigers can capture by
hopping over, as in
Checkers
which the goats can never do. Instead they win by hemming in the
tigers so thoroughly that they are unable to move. The board
is a 25x25 grid which more usefully can be thought of as an
inner and an outer board (draw the board as a circle to see
this more clearly). The outer ring has considerably more
connectivity than the inner as diagonal lines are much more
common there. Play comprises two halves, the first
featuring goat placements from off-board with tigers trying to
capture when possible and position when not, the second with
both sides moving. The tiger side is a more reactive one, but
does have some positioning considerations, particularly as the
tiger player wants to avoid being bunched into a tight group
which is easily immobilized. As goats can be eaten, relatively
more care and attention to detail are needed on this side.
It's particularly important not to get so wrapped up in long
term plans that a capture is accidentally given away. More
could be said about the goats strategy, but this review will
leave that fun of discovery to the players. But for a vague
tip, consider that the goats player's actual goal is
creating vacant spots on the board which the tigers cannot
reach. The best locations for these tend to be the spaces
which are along the edge and adjacent to the corner. Although
played perfectly this one may ultimately favor the goats,
this is a fair game with the number of five goats being
eaten a balancing point (likely if the tigers could capture
more than five goats the latter could never force a victory
anyway). The tigers and goats make for a compelling thematic
backdrop. The fact that there are very few rules and playing
time is short makes this suitable even for children.
A Tibetan version changes the goats to cows (yaks?) and the
tigers to leopards, and has only twenty-four of the first yet
only two of the latter.
Traditional; Public Domain/Pressman; c. 1000; 2
Strategy: High; Theme: Medium; Tactics: Medium; Evaluation: Low; Personal Rating: 6
The very exotic sounding name of designer Kara Ben Hering is
a red herring indeed as it is actually the pseudonym of Klaus
Teuber and friends who have here designed a blind bidding game
reminiscent of Adel Verpflichtet,
but set in the old Middle East. In particular, players
are attempting to bribe their way through a palace until
they can finally reach the caliph. Simple system moves right
along and works quite well as a light outing, much as with Razzia, although not nearly
as flexible in number of players (four is really required).
Ensure that players are alert at all times as it takes all
the efforts of the other three to foil someone poised to win.
Features unique swirly pawns and very snazzy gold-colored
plastic coins.
Word game is actually a traditional pastime called "The
Dictionary Game" features players trying to invent anonymous
believable definitions and scoring points for the number of other
players guessing wrong. The commercial presentation is quite an
improvement as a large number of dictionaries were consulted and
many obscure words obtained, often having humorous definitions
in the first place, making the game even more difficult as
well as fun. Also called Call my Bluff, Dictionary,
Dictionary Definitions Game, Fictionary Dictionary.
Followed up by separate game
Beyond Balderdash.[6-player Games][Party Games]
Despite admirable success with its Games for Two series,
Kosmos somehow never managed to achieve the same with its
"Spiele für Viele" or "Games for Many" and it was
discontinued after just a few titles. It's hard to say why,
exactly, as they did employ some of the top designers,
including Klaus Teuber, of course, and here, Uwe Rosenberg,
now renowned for
Agricola
and
Le Havre.
The packaging for the series was always in the same-sized
smallish box and the board size and components necessarily
limited to fit. Perhaps this was part of the problem. While
players tolerate miniature for two, with more we
tend to expect a sprawling canvas on which to play out the
experience. Many may have felt cheated. Another problem,
unique for English speakers, is that a lot of these games
never got English editions and the free translations available
for them were so problematic that it's doubtful they were played
correctly. This may have been true here. But with a new
translation,
this has turned out to be not half as bad as English-speaking
reviewers averred. After all, even though it is a
small-package effort, there are certainly some unique
mechanisms here. The game is set on the Indonesian island
which gained fame after the opening of South Pacific.
There is no real board, but four large
squares, each depicting a different island, around the edges
of which each player owns a face down hand of cards. At any given time
only one island is active and when that changes, players lay
down that island's hand and pick up the hand at the new venue.
The goal is to rule the islands, which in practice means
getting the most points in power symbols and demon masks.
To do it there are several types of cards:
Warriors attack other players, weakening their hands
at this island by forcing them to disperse cards to other islands.
Scholars exchange cards with those at other islands.
Artists take new cards from the deck.
Priests and Princes are used for power symbol
competitions.
Dalangs change the location to a different island, which
can also trigger scoring.
These card plays are not atomic operations, but ones in which
all players interact. After the current player initiates the
action, opponents may also play cards of the same type to
either counter or participate in the action, depending on what
it is. Admirable elements here are difficult decisionmaking
about what cards to play and in what order, bluffing,
estimating opponent strength and deciding when to play for
oneself and when to play for the team trying to stop a leader.
Downsides are that this really only works well for four and
there is some memory element with respect to one's other three
hands. Production is rather attractive, if not big. The
islands and cards are well done and the dalang is a unique
three-dimensional cardboard figure on horses and chariot.
Duration is only about an hour. There's a lot to like in this
somwehat overlooked gem; if you've stayed away because of the
reviews and like what you've read here, it might be time to
give this one a try.
Other games in this series were
Eden,Gnadenlos
and
Zaubercocktail.[translation] MMHM7 (Strategy: Medium; Theme: Medium; Tactics: High; Evaluation: Medium; Personal Rating: 7)
Uwe Rosenberg;
Kosmos; 2001; 3-4
British game about delivering the mail via hot air balloon.
Fairly nice balloon pawns with moving parts permit the balloon
to fly at one of three different altitudes. Nice plastic bits
represent ballast which is released to gain altitude. Gameplay is
more problematic as wind shifts are so sudden and unpredictable
as to throw most planning over the side of the basket. Worse,
it's not difficult to get into a situation where the player is
unable to do anything useful for several turns running.
[Balloon Aviation Games]
This card game of collecting votes is a bit reminiscent of
Drahtseilakt
as well as
Fiji,
though significantly different from each. Each card combines
two numbers, one representing votes, the other unique. One
player, being designated the spotlight, must make several
associations. That is, there are several rule cards, one of
which will apply to the highest card played, one to the
lowest, and the rest to the positions in between. Then players
select cards which are simultaneously revealed and the rules
are applied. The spotlight player has had the tricky task of figuring
out what his hand may best enable him to do while the others
must similarly figure out what he is intending and how best to
either fit in or work against. Rule cards include directives
such as "take the card on offer", "take an opponent's card",
"become the spotlight player", "take a played card and discard all
the rest", etc. It's a very tricky business, actually, made
more complex by the fact that one wants not just votes, but also
diversity of card colors. In addition there is a bonus for the
collector of the most zero vote cards. Theme is more or less
an afterthought here, even though cards have labels and
pictures corresponding to various voter demographics:
liberals, conservatives, undecideds, etc. The artwork is
cartoonish, deliberately primitive and somewhat robotic
looking. Overall this game is a bit of a wolf in sheep's
clothing: an innocent-seeming card game which turns out to be
one for serious game players. Likely most will not grasp all
its possibilities on the first outing, but those who persist
with it – and have a good memory for cards played –
will find rich tactical possibilities. Play only requires twenty or
so minutes as well.
Strategy: Low; Theme: Low; Tactics: High; Evaluation: Medium; Personal Rating: 6
Stephen Glenn & Mike Petty;
Robot Martini;
2007; 3-4
Two player game of various ballooning competitions. The layout
reminds of Lost Cities,
but actual play is considerably more tactical as players can
lay cards on either side of the middle line. In addition,
prizes are being taken all the time in the form of quite small
wood cubes. Collect enough cubes in a color and win one of the
trophies, each of which has a different value. The decisionmaking
is the opposite of Lost Cities where often one doesn't want
to do anything apart from get more cards. Here it is more usual to
want to do many things, but only one is permitted. The important
skill is to evaluate which is most important, often based on
whatever can be deduced about the opponent's goals and hand.
It's also refreshing that both low and high cards are useful,
greatly lessening the possibility of losing due to poor luck
of the draw. Unfortunately the theme is very thin; apparently
Stephen Glenn's original one of a piñata party
was not familiar enough for the German market. But the artwork
is attractive enough and the final result makes for one of the
better entries in the Kosmos series. [Holiday List 2003]
Game of strategy on the topic of racing balloons around
the world. Objectivity about one's own design becomes quite
difficult after having been so close to it for so long. What
we attempted to do was create a game which remains true to
its adventurous, colorful and light topic. In terms of the
mechanics, it is a racing game in which players compete by playing
cards. However, they do not play cards in trick-taking fashion
as in Canyon. As far as we can tell in no other game does
cardplay simply select the lane of travel; usually cards vary the
rate of speed. Here, the speed is given by the lane which is an
indirection with which players must cope, made more challenging
by obstacles. Moreover, the lane selection mechanism is further
twisted by being not absolute, but relative. Further planning is
introduced by the fact that lane changes are tied to specific
altitudes, and the number and degree to which altitude can be
changed is limited by supplies. Usually this should provide
for a fair game, although in the rare case that a player draws
exactly the cards needed throughout the game (which ones they
are will vary from game to game), the ability of other players to
trigger events or play contrary winds is available to stop him.
With cooperative play, it has been demonstrated that an apparently
sure winner sitting on the goal line can be stopped and another
player several spaces back overtake him. At the same time,
such negative play is limited by
the event pawn mechanism so that a targeted player still has his
fair chance to win. (Use of advantage cards to take valuable
cards into the hand is another
balancing mechanism.)
Overall, we feel that no other game is quite like it. Few other games
feature such a refreshingly rich mixture of mechanisms, which offer
opportunities for tactics and long-term strategic planning, but still
include a degree of unpredictability with which players must cope.
[Balloon Aviation Games][Two vs. Two Games][6-player Games][more]
Aren't all recent games from Winsome the same, really? Isn't
there a – what would you call it, the Wabash? maybe the
Harry Wu?
– system where there's a hex map dotted with cities,
where tracks are built using cubes and on each turn a player either
holds an auction and builds or simply builds? Aren't they all pretty
much like this? Even
Age of Schemes
appears to meet these criteria, though it's on the
Silk Road
where notionally there are no railroads. Well, no,
not entirely at any rate. This entry in the "Historic
Railroads System" family has no auction at all, so there's a
significant difference right there. Much however is also the
same. It is a hex map dotted with cities and tracks are built
based on stock holding and cubes denote them. A couple of
additions though also differentiate. There are six technology
levels. Tied to these are significant parameters such as the amount
of track a railroad can build on a turn and the cost per
capital equipment card the player holds. Capital equipment
appears to represent trains and rolling stock, perhaps also
engine technology and facilities. These are stacked face up
from the lowest technology to the highest and it is actually
their purchase that drives the technology track; when all the
cards of one technology have been purchased the next purchase
triggers an advance, increasing the maintenance cost
for all equipment. The cost for equipment is printed on the
cards and appears to have been chosen with care: the first
card of a new technology always being rather high and then
declining to the end. This makes timing of purchases quite an
important feature of play. Timing is also important when it
comes to board positions. Initially only two railroads are
allowed in most cities, making planning vital. There are
plenty of opportunities for trouble as railroads can be cut
off. The Pennsylvania railroad has its primary cities
protected, but New York's are not, though at the same time the
New York railroad cannot go elsewhere before going to those
cities, leading to potential dangerous positions for the
railroad. (This would probably not be seen in a German-style
game.) There are also valuable coal fields in western
Pennsylvania (the map stretches from Maine to Richmond,
Chicago to St. Louis) that are quite profitable, but don't
even need equipment to exploit. Another difference is that
payouts differ from city to city, but also depend on the
technology level printed on a scale in each city (a few of
these even go down as technology improves). As is often the
case, players act as themselves when buying stocks, and act as
railroad presidents when buying track. Getting more money into
a railroad is usually a matter of buying more of its stock, or
of not paying dividends, which however has the drawback that
the stock's price will not increase, thus sacrificing the long
term for the short. If a railroad starts losing profitability
or too many shares are sold its stock price plummets
– probably because it has been cut off on the map –
and it can become an albatross around its president's
neck. To improve its stock price a railroad
should always try to be more profitable than it was on its
previous turn. This game cynically permits players to
manipulate this process by changing which cities the railroad
serves. How realistic this is I cannot answer. Another
thematic oddity is that each railroad in a city is paid the same
regardless of the number of railroads there. Apparently there
is no competition? Perhaps the rationale is that the growing
population makes this moot. The production is the usual
functional, but artistically disappointing Winsome standard.
