Geek Insight

Contest: Follow me to the Robot!

2010-07-06T09:41:00.000-07:00

So, the move is now official to Giant Fire Breathing Robot. You can see all my posts here. We'll be giving away a copy of Forbidden Island to one lucky follower. Here's how to win...

Tomorrow, (Wednesday, July 7, 2010), I'll be posting in my usual manner on the GFBR site. Find my post, and leave a comment. In the comment section, work the words "geek" and "island" into your comment. You can weave them in an intricate and subtle display of your writing prowess into an otherwise inocuous post. Or, you can simply write "geek island" and click submit. Either way, you're entered to win.

But don't mention the contest. This is only for my followers from this site (so we don't want the general GFBR watchers to know about it). If you mention the contest, you'll be disqualified.

The contest will be open until 12:01a.m. on Friday morning (Thursday night). On Friday, I'll select one lucky winner at random and notify them by e-mail. If they respond, they'll get a copy of Forbidden Island shipped to them. If not, then we go to the next winner.

Good luck. And check out GFBR. Lots of good geekery going on over there.

Moving Day Contest

2010-07-02T09:06:00.000-07:00

So, as you may have noticed, I've also been posting over at the Giant Fire Breathing Robot (all my posts here). Starting next week, I plan to post exclusively with their site. GFBR also has great info on movies, comics, video games, and anime (though I'll be sticking to board games in my posts).

I'll be keeping my daily post scheudle, you'll just see me on GFBR instead. But that doesn't mean I'm abandoning my loyal followers. Nay! Instead, GFBR is sponsoring a contest to encouorage you to follow me over. I know that a new blog can be scary and differnet, but a free game might just be the way to do it.

Full details will appear on this site, as it's last post before indefinite suspension, on Tuesday, July 6, 2010. It'll describe the game to be won (I'm thinking Forbidden Island. Any suggestions?), the way to win it (which include a follow to GFBR), and any necessary contest rules.

I tried to get my wife to enter and conveniently "win" it for me, but she informed me that she had both honesty and integrity. Oh, now I find out. After the wedding. I see how it is... (don't worry, family will be ineligible pursuant to contest rules).

See you on Tuesday for full contest rules!

Review: Lost Cities - Not all its cracked up to be

2010-07-02T08:52:00.000-07:00

As I've mentioned before, I have a special place in my heart for two player games. When you're looking for a way to pass the time with a single friend they are great. Perfect for spouses, too. And they don't eliminate conversation like watching a movie or TV can. However, not every two player game is sunshine and rainbows.

Lost Cities has a high reputation - and I really tried to like it. But after numerous plays, it just falls flat for me. Repeatedly. What seems like it should be an interesting engagement involving bluffing, luck, and just the right amount of daring, turns into two player solitaire and a math quiz.

The Basics. Lost Cities is a light euro-style card game. In it, you play the role of adventurers who will travel out and explore new lands. There are five different expeditions you can start - Desert, Underwater, Mountain, Tropic, and Volcano. The theme, though a little pasted on, is enjoyable enough.

Players take eight cards. Then it's play (or discard) one and draw one. Each expedition has three "investment" cards, represented by handshakes, and numbered cards two through ten. A player can start any expedition by playing a card down in front of him. But, once started, the expedition can only go forward. So if the player played the Underwater 4, he cannot then play the underwater 3. Only the 5 or later. With only eight cards, it can sometimes be difficult to determine what to play. That's where the bit of daring and luck comes in. Play the 4 and 5 that you have in your hand and hope to draw the higher numbered cards.

A player can also discard instead of playing a card. Each expedition gets its own discard pile. But the other player is allowed to take the top card of any discard instead of from the draw stack. So, you don't want to discard something your opponent can use.

Once the last card is drawn from the pile, the round is over and points are tallied. The math is simple once you get used to it, but if you're playing with younger kids (or if your spouse is math-phobic) it can be a little rough. Each expedition that was started (by playing even a single card) gets -20 points. You then dig yourself out of that hole by adding up the numbered cards. So a route with the 3, 5 ,7, 9, and 10 would be worth 14 points. Then you multiply that by one plus the number of investment cards. One investment on that same expedition would double the points to 28. And if your expedition had 8 or more cards played, it would be worth an extra 20 points. Whew! Most points is the winner.