Perhaps the most annoying is that every space is white, but
many have different terrain costs. Players would get the big
picture much more quickly if the colors of the hexes reflected
their costs, which must anyway be based on mountains and other
special terrain. There's also quite a lot of arithmetic.
Calculating products like 19x7 is quite common – a
calculator might be a good idea, even more so for end of game
stock tabulation. There is a great deal of fiddling with cash and
payouts and the package doesn't even provide any paper money.
Beware if you've brought this on a trip and not taken the
Poker chips! But the numbers get so large that even an
ordinary three color set of chips are not going to handle it.
But back to all of this paying out; it leads to the game's two
worst sins: downtime and overall length. The latter easily
stretches well over five hours. Because turns are taken mostly
as railroad presidents, there can be an awful lot of downtime
waiting for others to complete their turns, especially when one
controls only a single railroad. Curiously, by the way, although the
rules would seem to permit it, fights for control over
railroads seem pretty rare here. That's probably because the
initial stock purchase usually permits buying a full 50% which
gives control as long as the owner wants it. Other player
stakes tend to be just one or two shares so as to be in on a
potentially fast growing stock. This has apparently been
released in a very small print run – under one hundred
it is said – and that is appropriate as the audience for
something this long, this unpretty and with this large a tableprint
must be quite small. By the way, reducing players to a
minimum may not help the time issue either as the actor in a
turn are for the most part the railroads, not the players.
On the other hand, buying and selling stock is done by the
players, so adding more players does make matters worse.
MMMH4 (Strategy: Medium; Theme: Medium; Tactics: Medium; Evaluation: High; Personal Rating: 4)
Eddie Robbins;
Winsome Games; 2009; 3-6
A definite entry in the "games you should try at least once in
your life" is this party vehicle, accessible to just about anyone
aged 6+ and having a somewhat steady hand. A wooden
disk the size of a medium pizza is loaded up with a great
number of variously-shaped wooden pieces and precariously
balanced atop a pole topped by a corked sphere which permits the
disk to tilt at some fairly wild angles. Players take
turns carefully removing one piece at a time hoping to not be
the one who makes it all topple down. Various approaches are
available. One could play defensively by always seeking to
remove the likeliest safest piece (not always easily
identified) or offensively by taking a piece that maximizes
instability for the next player. These also tend to correspond
to the dilemma between the safe piece which is a point or
trying to take a risky piece which might have to be abandoned
mid-draw if things become too unstable. Finally, many playings
will end in a satisfying crash that provides a fun laugh for
all participants.
[Party Games] Jacques Zeimet; Zoch; 1996; 2-7
Strategy: Medium; Theme: Low; Tactics: Medium; Evaluation: Medium; Personal Rating: 7
As in Junta, the topic is corrupt politicians.
Players allocate their bribes and hit men cards to
projects of varying values in secret, but each placement gives a chance to
see what others have placed there. There is a definite
memory element that may put off those players
burned out by undergraduate work. A good concept, however,
which is further refined in
Corruption. Frank Nestel & Doris Matthäus;Doris&Frank; 1993; 2-5
Michael Schacht card game of desperadoes seeking to rob banks in six
Wild West cities, e.g. Santa Fe, Tucson, Tombstone, etc. Reminiscent of
Kardinal & König: Das Kartenspiel
in its lookahead nature, the main problem in robbing these
banks is not breaking in, unlocking the safe or even security
guards, but making the trip to the town in the first place. Each
destination has four milestones represented by cards randomly
distributed to the players. On his turn a player either plays
such a card to advance the trip, places the card face up in front
of himself or offers to pay for the right to place another's
such card. The offer mechanism is innovative in that only one
offer per turn may be made and if the seller does not accept,
the deal doesn't go down. Buyers can ensure a deal however by
paying the full price. The main reason to do this is to enable
the fourth card to be played, which gives the player the bank's
full value. On the other hand, this player may end up netting less
than half the proceeds because of the payments to necessary to get
there. The other dilemma is that the round ends when any player
has no cards which means not all banks get visited. Figuring out
when this is likely to happen is important in cutting costs. The
card illustrations are very cute and go along with the light
level of play. Some mental energy can be applied here, but one
can imagine adding some form of card trading or other mechanisms
to make this more desireable for strategists. Otherwise, were
the theme less sinister, could probably work for a child audience.
Stefan Dorra game of shares and auctions. Each turn a share
in either one or two companies is sold via blind auction. The
innovative wrinkle is that the money bid comes in different
types, all completely equal in terms of value, but completely
different in terms of side effect. In this market, each bidding
chip corresponds to a company and only the firm receiving
the most bids will climb. Others drop at least one level or
all the way to the bottom if not chips of its color are bid,
a banque fatale indeed. Players take turns drafting
back the spent chips and then the current player may sell a
share. So players have several conflicting goals. Of course
they want to spend a lot to ensure buying shares, but at the
same time don't want to contribute to propping up others' share
values. They would like to bid a lot of their own colors, but
not so many as to have no chips left with which to avoid the
big plunge on future turns. Finally, when on a selling turn,
they want to avoid having their high value stock increase in
price because then it may not be sold, but on the other hand
if it should peak, they receive a nice dividend. In addition,
players need to avoid the problems of being either the only person
in a stock or, conversely, acquiring a stock which everyone else
also has. It's all rather challenging and counter-intuitive,
especially as it's so difficult to keep a stock's price stable,
much less make it rise. One strategic idea that seems to work is
to hoard the chips of a stock held by everyone but you, if you
can afford it, that is. The entire playing, like the designer's For Sale, lasts a mere 20-30 minutes,
but ineffably is not quite as exciting. On the other hand, when
compared to the latter, so few games are. Perhaps there is too
much a feeling of helplessness? On the other hand, if you've
been playing just a bit too much For Sale or others of
its type, as a welcome change of pace, you can bank on this one.
Stefan Dorra;
Unusual mix of party and society game was,
according to inventor Klaus Teuber, inspired by the
Riddle-Master Trilogy
of books
(The Riddle-Master of Hed,Heir of Sea and Fire
and
Harpist in the Wind)
by Patricia A. McKillip
in which wizards are devoted to the creation of riddles and
riddle solving tournaments. In an interview he stated So players write down the titles of
their sculptures which must be guessed by opponents in a way akin
to Twenty Questions. But it's not really about sculpting
ability since a sliding schedule of point awards tends to ensure
that any figure which is either too easy or too difficult is
penalized (i.e. there are penalties for being guessed very
early or very late). More likely in most games the winner will
be the best analyzer/guesser and, perhaps surprisingly, the
one making best use of his free movement points. One doesn't
want to use them up too early and be locked out of a glorious
scoring opportunity and yet there is no point in saving them
if one is about to be scooped. There's some strategy too in
the word game sense as one may sculpt a book yet call it a
"volume" or "tome". This light, colorful game is a category
mixer that actually works and especially so for those who value
both analytical thinking and creativity. On the other hand,
those who don't like other word games or who take their playing
too seriously ought to stay away as there are too may ways to
wreck its balance by not playing in the right spirit. If your
initial strategic thoughts are to deliberately sculpt something
about which you know little so that you can't answer questions
about it usefully, or to sculpt something so badly
that its own mother wouldn't recognize it, this means you.
The
Alan Moon house rule
forbidding creation of blobs and the
Richard Vickery house rule
further penalizing bad sculpture at the end game are advisable.
Title means "red beard".
[Spiel des Jahres Winner][6-player Games][Party Games][Holiday List 2002]
The setting is a Middle Eastern bazaar. Players travel
around the board landing on various stalls. On each turn
the players may try to take the jewels pictured on the
stall, take the number of Victory points listed on the
stall, or roll the dice and move that amount forward. The
player also subtracts the number rolled from '6' and gets
that difference in victory points. The main feature is
that each player secretly bids for which action he wishes
to take by use of simultaneously-revealed tiles. If two players bid for
the same action, they must negotiate a deal in jewels to
see which one gets to execute it. Nice, light game
of guessing and limited negotiation. If you want to try it out,
I have managed to win by a small margin with the strategy of choosing
victory points on every single opportunity. But if you do, you probably
don't want to announce this ahead of time.
Reinhard Staupe
Game for 2 children by Cadaco features an enclosed case trapped inside of which
are a facsimile basketball which is flipped by two sets of paddles into
an opposing basket. The winner is the one with the most points when the
timer expires. Features only very mild amusement as there is no strategy
at all, only skill.
Amusing "gadget game" with a medieval castle theme. The plastic
board has a vertical cardboard separator so that players cannot
see the opponent's plastic king and knight pieces. Pieces sit
in holes which are connected via a conduit to the symmetrical
position on the other side of the board. Players attempt to be
the first to have two pieces reach the wall, the king reaching
it permitting retrieval of a lost piece. Pieces are lost when
on each turn an opponent places an air plunger in a hole on his
side of the board and presses down. If there is a piece in the
hole on the other side, it will fly up into the air a foot or
so and be claimed by a convenient well on the plunger's side
of the wall. Mostly a game of bluff without much strategy,
nevertheless has a high fun factor.
Adaptation of the Reiner Knizia game Schotten-Totten by GMT for the
American wargaming set, complete with transforming the cards into
Rodger MacGowan-rendered ancient warrior types and additional
special effects cards. While the presentation makes matters
seem more serious, the artwork actually comes off rather bland,
lifeless and, surprisingly, unnecessarily small. Play itself is
virtually the same with the special cards being mostly an outlet
for the desperate. In any case they can be mostly nullified if one
player simply refrains from using them, which is probably for the
best as the original is very appealing without this additional
gimmickry. The probable long-term effect of this offering will
probably be simply to open even more eyes of traditional war
game players to the possibilities of German-style games.
A 1932 booklet claims that the game originated with soldiers in Russia
during the First World War. It was first published by
the Starex Novelty Co. in 1931 as Salvo,
again in 1932 by Strategy Games Co. as an air game called
Wings, then by the Strathmore Co. in 1933 as Combat,
the Battleship Game.Broadsides, the Game of Naval
Strategy,
the same game by Parker Bros. came a decade later. It competed with
the Maurice L. Freedman Co. version called Warfare Naval Combat
and one by Transogram called Convoy.
In 1961 Ideal published a version again called Salvo.
It has since appeared in many other titles versions in many countries.
Basically it is a game of guessing the locations of ships on
the opponent's hidden grid, a pure process of elimination which
doesn't have much strategy. Adults who get roped into this
one can add a minimal level of strategy by using the "Salvo"
variants which appear in some editions.
Do you sometimes get the feeling that Hasbro is a kind of
Jekyll and Hyde company? On the one hand there's the good
side, people who truly love good games and are trying to
create them, even on the Death Star. And then there are the
bean counter levels that know nothing of games, but only
understand protecting trademarks and namespaces. So what
happens? Endless iterations of
Risk,Axis & Allies,Monopoly
and all the rest. But since the beaners won't, or
can't, understand the games, when it comes to actual content,
apparently anything goes. Meanwhile, here's Reiner Knizia
who's been busy the past few years re-doing oldies such as
Pit.
A perfect match, or it would be, if only Hasbro dared to
do much above the least common denominator. This revisit of
Battleship
changes the process of elimination game into yet another of
the dice games that are swamping the marketplace of late.
There is a basic and an advanced version, the latter being
still so basic that no one over age six ought to look at the
former. Each player controls an identical set of ships –
battleship, carrier, destroyer, submarine, patrol boat –
in a line. On a turn a ship is picked to bring to the front so
that it can fire, and also expose itself to the enemy. On the
defensive side, each ship requires a different number of hits
to sink while on the offensive, each fires in a different way,
using different numbers of dice and re-rolls and also scoring
the results differently. Each of the special plastic dice show
all of the five ship dice on their faces and an explosion icon on
the sixth face. Destroying an opponent's ship claims it for the
active player; the game concludes upon completion of the race
to be the first to collect four. Though there's some excitment
from the rolling of the dice to see what happens, there are
few real tactics or strategy, and of course the theme is quite
minimal. There is possibly some evaluation of probabilities,
but it's minimal. The ships illustrations on shiny cardboard
are bland and the cardboard not even in the shape of ships. The
dice use stickers which may come off eventually. The best part
of all actually is the handy-sized, black plastic cylinder that
serves as the game's container, and that doesn't include just
the components. At least duration should be under twenty minutes.
Strategy: Low; Theme: Low; Tactics: Low; Evaluation: Medium;
Personal Rating: 4 Reiner Knizia; Hasbro; 2008; 2-4
Historically, tie-in games like this one based on the American
science fiction television series, are almost never good,
simply because they don't have to be; folks will buy it anyway
just because they like show. But if there were ever to be a
good tie-in game, what would it look like? Crafted by long
time Fantasy Flight
contributor, Corey Konieczka (Warrior Knights, Twilight
Imperium, A Game of Thrones, Starcraft, Tide of Iron, etc.),
this one tells a story similar to
Shadows Over Camelot,
in which a team tries to work together on a difficult task
amid enemy attacks and the sabotaging efforts of some of their
number. A large board depicts a mother ship with a variety of locations
therein and surrounded by a lot of empty space divided into six
sectors. Off to the side are other places to visit. On a turn
a player gets to move to virtually any space and then
takes an action, either the one printed on the board or plays
a card. After that an event card is drawn that usually means
bad news for the team unless they can overcome it. Sometimes
it's a matter of the player choosing which of two evils can best be
borne, but usually it's a matter of players anonymously
contributing cards to a common pot and then seeing if their
total exceeds the required value. This is the main area where
traitors can commit sabotage as only cards of the appropriate
colors help; others detract. The fact that some cards in the
pot are drawn randomly means that often traitors can get away
with nefarious activities without detection.
Negative effects
include losses to the team's four main necessaries: food,
fuel, morale and people, each of which is represented by an
unnecessarily fancy dial attached to the board, or losses to ship
systems or its associated ships due to enemy attack. The hidden identity
system is made more interesting by dealing out cards not only
at the start of play, but also at the midpoint so that someone
who is not a traitor at the outset may become one later. Some
characters even receive more than two cards, giving a
greater chance. There is also a sort of half traitor, called a
sympathizer; he might also be called a contrarian as he is
loyal to the team when things are going badly, but betrays
them when all is well.
What's good too, and unlike
Shadows Over Camelot, is that being a traitor, even a
declared one, is that there are still challenging decisions
and reasonable actions to take, even if it is still a tad less
exciting than being part of the team. On the other hand, expert
traitors/manipulators from Shadows Over Camelot
may ask "where's the challenge in just anonymously laying off
some cards?" While all of the above
is mainly praise, there are problems too, chief of which is
that players draw cards at the starts of their turns and
everyone else must wait in boredom while they are read. As a
result, even a four person playing can stretch to over three
hours. There is a lot of text everywhere, much of it too small
and too often upside down for half the table. Even worse,
despite all this text too much of it remains in the rules and
not on the board. Why aren't the combat tables printed there?
Why aren't the rather involved rules for traitor activities
printed on a card instead of only in the booklet? And there
are spaces indicated for some of the card draw piles, but none
for discards. At this rate the board might as well have been
dispensed with altogether and only the ship shown. Friendly and enemy
ships are represented by little gray plastic pieces, admittedly in
eight different varieties, that really don't add that much
and would probably have been more colorful and evocative as
cardboard tiles. The stand up character pieces in clear
plastic stands are quite nice, but the papery character sheets
are too flimsy.
Despite the problems, this is one tie-in that,
while not all the way there, gets things substantially right.
In addition,
for the most part this is a the-more-the-merrier game; having
more players (and for the traitors some fellow team members)
makes it more fun and, since each player makes the board
elements progress, not adding as much time as usual. But do
move card drawing to the end of the turn in any case.
[6-player Games] Corey Konieczka; Fantasy Flight; 2008; 3-6
Strategy: Medium; Theme: High; Tactics: Medium; Evaluation: Medium; Personal Rating: 7
The board is a mildly sloped plastic bowl with four
launching stations. Players wind strings around the stems of
differently-named plastic tops. Attached to the other end of
the string is a plastic handgrip which attaches to the top.
Simultaneously all players pull back on the grip which spins
the tops and launches them onto the board. The last top still
spinning when the others have falled wins. An action game with
almost no player control, although players may attempt different
launching techniques, it can sometimes be amusing because a top
when dying will sometimes swerve wildly and take out several
competitors. Tops are individually-named, thus encouraging
tournaments and ascribing of personalities.
Adlung card game about sending out explorers to the five
continents is reminiscent of Source
of the Nile because of the concomitant need for
fundraising. But this is a far, far less complicated endeavor.
The "undiscovered" continents hide their secrets in card
decks to which players commit funds and an exploration team in
order to claim. Tragically, every expedition claims one of the
differently abled explorers, but at least the success provides a
lot of funding. Players can scout out continents before trying
if they like and interact in three ways: exploiting a card before
an opponent can do so, putting a customs block in their path
or buying one of their explorers out from under them. There are
interesting strategic considerations – do you go for a lot
of quick small expeditions or a few big ones? – as well as
considerable reaction to the moves of others. Artwork is a fairly
standard version of what one can find in collectible card games
these days, but does not fully exploit the feeling of the time it
attempts to reflect. The character naming, e.g. "Lara Craft", is
too feeble an attempt at parody; it should have been either much
stronger or played straight. So the mechanisms, quite clean, tend
to carry more of the thematic load. But the overall is pleasing,
for armchair explorers especially. The title is the name of a
historic temple
in Cambodia. A chart showing the possible values of each
continent card would be a valuable play aid for serious
competitors.
Wolfgang Werner; Adlung; 2002; 2-4
[Buy it at Adlung]
Sid Sackson game about a Middle Eastern bazaar. Has no
real travel or desert, but is an abstract rendering of the
barter and trading that goes on, and in particular, the
process of continual "through-trading" to get what it is
that you ultimately want.
Contrary to most games which are "haul in as much as you can",
here one is actually penalized for having too much unused material.
Points are collected based on
the number of remaining gems the player has each time a
card is claimed, the fewer the better.
Thus a player needs to be efficient not in the sense of
earning a lot of gems, but in making only necessary trades.
It is
Chess-like
in the sense that a player must traverse
a decision tree of possible trades which lead to more
possible trades and so on. This game could be played very
well by a computer, particularly if the optional rule that
prohibits rolling the die except when no trade is possible
were employed. Later published as a different game under the
same title and thus called Bazaar II. A third version
appeared as
Samarkand.[6-player Games][more]
Trick-taking card game by Avid Press of New York, 1992, but
said to be based on a traditional Italian card game. The game
comes in a wooden box which includes a deck of cards and play
money meant to represent beans. The style of play is after
Ramsli, but with several features lacking. Here, if the
turned up trump is not of interest to anyone, the hand is thrown
in without trying any alternatives, wasting time. During play,
it is illegal not to play trump (slough) if unable to follow suit, reducing
decisionmaking. The order of cards, A-3-10-9-8-7-6-5-4-2 is
arbitrary and nonsensical. The game is supposed to be about collecting
beans, but instead of reinforcing this theme, the game provides
ordinary play money which has nothing to do with that except for
the blandly printed word "bean". Cards are rendered in color after
the Tarot deck including cup, gold, sword and club — artwork is functional
but rather crude. Players would be better off providing their own cards
and beans.
[6-player Games]L
Game about auctioning island properties and building Greek temples
owes a lot to Metropolis. Presentation is very nice including
a wheel gadget that permits in-the-fist style auctions. The rules
themselves are quite a hurdle however and figuring out what was
intended a game in itself. It appears that the idea is that every
property is meant to be auctioned off though the rules never state
how the deck is to be reconstituted. The timing of
the "god stone" is not well explained either. The sequence
of play does not mention the income phase, nor is the game nice enough
to print it on the board, but instead there are silly rules
about penalizing players should they happen to forget to take their
income. In terms of actual play, income is so minimal as to have
almost no effect on the outcome so why players are forced to waste
time with this phase is mysterious. There are some nice features
in terms of figuring out the groupthink about which types of
temples will be built most, but the fact that temples come in
only three varieties makes it a bit prosaic. One longs for the
greater variety of buildings in a game like Metropolis
or Big City. The auction is of the "blind double winner"
variety which is not the best for a tight game as it leads to
reckless overspending and at times incredible bargains.
Multi-player Reiner Knizia game in which players
represent the Nordic hero's companions who nevertheless
also compete for fame and glory. The unusual L-shaped
board displays the significant events in the epic tale
via a labeled, serpentine track. (The artist, John Howe of
Lord of the Rings fame,
probably hasn't heard of Kurt Vonnegut's
Palm Sunday in which the author proposes the
interesting idea that the action of any story can be represented
as a line graph – unfortunate as it might have been interesting
to use here.) Winning each story event requires cards of
up to two types that are known in advance, but win or lose,
each player will receive something – in the case of the last
placed player, usually a negative something. But no player can
be entirely knocked out. Probably the most innovative and
controversial element is the ability to gamble by drawing
cards in the round-the-table bidding that reminds of Taj Mahal; when one is out of
cards this is the only option short of resigning
and taking the lowest place still available. But it has the
downside that if cards of the right type are not taken, the player
takes a slight wound – a mere scratch really, but accumulate
enough of them and lose points at the end. Deciding if and when to
risk drawing cards – I have seen some have success drawing on the
very first round even when holding some of the appropriate cards
–
is one of the more interesting decisions. Another is how many to
spend on a current challenge and how many to save. There is clearly
a psychological element as one tries to gauge opponent strengths
from their bidding style, usually one of assured (overbidding),
timid (bidding to match) or desperate (gambling). The artwork is as
beautifully realized as one would expect. The board includes a
round, separable piece in the centier which is useful for
displaying the event's booty. There is no need for player pawns,
but curiously the Beowulf piece is not gloriously elaborate.