Components: 4.5 of 5. The components are excellent. The cards are on nice stock and are a little over-sized making them easy to shuffle and manage. The artwork is also excellent. Not only is it good, but if you line up the cards from 2 to 10, you'll see that the pictures overlap as though you're walking step by step towards the expedition. The board included is nice, but unnecessary to the game play.

Strategy/Luck Balance: 2.5 of 5. As a card game, there is a significant luck element. And, unfortunately, that luck is not well balanced against strategy. If you don't draw the high numbers for an expedition you started, then tough cookies. And, there is almost always a "best" move to take. Don't want to improve your expeditions (because you have high numbers), but don't want to start a new one (because you don't have that one's high numbers)? Just discard a card. But be sure to discard one your opponent can't use. Need a few more turns? Draw from the discard pile rather than the draw pile. And, because cards are played face up, you can see which expeditions are being started by your opponent.

Mechanics: 2 of 5. The gameplay is just dull. It's not broken, and the game is certainly playable. But it's just not an exciting game. Even without the needless math, you can usually survey the board and get a sense of who is going to win each round. On the plus side, the game is simple enough to learn quickly, and the rule book is straight forward. But there is just so little interaction that it feels more like two people sharing a deck of cards as they play their own game of solitaire.

Replayability: 3.5 of 5. Assuming you like the game (and many people do), it has some replay value. The random cards mixed with the danger of starting a new expedition keeps the game relatively fresh. But, in my experience it tends to wear thin rather quickly.

Spite: 2 of 5. There are no express "screw you" cards in Lost Cities. However, if you see your opponent has started the Mountain expedition, and you have the 10, then it's to your benefit not to discard that card. Keep it from your opponent to hinder their progress. I've also heard tales of discarding an investment when you have several high cards in the hope your opponent will have the lower cards, take the investment, and play it hoping to draw the high cards that you have. That seems a little situational and I don't know how often that really occurs.

Overall: 2 of 5. Though beautiful, this game lacks any real joy. You and a friend might as well play Klondike with two standard decks of playing cards. You'll have about the same amount of interaction. The feeling that there is always a very obvious "right" or "best" decision really detracts from this game as well. A good game should provide multiple options toward victory. With Lost Cities, an experienced player more or less has their play dictated by the luck of their draw.

If you'd still like to pick it up, you can grab it from BoardsandBits here, or FunAgain here.

Variant: The Over-Rated Game

2010-07-01T09:34:00.000-07:00

Last week, we talked about underrated games. This week, I thought we'd hit the flip-side of the coin. Occasionally, I'll hear great things about a game. I'll check out reviews and everyone seems to love it. I might even hear from real people, whose opinon I trust, that the game is great. Based on the strength of this information, how can I lose? I go, I buy the game, and it just falls flat.

For me, this happened with Lost Cities. Lost Cities is very, very popular, and I know I may take some heat for this, but I just don't like it. It was a two player game that many gamers played with their spouse. I have a soft spot in my heart for the two player game, and was eager to try it with my then-girlfriend. Not fun. I tried it with my now spouse. Not fun. I tried it with another friend of mine. Not fun. I have about a dozen plays now because I really wanted to like this game. But it just feels like two people playing solitaire. And, despite the many claims of interaction and bluffing, I felt like there was almost always a "right" move to take at any given time.

I know that Lost Cities is enjoyed by many fans, and there's certainly nothing wrong with it, but it's just not my cup of tea. How about you? What game have you been excited for that ended up pretty lackluster in your eyes?

News: Dixit wins the Spiel des Jahres!

2010-06-30T08:25:00.000-07:00

I previously reported that the Spiel des Jahres nominees had been selected. On Monday, the Spiel jury came back and pronounced Dixit the winner! I haven't had the opportunity to play Dixit, but from my review of the game and in discussions with people who have played it, it seems to be a subtle cross between Apples to Apples and Once Upon a Time.

The players all have a set of six cards. The cards, however, are little miniature works of art that have an array of detail and look gorgeous. Many have a dash of whimsey. See below:

The acting player says a sentence that describes his card, then like Apples to Apples, everyone puts in a picture that could be that sentence. Then everyone takes a guess as to which was the speaker's card. However, if no one guesses the speaker's card or if everybody guesses it, the speaker gets no points. So there seems to be good tension between being too vague and too precise.