Despite its planning aspects, success feels overly dominated by
luck in drawing cards and although the presentation takes a sip of
flavor, theme fans are not likely to find enough to please them
either. Such a game might otherwise be okay as a gateway for those
new to the hobby, but the gambling element seems to run counter to the
"planning is important in these games" message one wants to
deliver. Expert tacticians, especially those into the fantasy
genre, are the most likely to be pleased here, if anyone.
MLMM5 (Strategy: Medium; Theme: Low; Tactics: Medium; Evaluation: Medium; Personal Rating: 5)
Reiner Knizia; Kosmos/Fantasy Flight; 2005; 2-5
Trivia game for the dictionary set. Questions come in many areas
including word origins, Shakespeare's usage, homophones, eponyms
and not a few others – I suspect most will learn something they
never knew before. A player doesn't get to choose this question
type, however – it is provided for him via roll of the die, which
gives one of six difficulty levels, an issue also unfortunately
out of the player's purview. A successful answer permits moving
a number of spaces equal to or less than the level, the goal
being to eventually land on all the letters in a pre-determined
word. There are some spaces that permit "teleporting" across
the board. Landing on another pawn lets you teleport it
across the board. As far as the question cards themselves,
the creators could have been more careful in their formulation,
onerous though this task must have been, for they do not always
seem fair for their levels. For example, some level 4 cards seem
considerably more difficult than some level 6 cards. Other cards
are factually wrong, such as a "euphemism" card intimating that
Ronald Reagan ordered an invasion of Panama. Either the Bush
invasion of the isthmian state or Reagan's daring takeover of
Grenada must have been intended. It is suggestive that many
of the euphemism cards seem to be about Reagan ... Overall,
with home fixing of some cards this will be okay for language
mavens and fans, but the strategy aspects, while not the worst
seen in a party game, could certainly be improved.
[Party Games]
Cooperative game of horrors found in an abandoned house. Along the
lines of the typical horror movie plot, players represent
variably-powered characters left stranded at a mysterious mansion.
They reveal rooms in the tri-level by turning up tiles which offer
items, events, omens, traps and ability enhancements. As more omens
appear, it becomes ever more likely that a dice roll will trigger
the horror-filled second half of the contest. Now one of the
players – generally the one least equipped to fight the menace
–
becomes possessed by the lurking evil and seeks to destroy
the other characters. This player leaves the room to read one
handbook while the rest read another – both have only partial
information about what the other can do. Particularly hidden is
exactly what the good characters need do to destroy the menace.
Everything here seems to work pretty well, although it should be
noted that these comments are based on use of the
revised handbooks(archivec version)
published at the Avalon Hill website. Characters are rated for
Might, Speed, Knowledge and (borrowing from Call of Cthulhu),
Sanity, the current levels being indicated by plastic sliders
mounted on the edges of the heavy cardboard cards. Progression up
and down the scale is not linear, but tailored for the particular
character, and for balance. The opposite side shows a different
character so there are plenty to choose from. Resolving "to hit"
rolls is kept simple as rolling the number of dice equal to one's
ability, trying to exceed a total. The dice show only values 0-2
which greatly simplifies the counting. The scenarios are both
balanced and full of story value. With 50 available, it will take
quite some time to repeat any. Artwork is suitably dark
while the communication design is mostly good, though some icons
are hard to see in certain rooms, especially those with tiled
floors. There are too many cardboard bits if anything – one would
have thought more generic, re-usable ones sufficient. There are
nice, painted figures for the characters, but they are a bit
fragile and did not receive a special insert to protect them as was
done for
Shadows Over Camelot.
This is a thematic delight and obvious labor of love. Many
will enjoy the group planning and strategizing to destroy the
menace as well. On the other hand there is plenty of randomness and
many early turns can be boring as players race around to enhance
abilities. Too, this bit of game state needs to be memorized as
each player can do it only once, something not seen in 99% of all
German games. It's too bad there is no way to get hints about what
the menace will be, and who, so as to be able to try to plan for
it. Overall, it remains a worthy entry for most players.
[6-player Games] Strategy: Low; Theme: High; Tactics: High; Evaluation: Low
Follow-on to Balderdash widens the scope to include
people, initials, movies, and dates.
This should help level the playing ground
in some groups as well as add some nice variety.
[6-player Games][Party Games]
This currently popular Chinese card game employs traditional
cards and is a
Crazy Eights
variant. Modifications are few: (1) If you do not play a card
you must burn one by placting it in a deck face down before
you. These count against you at the end, according to rank. (2)
After playing or burning a card, a new one is always drawn. (3)
When you play a card which matches the rank of the previous one,
you may change the suit to any color you like. (4) The wild card
rank is Jack rather than 8 (a trivial change – might be more
fun to use a
Tichu
deck and designate the special cards as wild). (5) Aces have the
value (in terms of penalty points) of 1. This version tends to
give players more options and the requirement of burning a card
(similar to playing a patron at the bar in
Café International Kartenspiel)
makes decisionmaking acutely challenging. At the same time players
are constantly getting information on others' hands from the
relative point values they are playing. Mandarin title means
"Chameleon".
Strategy: Medium; Theme: Low; Tactics: Medium; Evaluation: Low; Personal Rating: 5
Essentially the same as Boggle, but
featuring a larger grid. Perhaps a bit less strategic since it is
easier to form words, but helpful if one has a lot of players.
Wolfgang Kramer game of building and merging
automobile manufacturing companies owes much to Acquire. New features of interest
include a linear rather than grid board and three-dimensional
stacking ability. Luck of the draw seems to play an important
role, although ameliorated by the requirement to spend for
extra cards. Groupthink is thus probably just as important. The
very large plastic pieces fit nicely into the slotted board but
unfortunately are opaque and thus make it difficult to see the
important numbers they cover. Tall towers also tend to make it
difficult to view parts of the board – may be best to play it on
a low coffee table. Parodic names of real automobile companies
add humor. While less dry than Acquire, not as much fun
as Shark.[6-player Games]
Cheapass Games production of a very simple dice and auction
concept is cynically set in an environment of corporate
greed. Project managers bid employees to get projects and make
money upon completion. But in real life, wouldn't the winning
project manager be the one who bids the fewest rather than the
most employees? Maybe more time should have been spent finding
a theme for this one. Although the tension between wanting to
spend in the auction, but then having to wait longer to take
advantage is there, any strategy is eventually obliterated by
the vagaries of just a few die rolls. So skimpy are the rules
that they are printed on just one side (as are the cards). This
obsession with cheapness leads to a rules ambiguity. I believe
the intent was for reclaimed tokens to return to their usual
owner, not the one who won the most recent auction. Not only
is the art unprofessional, it is unattractive. This might have
worked as a quick game to play in a restaurant, but the large
number of not-supplied components – ten tokens per player
and several polyhedric dice (a single six-sider can stand in
unsatisfactorily) – precludes even that humble role. Remembering
to remove the tokens at the end of each turn can be tricky too
–
"did I pull one off this turn or not?" – which suggests that
a system which lined up cards in order where they can reach
completion one by one might have been a more workable system.
Overall, not recommended, but would welcome the basic mechanism
in the context of a full-fledged, multi-mechanism board game.
Game of city planning owes a lot to Sid Sackson's Metropolis, as do a lot of
others about city building. Placement on city blocks is based on
cards drawn from decks of specific neighborhoods. In addition
there is the possibility of placing new neighborhoods and
also a trolley line. All that seems to be missing is a baseball
stadium. Plastic pieces are very nicely made and a new box is fun
to open since just like a box of chocolates one discovers layer
after layer of nice surprises. The course of play is a bit odd
in that much of the game is not unleashed until the city hall is
placed, but it may be that no one sees a particular benefit in
placing it. Probably someone should monopolize a neighborhood
in order to place it in safety. In general, understanding
the consequences of one's actions takes experience and a few
completed games. Because the board may change so much between
turns, I recommend not more than three players so that planning is
adequately rewarded. In general a nice experience with lookahead
ability greatly rewarded. Negotiation fans will find a variant
which permits card trading for their use. Apparently the rule
which permits the streetcar line to branch was added only for
the English edition; I think I prefer going without it.
Something of a party as well as a strategy game. Players put
together an adjective with a noun to create a new invention,
e.g. "Mentholated Cat" and try to get other players to invest
in the new idea with hopes of it paying off. Initially there
is no way to choose which one to invest in, so players tend
to do it based on whatever they find most humorous. Later on
as investments pay off players will tend to invest in projects
not those of the leader. Probably pales after most of the jokes
have been found, but with expansion kits would be an excellent
entry in the hard-to-find "mindless but fun" category. Plays more
easily if coins rather than a scoring sheet is used. Similar to
Apples to Apples.
This second published game from the Ditts impressively diverges
from the first, the undersea exploration game
Nautilus.
This one's clear inspiration is Knizia's
Tutanchamun,
but even so it twists matters in its own direction.
Once again a number of pieces are laid out randomly
in a chain along which pawns will move, toward a
stepped goal. In this one a player may move forward any pawn,
but its destination is limited to the next piece matching its color,
upon which the player takes either of the pieces adjacent to the
pawn's position. There are also black and white pieces, which
do not match any pawns. Black ones may be spent to perform a
double move, which may be backwards. White ones give extra
points in proportion to the number of colors the player has
collected. But how are points earned in general? When a pawn
has no further piece to move toward, it is moved up the ramp
to the highest empty space. The highest has a value of four,
the lowest zero, and these amounts are point multipliers for
the pieces players have managed to take in hand. It should be
apparent that this is a highly integrated affair and one in
which there is the constant dilemma of moving to take a
valuable piece, but on the other hand, giving someone else a
valuable move or even giving a color that an opponent has more
of a high valuation. Yet the rules are also very simple and
play times tend to be short enough that there's often desire
for a repeat play, which will most likely go entirely
differently. The one concern might be that some setups are
unfair, especially with the full number of players, or that
a kingmaking situation could occur, but the
short duration and easy repeatability help with that.
The pieces are nicely-painted wood while the
steps are fancy cardboard. Everything is functional and even
though to date it has been published only in Germany (despite
the deceivingly English title), there
are no texts apart from the instructions. This fine game of
groupthink, foresight and evaluation is recommended as an easy
to learn yet rewarding exercise for just about all types.
LLHH7 (Strategy: Low; Theme: Low; Tactics: High; Evaluation: High; Personal Rating: 7)
Wolfgang & Brigitte Ditt; Schmidt-2008; 2-5
Alex Randolph game (2001) of auctions and area dominance, set
in the American metropolis of the 1920's. The field of play
is a group of city lots worth varying numbers of points and
flanked by "doubling" parks at the corners. Each turn players
bid on a random group of cubes, the winner being able to place
them freely. When a lot has reached seven cubes, its majority
winner is awarded the lot, but in a delightful rule, on a tie a
player only having a single cube wins instead. Also innovative
is the funding system: players can take one fixed size loan
per turn, but only if otherwise unable to bid and each at 10%
higher interest. Bidding just to take a loan is common and
is associated with the game's endgame issue. Bidding here is
essentially an attack in other guise and the fact that a player
can bid freely – even on cubes of no practical benefit
– means an out of the running player can often decide
the winner. It's unfortunate because otherwise this moves well
and gives rise to stimulating bidding, funding and placement
decisions. A case of "too good to be true" apparently. This could
perhaps still be enjoyed by a friendly group who can trust one
another to refrain from kingmaking.
Alex Randolph; 2001
Adaptation of the traditional card game,
Fan Tan,
is based on an interesting idea. In the original, the main tactic
is to not play a card which is early in sequence to thus prevent
opponents from playing their higher cards. Inventor Ray Mulford
must have noticed that this is rather all-or-nothing. What if the
game permitted a middle ground? So here, under a strict system of
rules, players can offer points if someone would just play the card
they need. And, to make things more interesting, the game changes
the number of suits from four to eight. Finally, before the hand,
players must place weighted wagers on which suits they think they
will manage to complete. In effect this simple-looking game becomes
a subject for rigorous cost-benefit analysis! But to shine as such
it requires that all players approach it in this analytical way.
On the other hand, its appearance and simple rules will probably
most likely appeal first to those who take games more casually.
But players should be thinking about things like
which should have priority, getting payouts or letting others have
payouts? If you have purposely buried a card, when is the ideal
time to bring it out, if ever? Solutions probably depend on which
tack your opponents are choosing. The cards are decently made, as
are the charts. Markers are rather flimsy. The artwork is
stylistic, individual and interesting enough that it deserves to
have been better served. Had the captions that give factoids on the
history of the circus been omitted, the illustrations would be much
easier to appreciate. This from a reviewer who usually prefers text
over art. The cards are also only usable in one orientation The
biggest problem of all, however, is the incomprehensibility of the
instructions, which are so unhelpful that I have taken the unusual
step of preparing a
rewrite.
This is a simple game, but so many of the good ones are. It's
better with more players – up to six are accommodated – and many
of its decisions are subtle ones of close measurement. Its circus
theme has nothing to do with play, but it is a cheery one.
Another good game on this topic is
Feuerschlucker.Advanced Primate Entertainment Strategy: Medium; Theme: Low; Tactics: Medium; Evaluation: High; Personal Rating: 6
Somewhat unusual kangaroo race game featuring players racing
around on a grid with a central lake (billabong). Efficient
forward movement is accomplished via long distance jumps
over other pieces. The game is thus more in the abstract vein
with considerable lookahead ability essential to good play.
Franjos
In these days of the 2010s, it's a commonplace
that apart from the efflorescence of 3M Games like
Acquire
(1962), there are few society games from the pre-1993 period
still worth playing. Yet from time to time an outlier is
unearthed that still has the power to surprise us, and in a
good way. One such from the early nineties was
Columbus.Astron
is another; it hails from the hoary
mid-fifties. Splitting the time difference is this one with a
punning title that means "Are you safe?" in the insurance ad sense,
but which can also be interpreted "Are you sure (that you're doing
the right thing?)" in the game play sense. Acquiring insurance
is indeed the subject here and maybe it was originally meant
as a promotional game for an insurance company, but
considering that bad things can happen to players, maybe no
company would want to be associated with that. Each player has
a board on which tiles in four different categories –
family, luxuries, investments and hobbies – are to be
collected, by drawing from the bag. The double trick is that
the number to be drawn is determined by die roll and that
there are not a few negative events – accidents, fires,
burglaries, illnesses, etc. A roll of 4 or more gives a choice
of whether to risk drawing that many tiles or taking the
amount in cash instead, cash that can be used to buy insurance
in twelve different categories corresponding to the above
events. This means that if hit by such an event, the player
gets paid; otherwise a large debt is incurred, which must be
paid off before the player can win. Another little decision
to make is whether to save enough money to buy the family plan
comprehensive insurance, which, though costing 20, is a bargain
compared to the 26 one would pay to get each of its four
policies individually. There are also a few good events in the
form of monetary windfalls; these are a double advantage as
not only do they help, but they take the place of something
which might be negative. Possibly considered as a catch-up
mechanism, it's not clear if these were really necessary or
even good for the design. The other important rule is that
since no player is likely to draw exactly the advantages
needed, any duplicates are purchaseable by others (at a cost
of six). Although the plastic insert, designed to be used like
a banker's tray is quite clever, the tiles in this era were
rather thin and cheaply made and illustrated. The small cards
are okay and look a little better as well. Talents needed for
this game are noticing what has already been drawn (similar to
the very dissimilar
Empires of the Middle Ages)
and from this data forming a good idea of how dangerous
drawing a lot of tiles might be as well as assessing how well
one is doing and taking risks accordingly, i.e. small if in
the lead, but large when trailing badly. So even though this
is quite random, this risk-taking can be quite exhilarating
and for schadenfreude fans, it's not bad seeing
someone else draw a particularly nasty event either.
Players of
Sticheln
will understand.
LHMH7 (Strategy: Low; Theme: High; Tactics: Medium; Evaluation: High; Personal Rating: 6)
Rudi Hoffmann; Spear's Games-1971; 2-4; 60
[Shop]
Two player game of logical deduction refers not to aircraft flight
recorders, but rather the idea of shining rays of light into a
two-dimensional box to figure out where four or five items are
located. The box is represented as a grid set up by one player
while the other declares where he would shine the light. The
setter gives one of the following responses: (1) the light hit an
item directly and was absorbed; (2) the light encountered an item
in a one off row and was thus reflected ninety degrees away from
it and came out elsewhere; (3) the light could not go anywhere and
was reflected back out. From such information the player tries
to figure out the locations of all the items in a few moves as
possible. It's a very absorbing problem for the active player,
but as in Mastermind
or Eleusis there is no
decisionmaking for the setter during the actual game. There
is potentially some fun in the setup if the opponent is known
since some setups are more deceptive than others (for example,
multiple reflections are possible). But overall is probably
best played as a solitaire computer exercise as is offered at https://www.brettspielwelt.de.
The Eric Solomon creation is rather ingenious in the way it has
taken care of the problem of consistency of results regardless
of where a light is shined. By the way, should work well in
atypical settings like on a plane or over email as the players
don't necessarily have to be co-located.
Franjos
Three-player played fairly well. Rules are simple enough and it
plays pretty quickly.
Two of three players survived. No treasure chests appeared.
Three wishlist items:
Better artwork/layout on some of the cards and player aides.
Print a simple board on the back of the player reference card
and before their first game let players play out the dungeon
traversal. Because before your first game it's really hard to
understand what the consequences of your tile placements are going
to be, yet you spend the bulk of the game's time in this
preparatory stage.
For marketing purposes, a better title as the current one
doesn't tell much about what the game is really like.
In our game one of the public rewards was to the player who has
the most treasure chests, but no treasure chest ever appeared.
In a logical game akin to
Sleuth,
players must deduce the identities of three spies represented
by lettered cards which have been removed from the deck.
The rest of the cards are dealt to the players who record them
on their note sheets. There are other cards which each list
three letters. Three of these are dealt out to the middle of the
table. The first player chooses any one of them and presents
it to another player who must check his own cards and answer
(by placing chips on the card) whether he holds 0, 1, 2 or all
3 of these cards. Furious scribbling on the note sheets.
The questioned player now has a turn. A new card is dealt to
the table and he may now ask a question of someone. If any
question receives an answer of zero, it may be re-used. Game ends
when someone guesses the solution correctly. Of course each
player gets at most one guess. It's quite challenging to figure
out the best question to ask, and of whom. Probably less subject
to luck than Sleuth.
There is some fragility here. If players are not
careful and accidentally give a wrong response it often ruins the
entire game for everyone (though it's sometimes recoverable). A
good tip is, enforce the rule that whenever a player responds to a
card, he must pick up his cards and view them when determining the
response. Experience teaches that this helps to avoid most of the
problems. Players who only consult their note sheets to make this
response make errors far more frequently than otherwise.
Unfortunately, it's difficult to find, but not difficult to create
for oneself.
Update of July 10, 2008: There is now a nice free
online version which, of course takes care of the accidental wrong
response problem. Be careful however as there is a serious bug. If
the person creating the game does not choose himself as player 1
and then immediately after creating the game goes at his cards,
he instead gets to see all of the cards of player 1, quite an
unfair advantage.
[6-player Games]
Traditional gambling card game in which the player draws
cards trying to get closer to twenty-one points than the
banker. It was probably invented in France around 1700 from games like
Chemin de fer and French Ferme.
It appears to be related to Baccarat, which has more
cachet, being the game of James Bond. But Blackjack
made its name in the 19th-century Western saloon. Because it
had a tough job competing there against
Poker
and
Craps,
houses started offering special 10-1 payouts if a player got a
black Jack and an Ace of Spades as the first two cards.
The game's popularity is probably based on its simple rules and rapidly
repeated sense of disappointment or exhilaration.
As the game goes on, players who can count in some way which
cards are no longer available can gain valuable information about
the now assymmetric deck and intelligently adjust the sizes of
their wagers. In Britain, Black Jack is another name for
Crazy Eights.
Card game somewhat similar to Condottiere in which players bid
on randomly-turned up point cards. Connection with Robin Hood theme is
quite thin. As success seems mostly based on luck of the draw, probably
not worth the time.
Trick-taking card game with a rather unique feature in the genre:
programmed hands. Once players arrange the order of their
cards, they may only choose to play from either the left or the
right ends. Rules and scoring are quite simple to understand
– the only objective is to avoid taking as much as possible
the chicken cards which count for various amounts of
negative points. Really needs to have several hands played to
be appreciated, first to even out the luck of card distribution
(having too many high cards and too few egg cards are both bad),
and second to develop an idea about how others are programming
their hands and figure out ways to program against them. Sometimes
people ask, "what's a game having high strategy and low tactics?"
Since one's options are entirely designed from the start and are
not really changeable, this is an example. The only problem is that
some may feel there isn't enough information to design properly.
Personally I find that the simple approach of ordering the hand in
ascending order can be very successful. Then just routinely duck
every trick with the highest possible card unless one is sure it has
no chicks in it. Of course
this may need to be changed if everyone also follows the same principle.
Many players find the unusual absence of tactics too frustrating.
Cards are very plain, though the few chicken cards do bear cute,
cartoonish illustrations and the numbers conveniently appear in all four
corners. Most subsequent games have learned not to use
difficult-to-read decorative typefaces for important information
such as numbers.
Title translates to "Blind Chicken" and may derive from the German
expression "even a blind chicken finds a kernel once in a while",
the equivalent of the American proverb of squirrel and acorn.
Michael Schacht; Berliner Spielkarten; 1997; 3-6
Strategy: High; Theme: Low; Tactics: Low; Evaluation: Low; Personal Rating: 6
Two-player card game by Richard Borg posits the thunder
vs. the lightning in a Greek mythology setting. Reminiscent
of both Stratego and Magic: the Gathering, a
challenging exercise with many different ways to win, or lose, bad
luck with the draw being one of them, but not all that commonly.
Perhaps the American designer is the reason for a lot more feeling
of combat than in the typical German game. Short enough that
there is a tendency to try "just one more" over and over again.
Light, themeless abstract played out on a grid. A player has a
number of oddly shaped pieces which must be fit onto the grid,
the trouble being that three others are trying to do the same. The
first approach for many may be to try to play as in the old video
game Breakout, streaking for the opposite board edge. But
since all one needs to connect is a diagonal corner, good play is
really something more subtle. In fact, the strategy should be to
access to all still open parts of the board and the main tactic
to overlap the corners of the opponents' pieces. These pieces are
nicely made translucent plastic which have the arresting quality
that when jostled against each other sound like breaking glass.
I must confess that when we were exhibiting at Essen 2000, Sekkoia was also there,
in the very next booth and while we nodded a daily greeting to
inventor Bernard Tavitian, we never did get around to trying this,
his game. Part of it was the busyness of the show, but part also
that it looked more like something for children than anything we
wanted to try. But two years later it was nominated for the Spiel des Jahres Award
and even more recently, requested more than
once of me. This impressive slow build makes me wonder whether
this game doesn't yet have a great future. In its favor are
attractive appearance and simple instructions that should extend
the audience to children and grandparents who don't want to
bother with lots of details, even if it may be rather dry for
those of us seeking more of a storytelling element.
Reiner Knizia's light (gateway) game in a fantasy setting is a
thematic follow-on to his two-player Blue Moon. If the games he
has been making the past few years are more mined out of this vein
than of that preferred by the hard core, it needn't be a negative, and
just might be a noble service. Just think how many more people could
grow up loving games if their first impressions weren't formed from
tired, broken down horses like
Risk
and
Monopoly.
Even if Hasbro is blocking this goal in the USA, perhaps it can at
least be realized in other geos. This game – Blue Moon City,
not the ambitious one Reiner is playing – posits the ruins of a
nearly dead fantasy world on a grid of large squares. Players move
pawns around the board, spending cards according to what the area
needs. Completing a demand provides points for all who participated,
and especially the one who contributed the most. These points are used
to buy the victory point markers – which are in limited supply and
get even more expense over time – that eventually provide the
victory. There isn't a great deal that feels new here as players are
dealing with customary issues of timing, and efficiency. What's good
for the newbie is that complexity isn't particularly high and that
final scores often end up pretty close, making everyone feel they had
a chance to win. For the more experienced player, probably the most
interesting feature is in the hand management. There's a lot of
ability to discard, making tricky questions out of how much and
which cards to dump. On the other side, a single card may be played in
more than one way and in various combinations – which to choose is
also non-obvious, which is a feature, though it may slow play at
times.
Reiner Knizia; Kosmos; 2006; 2-4
Strategy: Low; Theme: Low; Tactics: High; Evaluation: Medium; Personal Rating: 6
This one shares with
Key Harvest,
probably this inventor's most similar effort,
the idea of players operating in two separate modes.
Here they represent named game publishers (R&D, Eggert,
Queen, Ystari, Treefrog or Hans-im-Glück), but also game
buyers trying to assemble a complete collection. The board
shows six game shops represented by 3x3 grids. Turns are taken
to place into these face down tiles that represent named games.
Tiles are numbered as well, each shop accepting only two or three
numbers. When placement is finished,
each player rolls three dice to determine in which
shop they are placed; they will buy one game each. Players are
not committed to these locations, but may pay
victory points to either move to adjacent shops or re-roll.
When all of this activity has ceased, the available games are
finally revealed and players take turns
moving a die to a vacant game tile in the shop.
They do not pay for the chosen games – in terms of
money they only represent publishers – but are paid by
the bank when their games sell. Those not sold move to a
lower priced row or off to the charity bin, where they may
still be picked up. A possibly annoying possibility here is
that a player unable to claim any game may thus
instead claim his own, thus denying the possibility of its
collection by the player desperately seeking it, a rather gamey
move without much thematic meaning. It can also be rather
annoying as a full collection of a particular game rank is
worth thirty points, but falling short by even one is
worth only the rank multiplied by the count. This form of
scoring tends to dominate by far that achieved by sales, but
is difficult to track during play. A rule requiring players
to reveal a set as it's completed might make for a more
compelling and intense match. The production is well realized.
Besides the eighteen dice, there are workable screens and
tiles showing the fronts of our favorite games. Best of all
is the incredibly busy and yet rather attractive game board
featuring yet more game box illustrations, altogether
reminding something of a German
Wunderkammer.
Festooned around the edge
are portraits of some of the most popular game characters
while the box features a thousand user images from the
boardgamegeek.com website. (What a job collecting all of those
must have been!) There's an challenging pricing subsystem
here: where is the best place to sell an item to make money,
or is it better to make them hard to find? On the buying side,
trying to find a wanted game can be as maddening as in real
life and it's necessary to do a certain amount of tracking and
guessing about the intentions of others in the same shop. How
much to spend on moving dice is less an issue than is guessing
where they are best placed. This is mostly an easygoing affair
of about an hour or a bit more with a fair amount of luck and
decent challenges. Game collectors and anyone having their image
on the box will want this (clever marketing there), but it's good
enough for just about anyone to enjoy, though some may find
the balance of control and randomness tilted too far toward the
latter. For purely amusement purposes, everyone should check out
the unique method for determining the starting player; clearly
it is the gamiest set of rules ever devised.
MMHM6 (Strategy: Medium; Theme: Medium; Tactics: High; Evaluation: Medium; Personal Rating: 6)
Richard Breese; R&D Games; 2009; 3-6
[Shop]
Great example of the fun that can be had with the random ways cards come out of a deck. Backed 12/12/14. 2019 August: Disappointed that the tuckbox has come unglued.
Game of forming words from a randomly-determined grid of letters.
Simultaneously a game of knowledge, skill and strategy, the latter being
a matter of whether one should try for many short words or a few very
long ones. It doesn't hurt to know something about one's opponents.
Expansion kit which adds ships and pirates. Unless its charms are
extremely well-hidden, this expansion really doesn't add anything
useful to the game.
Uwe Rosenberg; 1998
Move and trade game by Uwe Rosenberg is set in the Baltic sea,
but concerns, what else?, various types of beans. Akin to Empire Builder, players gradually
acquire contracts which must be satisfied by delivering the
indicated beans to the demanding city. Rosenberg, the master
of hand management has again come up with something innovative
by tying each board movement to play of the next card. This
mechanism permits a very clean solution for the problems of how
to periodically charge a tax, to getting new contracts and to
force players to deliver on a contract in timely fashion. He
allows players to manipulate the system a bit themselves
by permanently turning in cards, with some downside, if they
want. There is also a light amount of negotiation as players may
trade beans with one another which works well as sources for
beans are well spread yet demands are urgently pending. There
is also the possibility of negotiating a "teleportation" move
on another's turn which also helps quite a lot. The system by
which new products appear and experience price fluctuations is
also quite elegant, yet permitting player manipulation as they
can often decide after they purchase how much the price will
increase. The cartoonish look, as with all the Bohn
series is wonderful, presenting a very inviting world. There
is some difficulty communications-wise in that the bean tokens
are colored differently than their beans. For example, there
are Green Beans, but the main color on their tile is not green
and green is the color of some other type. So when a player
says he wants to trade green, it can be confusing which one
he means. Players will need to agree in advance to use either
the bean names or the tile colors. The only other problem is
unfortunately a large one: victory may have nothing to do with
skilled play. With wagon space of up to eight beans, it is
far too easy for a player to draw a contract card demanding
beans he already has and in a city where he already is and
gain an instant score at virtually no cost. This can happen in
Empire Builder as well, but at least there the game's
many contracts tend to even out matters. Here the total number of
contracts is so small that even one such event can really dwarf
everything else. This will eventually temper the enthusiasm of
skilled players, but all factors seem to point to enjoyment for
younger players and situations where skill levels are unequal.
At the time of this writing, just before the announcement of
the Spiel des Jahres, it would not surprise me to see this go
far in that award.
[Traveling Merchant Games] Uwe Rosenberg; 2003
Ever since
interviewing this game's inventor, I have
been anxious try out his first game (a second on sail racing, has
followed), especially as it was said to improve on Tacara,
which I have seen, but never managed to try. Unlike
Formula De
which controls movement with dice or
Lunatix Loop
which permits speed changes in increments, but leaves direction
entirely up to the player, this game forces speed and direction
to be based on speed and direction of the previous turn. To
accomplish this, a move on the square grid moves forward x
spaces, say, and to the left or right, y spaces. After this
a pawn is placed x spaces ahead and y spaces to the left or
right of the car's ending position. This reflects the speed
and direction of the car and so on the next turn, the new
ending position must be within two spaces of this pawn. By
this game of racing hopscotch the car proceeds twice around the
circuit. This vector-based or inertial technique is not new to
games, having been used in the aforementioned TaCaRa,
the German game Simulator, Star Fist, Triplanetary and
also an old game called Racetrack. While entirely logical,
it is challenging and fun to learn, some practice being needed
to find the best line of progress and avoidances of the sharp
braking rules. Once everyone is up to speed on how to do this,
however, it turns out that everyone wants to pass through the
same spaces, necessitating passing attempts, or "attacks". In
stark contrast to the movement system, these are resolved using
one of the hoariest and least stimulating mechanisms known:
rolling a die on a lookup table. And on this table, even worse
than the fact that the trailing car may fail to pass, there's
a fair chance it will spin out and thus be seriously
out of contention. There are other complaints, many in the area
of components. The small plastic cars ought to have been flat
instead of ramp-shaped as it's sometimes necessary to stack more
than one dobber on top of them, which is nearly impossible to
balance. Small chips should have been provided for under the cars
as well to speed up resetting the dobber and avoiding errors.
There should have been markers to indicate draft as otherwise
game state must be memorized – such would help with resetting
the dobber after a draft as well. Players must also remember
game state when it comes to resolving ties in movement order. An
off track chart with separate markers might have been a good way
to indicate this. The track puzzle boards have fared better as
they are large, well made and double-sided, to offer a second
course. At the time of this writing there is also one expansion
pack offering two more tracks, which almost fit in the original
box without removing the insert. Tracks have varying degrees of
length and difficulty, but the bad news is that either games tend
to run prohibitively long or extra measures, such as the twenty
second sand timer must be used to hurry players along. Timing
may or may not reduce downtime considering that in this case
there will be more crashes which need more time to handle.
Overall this asks a great deal of its players and so is really only
appropriate for hardcore auto race fans. It
would have benefited from closer study of the advances in game
technolog of the past decade. Situations like attacks could be
handled via mechanisms like card set collection, revolving attack
cards à la
Eketorp
or in any number of other ways. Even
if one feels that such situations in real life are essentially
random, in a game players deserve something less prosaic.
Strategy: Low; Theme: High; Tactics: High; Evaluation: Medium; Personal Rating: 5
Game of the roll and move variety for ages 8 and above, but leavened
by card placement rules which actually define movement on the board.
With less randomness from the dice and luck of the draw, this might turn
out to be quite an interesting abstract.
The latest Mystery Rummy card game, the first since
Mystery Rummy: Al Capone,
is technically not one
at all since this excellent series has finally
found a better home, with real game publishers and everything,
but it is still very much of the same nature.
This time the gimmick is the narrow board on which ten locations
depict various events in the couple's notorious career. Hidden
at each location is either an ordinary card or the Bonnie or
the Clyde card, each of the latter being worth considerable
points. Players are FBI agents trying to track the down the
pair by playing melds and layoffs which move a wooden card
back and forth on the board. Playing cards permits examining
the board cards or even taking them if the car position
matches, so there is also an element of making deductions
based on opponent activities. There's a little complication
over when one gets to look, and at what, and when one gets to
take, but it sinks in after a couple of hands. The most
difficult issues are with the communication design. There are
fifteen of the special Agent Hinton cards; these don't
describe the three different options available when playing
the card. But these are not too hard. Worse is that the
various card groups are not differentiated in appearance,
unlike the previous editions which featured a wide variety of
different colors. Players now need to spend extra time looking
around the board, or probably outright asking, exactly which
sets have already been started, trying not to give away what
they're holding in the process. Artistically, the situation is
better. Each board space features texts describing the event
in question. The car is of good size, though strangely orange
rather than black. Within each set of cards, the picture is
slightly varied so that if they are all assembled they can
be used to create an animated version of what happened, which
is very nice indeed. These high quality cards feature a satisfying
finish as well. The game works well for more than two
players as well, with the sweetest spot probably being at three.
[background] MMHM7 (Strategy: Medium; Theme: Medium; Tactics: High; Evaluation: Medium; Personal Rating: 7)
Mike Fitzgerald; Abacus/Rio Grande; 2009; 2-4
Multi-player game for up to six that feels like someone played
Puerto Rico
and thought, hey, let's make our own game, but instead of
hauling crops to Spain, we'll sell beer to speakeasies!
To the design's credit, apart from hauling, most of
Puerto Rico
has disappeared, apart from the telltale rule that
unshipped creates are lost (and a warehouse card that
solves this). Whatever the genesis, this is also a region
influence game for speakeasy control, a negotiation game
when one player has truck capacity and another more
crates than he can ship and also a game where blind bidding
is used to determine drafting for "take that!" cards.
The mix of mechanisms is novel, as is the topic, but a
few decisions have gone off the road as well. Some cards
are disproportionately powerful, e.g. the ones that
permit shutting down a speakeasy entirely. A player may
have just taken it over for the first time, investing a
great deal to do so and end up losing it the next,
perhaps losing not just the battle, but the war. Perhaps
they were the wrong target for the card in the first
place, but the rules do nothing to prohibit badly-aimed
attacks. Choose your opponents with care. In blind
bidding of course there is unfairness, the more so here
as player hands are dealt randomly, albeit from three
different decks. Victory is really achieved by control of
speakeasies, which once dominated can be very difficult
to wrest away. There are some draconian rules for
catching up – the top producer doesn't produce at all
for a turn – but these usually misfire, and tragically
so, for being the top producer is more likely a sign of
trying to catch up. True leaders are those with the most
money and/or speakeasy control and don't need all that
production. So, incredibly, the last place player is
pushed even further behind. There's also something of a
rich-get-richer syndrome as only players earning a lot
can afford to buy the expensive extra influence in a
timely fashion. Meanwhile the randomness of the
production dice can run the hopes of anyone. Downtime can
be an issue due to negotiations if they run on, but this
part is usually fairly straightforward. Whare are worse
are the cards which mix flavor and rule text and thus
require a lot of reading time. Elapsed time should be
two hours, but can easily stretch to three.
Timing-wise, though, things are well managed as
production and speakeasy opening seem to work in lockstep
with barely a sign of the intention. Presentation
is of a high standard otherwise, including a large board,
plastic bootleggers in six colors, plastic trucks, cubes and
player mats. This should work best for fans of theme who
don't mind a long outing; others are recommended to
approach with caution.
[6-player Games] Strategy: Low; Theme: High; Tactics: Low; Evaluation: Low
Chess-like game for up to four with much smaller board and
fewer pieces. Probably only of interest to the limited number
of Chess fans who nevertheless find it too complex.
Players are knocked out of the game before it is over and
there is a kingmaking aspect.
This Martin Wallace effort, set mainly in the English north of
the Industrial Revolution, is neither a war game nor a
German-style game, but probably closest to a railroad game.
It is also a technologies game with sharp
edges and a steep learning curve. Play is divided into two
eras. Both see players building industrial facilities –
textile mills, iron and coal mines, ports, shipyards –
but in the first half connect them together via canals
(for a similar topic see
Canal Mania)
whereas by the second it's exclusively by rail. In general
players need to extend their holdings out from where they
already are, but if they happen to have the right card, may
also build in a disconnected place. There are lots of economic
interdependencies built into the system. A textile mill needs
a port. Building track needs coal, as do iron mines, etc.
Though there are neutral facilities to satisfy some of this
demand, there can be strong economic and points incentives for
players to build to supply the current demand. Only when a facility has
served its purpose – textiles shipped, mine depleted,
port received shipment, etc. – can then its tile be flipped
over and its printed value scored. Which brings up the
point, is this more a tactical or a strategic game. Well, the
answer is yes. While it's important, even required, to be
alive to the board opportunites which suddenly appear, the
technology rules make it also important to have an overall strategic
approach. Each type of industry comes in a number of levels,
which go as high as four. Before one can use an industry at
the next level though, all of the tiles at the lower levels
must either be deployed on the board or "developed". The latter
means spending an action (and some iron) just to remove two tiles
from play. It's a new and rather weird way to handle things
(a suggestion on a better way to have done it below), but
this is the way research and development are represented. The
upshot is that one doesn't have enough actions to develop on
all axes; it's necessary to pick one, preferably one that
others have not chosen and specialize on it. Herein lies the
game's chief attraction. What's the best strategy to pick and
what's the best way to implement it. Not since
Civilization
have such questions seemed so opaque and worthy of analysis.
It gets especially tricky because each technology gain is not
a clear cut win. Although each new level increases in victory point
value, each also increases in cost and reduces in the amount of
income provided. Here something should be said about the
economic system as well. When an industry pays off, it doesn't
provide the player with cash; instead, it increases the income
level. When a player
needs to take a loan – would it be a Martin Wallace game
without taking loans early and often? – this decreases
the income level depending on the amount of loan taken.
Unorthodox, yes, but it does reduce by a lot the fiddling with
money, here represented by chips in silver and gold,
which is confusing because actually the gold ones are worth
less. Other communication design problems are in the not
always clear typefaces used on the tiles and the fact of
black printing on a purple background, never a good
idea. The money track is similarly too difficult to read and
unfortunately drawn in a confusing serpentine pattern. On
the other hand the artwork is enjoyable, both the vignettes on
the board and that depicted on the cards. It would have been
nicer had the location cards actually shown a small map with
all of the links and other locations. The map also shows a
strange canal passing through the sea (?) near Liverpool which is
a complete disaster as it is only meaningful for one very
special rule of no consequence. That the whole thing was not
omitted can probably only be explained as an attempt to be
thematic, but why when so much else is not. For example, coal
has to be transported over rails, but not iron. More
significantly, why do installations and railroad provide
victory points at all? Historically all they really did was
provide brass (aka money). Of course it's because the game
wants to make things more difficult for the players, make
them worry about cash crunches and taking loans, but the whole
thing is very artificial. The fact that the whole game can
come crashing to an early halt if players don't create enough
coal and iron isn't proof of anything either, except maybe
that the incentives for doing those things are not high
enough. Each player must deal with an enormous number of tiles
as well, all of which must be sorted and stacked. It
would have been much easier to represent each player's
technology levels with cubes on a printed track. Since square tiles
can be rotated it's possible for them to show four different
orientations which when placed could correspond to the
technology level. Then a whole bunch of components could be
saved and these savings passed on to the consumer. Each
player's technology status would be much clearer as well.
But this is a game that seems to revel in misleading players.
There are many paths to take that at the outset look good, but
are really false leads. One could concentrate on having a big
income, but that would be a big mistake. An income should only
be so large as to avoid having to waste an action (the most
valuable resource) taking a
loan during the second half. Or one might think that
developing some in each area is a good idea – almost always
certainly it's not. Building track on the other hand, which
seems like it's meant mainly for connectivity, can prove
surprisingly lucrative, especially if it can also manage to
deny others' connectivity. This game is not easy to learn to
play well and also not easy to learn in the first place as the
instructions are written rather confusingly. Combined with
about a three-hour duration, the fact that it can only accommodate
three or four players and that downtime can be considerable as
it's hard to plan when the board changes so fast, the faint of heart
are warned away from this one. Fans of theme and strategy may
find too many tactics intruding as well. The ideal way to play this
one, by the way, would be by e-mail where there would be no waiting
for others and yet plenty of time to fully analyze the right moves
to make during one's own turn. The fact of no dice rolling or
player interrupts would fit well with this mode also.
Strategy: High; Theme: Medium; Tactics: High; Evaluation: High; Personal Rating: 5
Martin Wallace;
Warfrog; 3-4; 2007
British bicycle racing game is fairly mathematical in a way reminiscent
of Hare and Tortoise. Essentially about predicting what others
will do. For this reason, try to keep the number of players down so that
this is actually possible.
[Cycle Racing Games][6-player Games] John Harrington; Fiendish Games; 1991; 2-9
Personal Rating: 6
simple, but fast turns make it strangely addictive
tends to resemble kiddie soccer with every player
clustering around the ball
really what one wants to do is align players with the ball,
horizontally or (especially) vertically so that they can either
claim a loose ball or be passed it from a teammate, as well
as block the opponent. On rolls where that is not possible,
one wants to align players with other players so that in the
event they do get the ball, they can be passed it. So in a
funny way it's all about keeping all of one's players in
nice, neat lines. This should appeal to people who enjoy
organizing things.
would be tempting to try some variants, e.g. a forced kick
goes one space less, an unforced one has the option of going
one space more. Maybe too players could try to foul, either
stealing the ball from its holder or displacing an opponent
away from the ball, and having a chance to get away with it
or else take a yellow card.
It would also be tempting to let players roll two dice and
choose which one to use, but probably that would be a
mistake as the fun depends on the quick turnaround of turns.
Production could use a bigger board and if every fifth line
were indicated the counting would be easier.
The pawns are too small and always falling over, especially
when there's a crowd of them. It would be easier too if the
ball were somehow a hat or ring that could be placed on top
of a pawn rather than a disk under it that has to constantly
be fished out.
Four hours is mentioned as a possible maximum playing time.
Famous bidding and trick-taking card game based on Whist
(not described here)
was invented in the 1920's and has undergone many changes and variants since.
It has penetrated the public consciousness in ways few other games have,
columns on proper play even being published in daily newspapers. As a result
it should generally be easy to find opponents. The chief downsides
are the many bidding conventions which the newcomer must memorize,
and that in every hand one player does not get to do anything.
Trick-taking games with one of the hands fully open are not to my taste
either. On the other hand, some players prefer this extra information
because it offers more strategic hints for the best way to play the hand.
[Two vs. Two Games]
The
Empire Builder
system is set in a UK so crowded that it should probably be
limited to two players. Deliveries to and from Scotland, access
to which is extremely limited, often seem to be an unbalancing
game breaker. Revised 2002 edition attempts to correct this
by providing many more east-west routes, e.g. Lead from hard
to reach Dolgellau, and never before seen special event cards
which give bonuses for deliveries to little visited regions like
Cornwall. Whether this fully succeeds will require more playings,
but it certainly works out better than the original.
[Italian Rails][Crayon Rails series][Traveling Merchant Games][6-player Games][variant][chart]
Stock market game in which players buy and
sell stocks, affecting market prices with cards dealt out
at the start of the game. So fragile
that without hardly noticing a player can be knocked
out of the game entirely long before it is through.
Multi-player abstract by Leo Colovini is another in his
characteristic style. Although there is an ostensible
theme of monks and their traveling students who manage to
destroy any bridge just by crossing it, the feeling is
definitely that of the pure abstract. What's good is that
turns tend to pass quickly as in each a player may only
do one of three things: add a monk, add a student to a
monk or perform a student migration, whose strength
depends on comparison of the counters at the source
location with that of the destination. Strategies, e.g
always augment masters, play defense or place students
whetere the most others are, but will most likely lose by
ignoring the tactical needs of each situation. This part
becomes as problematic as a multi-player game of
Chess
since it's very difficult to discern what others are
planning as well as whether on their turn they will make
the move that is optimal for them, even if one clearly
exists. It's likely that as with
Raja,
table talk should be given free rein so that players can
help one another not to miss any important moves. Of
course, many players dislike table talk as it can
engender coercion so the design is in something of a
dilemma. Maybe it should just be played by e-mail so that
there will be plenty of time to consider all
possibilities. While it might be interesting to play a
couple dozen times to see if some best appoach exists,
more likely the solution differs each time, depending on
what players do, being rather
Go-like
in that sense. Presentation is generally attractive with
several wooden high arch bridges comprising the
highlight. I think this should appeal mainly to tactical
experts and to that subset of strategists willing to toss
theme in favor of a spare, clean system. These
tend to also be fans of
Xe Queo!,Clans
and most other Colovini efforts.
Strategy: Medium; Theme: Low; Tactics: High; Evaluation: Low
Just as with their
Gulo Gulo
and their award-winning
Niagara
the publisher Zoch continues to find the cute and clever action
mechanisms which have become their special niche in the games
world. This approach doesn't always work, but when it does it
is because the surrounding game is at least as interesting as
the mechanism, which is the certainly the case here. First the
gimmick. The rather deep bottom of the box is holds the board,
thus providing a false floor. The board itself is formed by
two layers of tiles, the upper one being upside down, and some
of the lower being holes. At the four corners are plastic towers
from which issue plastic mouse pieces. Each player controls
several of these and uses their action points to scamper
around and reveal tiles. But the novel activity is to take an
out of play tile and use it to push in on a bottom row and
column, causing the corresponding tile on the other side to
fall out and re-arranging the tiles hidden below, possibly
leading to a mouse falling through the floor as well, which
takes it out of play until it can scramble back up a tower
again (reminiscent of
Master Labyrinth
and
Stay Alive).
But that is just a fun goal. The real one is to expose
and reach two tiles showing the same type of cheese, in which case the
player obtains a piece of it. Having pieces of four different
types wins. Thematically the idea is that the mice are running
around the decaying castle of a deceased cheese baron, hence
the prevalence of both cheese and decayed flooring.
Appenzeller is the name of a cheese that has been made in the
historic and monastic St. Gall area of Switzerland for over
seven hundred years. There isn't much strategy here, but
plenty of tactics with some memory elements. This is a good
candidate for a game that can work for both adults and
children (down to about age six) alike.
Jens-Peter Schliemann & Bernhard Weber; Zoch/Rio Grande; 2007; 2-4
Strategy: Low; Theme: High; Tactics: High; Evaluation: Low; Personal Rating: 7
This is a very simple expansion for the above
Chateau Roquefort
whose humorous sub-title,
"Völlig mausgeflippt",
is difficult to translate, but "totally flipped its mousing lid"
might give some idea. The entire expansion, a giveaway in
Spielbox magazine
and at the Essen Fair, consists of just two new tiles with
corresponding instructions. They are double-sided so the
possible effects are secret passage, tomcat, a cheesy sock
and gears. From the names alone it's probably not difficult
to guess what the effects are. This expansion doesn't seem to
harm anything and brings in variety for frequent players.
Jens-Peter Schliemann & Bernhard Weber; Zoch/Rio Grande; 2007; 2-4
Strategy: Low; Theme: High; Tactics: High; Evaluation: Low; Personal Rating: 7
Stefan Feld's
Roma
has been a great hit hereabouts and otherwhere, even spawning
a new version called as
Arena II.
The basic idea there, that dice rolls are assigned to
special ability cards, plus the ability to
acquire new special abilities, is one to conjure with. But how
could this idea be expanded to make a multi-player game out of
a head-to-head affair? Perhaps it was that thought that
started the development of this one, but if so it has wandered
somewhat to become a different incarnation. Here
each player owns a board of hexagons divided into
regions by color with each hexagon given a number in the range
1-6. On a central board are six numbered areas which have been randomly
populated with four hex tiles each. To start a round each player
rolls two dice. A die can be used to move a tile from the
correspondingly-numbered central board area to the storage
area of one's own board, having a capacity of three.
From there, it can be placed so long as the
tile and area match in color and the number on the board matches the
number on one of the dice. There is one other restriction:
networked expansion, i.e.
each new tile has to go adjacent to an already placed one.
If the dice are not cooperative with one's plans, it's allowed
to expend a "worker" – a resource which players have at the
start and can acquire two at any time just by burning a die –
to change a result up or down by one (wrapping around between
6 and 1 is permitted). Each time a colored area is completed,
points are earned, the number varying inversely with the game
turn. Each tile color reflects a different thematic idea.
Greens show varying numbers of domestic
animals, e.g. sheep, pigs and chickens. Each time one of these
is added to animals of the same type
score points equal to all of the animals. Blue tiles are
ships which permit claiming a product; three types may be held
at once and they may be sold at any time. Each ship placed
also puts one further ahead in the turn order. Yellow tiles
represent knowledge and each gives some unique ability, often
greatly enhancing the usual scoring. This is the long-term
scoring plan, akin to the monuments of
Ra.
Beige tiles are
buildings that give special abilities such as getting more
workers or more beige buildings, etc. Gray tiles are
mines that each provide one income at the end of the game
turn, money tending to be rather scarce. Each pair of coins can
be used to purchase black-backed tiles which
are randomly placed out on the central board and
have the whole variety of different tiles on their fronts.
Players don't have the ability to affect others all that much;
basically it's only by taking a tile another may have
wanted that one notices what others are doing. This isn't
always a problem, but can be if on the last turn – the longest
one of all – someone has a lead that can in no way be
overcome. At least it does offer different strategic paths,
based on the colors, and it's not clear if any are better than
others; it may be enticing to try to find out. Of course mixed
strategies and taking critical tiles to sabotage another's
plans are possible.
There are some presentation problems here. The tiles are
without text, containing only icons, and as with the original
Roma some of these are rather difficult to figure out.
The help sheet is not easy to use either. In addition, some of
the tile colors, particularly the light green and yellow are too
similar while the beige are too bland. Consequently in toto
there is a washed out look that just fails to excite.
Thematically players are supposed to be aristocrats (though
the title means castles) in medieval Burgundy, but one doesn't
ever really feel this.
In at least a four-player setting
it's easy to go over two hours which is much too long
and too much downtime for this amount of dice and tile draw
randomness. Downtime is exacerbated when it's difficult
to plan; here an opponent might just take the very tiles
you had your eyes on.
HLMH5 (Strategy: High; Theme: Low; Tactics: Medium; Evaluation: High; Personal Rating: 5)
Stefan Feld; Alea-2011; 2-4; 90-120
Card game on the "dot com" business decline of the late 1990's
follows the host of others inspired by one now nearly forty years old,
Nuclear War.
The mechanism of a gradually dwindling score, in this case
representing corporate funding being burned away, is probably
more aptly situated here than anywhere. Players draft employees
in four fields (colors): Sales, Finance, Human Resources and
Development, hoping to find the few whose skill values are higher
than their costs. Meanwhile they play cards on one another
such as the "bad hire" and the "bad idea". The latter often
force hiring of very expensive contractors until a "release"
card can be used to discard the entire project. There are also
"financing" cards players can use to try to shore up their
losses. But cards cannot be played willy-nilly; positive cards
can only be played if the corresponding employee is good enough
and negative cards only if the opposing employee incompetent
enough. The course of play is smooth with some interesting
decisions to make, mostly around hand management, as on each
turn a player may only play cards or discard them, not both.
Also debateable is the number of cards to play/discard, with
players sometimes wanting to play cards which slightly hurt just
to be able to draw more new ones. Comes in a handy, compact
box containing full-color cards illustrated as in Sunday comic
strips. For those familiar with the topic, there are a number
of humorous allusions to now-failed on-line companies and this
game may find a more ready audience among such types. For others,
and maybe even for them, the challenges, situations and humor
seem to become repetitive when it is about half over. Perhaps a
variant reducing the starting funds would improve matters.
Vagaries of bad luck, especially the inability to draw the cards
necessary to fire an incompetent vice-president and hire a good
replacement, may make a player quite vulnerable for quite a spell
and can be frustrating. A better method of showing the score,
e.g. open money holdings or a
score track,
would have helped
in dramatizing the current standings, which are more important to always
know than in most card games.
One other curious fact about the system: finance and development always
do good things while sales and human resources nearly always do harm.
Perhaps we can guess what kind of day job the inventor has?
Update: Played again in 2010, i.e. almost a decade after
the initial release and fascinatingly almost all of the then bad
ideas have now turned out rather successful. Never has "ahead of
time" been more aptly illustrated.
[Take That! Card Games] LHMM5 (Strategy: Low; Theme: High; Tactics: Medium; Evaluation: Medium; Personal Rating: 5)
Rich Koehler;
Cool Studio;
2002; 2-4
Players compete to haul the most passengers across a city.
Somewhat reminiscent of another game of Dutch origin,
Smart,
in that passengers arrive
on the outskirts and players have to figure out how to get them.
Similar also in that players can specialize in one thing or
another, but not all at once.
A good game which is not quite there. The "stopping time"
mechanism adds too much uncertainty to the game and thus
detracts from planning and anyway, the penalty of an action
and a victory point for playing it is too costly. If there
ever were a good reason to use this feature, it would be because
the other players are playing extremely badly, in which case
why bother? The turn ordering is also problematic – sharing
the same problem with second edition
Die Macher.
Instead of only the first player position being biddable,
all four positions should be biddable instead of the turn
proceeding in clockwise order. Otherwise, whoever buys the top
position has an unintended consequence on the rest of play and
meanwhile it is unfair that the rest of the players may not even
be able to bid for position at all. Can be unbearably slow with
five players or if they are overly analytical. Decorating the
board and scoring track with popular game names and images is
a cute touch.
[variant][Jeroen Doumen][Splotter]
Party game of the guess-the-word-within-a-limited-time-period
variety, akin to
Taboo
and others. The new twist here is that the word is already known,
but the teammates must hear pre-printed clues and respond with the
corresponding expression including the word. Any expression
not guessed can be essayed by the other team. The cards are fairly
well balanced, each including mostly easy answers plus one or two
obscure stumpers. Beyond the frantic play value, it's amazing to
discover just how many different everyday expressions one does not
know. On the other hand, there oddly appear to be just a few too many
ABBA song lyrics, at least for our table – not one could we guess.
There's an easy-to-use scoring technique of turning cards up or down to
indicate which items are guessed correctly. Although it offers less
scope for creativity than others, this is a worthy entry for its type
that with its many cards should provide many hours of a challenge
and amusement.
[Party Games]
Strategy: Low; Theme: Low; Tactics: Low; Evaluation: Low; Personal Rating: 7
This is one of those twenty-minute card games that like
R-Eco
and
Traders of Carthage
never overstays its welcome. Players hold cards ranked 0 to
4 and with these bid on increasingly smaller odd lots of
further cards, each player only permitted to buy one lot per
round. All of the cards used to purchase and one of those from
those purchased are put aside for the second part of the round
in which the player who bought last now drafts all of the
cards of a single suit. Then the rest draft in reverse purchasing
order. In the final
part of the round, players discard groups of three cards of
the same suit (there are six of them), keeping the high card
as their score. The zero cards are wild, or three of them may
be turned in together to score five points. The card art by the
renowned Doris Matthäus depicts various types of Middle
Eastern products and is up to her usual very high standard.
Although there is no English edition, the rules are simple and
translations are available on-line. The game features the
dilemma of how much to bid as well as different ways to
approach it: what sets to break up, what to expect in the
draft, what to leave for others in the draft, etc. At the same
time it need not be overly taxing. This is one of those
lighter affairs that can be enjoyed by the very experienced
and the newcomer alike.
[6-player Games] Emanuele Ornella; Amigo; 2008; 3-6
MMMM7 (Strategy: Medium; Theme: Medium; Tactics: Medium; Evaluation: Medium; Personal Rating: 7)
[Shop]
On to C
- Main
Please forward any comments and additions for this site to
Rick Heli.