I'd love to give this game a try, but I wonder how it holds up over repeated plays. If I play with my wife and a few friends, but then take it to a new group (where it's my wife, the new group, and I), I think my wife and I would have a significant advantage. We'd have prior experience with certain clues and I could help to ensure that my wife would pick my card even if other players didn't. I won't be sure if that's a real concern or not until I play so I may just be speculating nonsense. Any Dixit players want to chime in?

First Impressions: Dominion, Ra, and Samurai

2010-06-28T09:11:00.000-07:00

This weekend, my lovely and talented wife was out of town for the wedding of her friend. That left me to my own devices. Friday saw me in my regular gaming group, and Saturday evening I drove out to Gameology for their Not Closing sale (yay!) and participated in some boardgamey goodness. I racked up plays of Lost Cities, Fluxx, Citadels, and Caylus, as well as first plays of Dominion, Ra, and Samurai. I felt both very accomplished and highly sated.

First impressions after the cut.

Dominion was the Spiel des Jahres winner for 2009 so I had high expectations going into it. Dominion did not disappoint. It's been likened to card drafting in Magic: the Gathering, but I think that comparison is only superficial. In Dominion, you start with a deck of 10 cards - three 1 point cards, and seven copper cards. You draw a hand of five. Victory point cards are worthless until the end of the game. Copper cards can buy more valuable money or action cards that allow you to take specified actions. You can play one action card and buy one thing per turn.

Dominion is incredibly simple to learn. There are between 10-12 cards a player can buy in a game. But the box comes with many, many more than 12 kinds. You just select from the wide assortment so that you only use 12 for a given game. The combinations are mind numbing (3,268,760 to be precise). My first game used the suggested "start" cards for new players. My second game used the "Big Money" variant with an all new set of 12 to purchase.

The play has a good luck element, but you are in near total control of it. If you want to be able to draw better cards, you buy them. However, you can't just pick up every action or copper available because then you'll flood your deck with cards that may not be helpful in future turns. You have to manage what goes into your deck as you play. Further, there is a nice tension between grabbing victory points (the only thing that matters in the end), and grabbing a card that will actually provide some use in the game. Every time you draw one of the victory point cards you've purchased, that's one card in your hand that is completely worthless for your turn.

I'm looking forward to more Dominion. The card and resource management, semi-random draws, and tension between play and victory, as well as the many variants, make me believe that this game will see a lot more play at my table in the future.

I've been looking in to Ra for a while. I'd heard that it was one of the better auction games. It's also one of Reiner Knizia's games - which is a cautiously good sign. Despite being an auction game, there is a startling amount of strategy and depth.

Tiles representing different Egyptian themed elements are placed on the board as they are drawn randomly from a sack. Each player also has three numbered tiles (between 2 and 16 if there are five players) to bid with. The number one tile is in the center. When a player wants to grab all the tiles that have been laid out, they can call an auction rather than draw a tile. Each player has one chance to bid with one of their number tiles. Highest bidder gets the Egyptian tiles. He then puts his number tile in the center and takes the "1" tile that was there. The next person to win an auction places his tile in the center and gets the tile that was there previously. In this way, the players are bidding with position, rather than simple currency. It also allows a lower bidder to trade in his low number for a higher tile in the following round. Three rounds of play and the winner is scored.

I enjoyed Ra. Bidding with position, and knowing that giving up my 12 tile meant someone else might have it for the next round, brought a different dimension to it. There were also multiple methods of obtaining victory points at the end, so the strategy was individually tailored. Some of the players went for monuments, others for floods or rivers. I imagine Ra would see a lot replay value.

Samurai was another Knizia game. Here, the board represents feudal Japan. Each town or village has one or more resources on it - rice, hats, and Buddhas. Your tiles represent mercenaries (who can get any kind of resource) or resource specific attacks. Each player takes turns putting a tile on the game board. Once any city or town is surrounded, the tiles are added up. If the town has rice, then all rice tiles plus mercenaries surrounding the town are added. The player with the highest number gets the rice. If the town also has a Buddha, then all Buddhas plus mercenaries are added and the player with the most gets the Buddha.

Once the board is full, the players reveal the resources they've accumulated. You add the two you have the most in. Whoever has a higher count wins. In a tie, you count all three resources.

This game was a particular delight because it wasn't even on my radar. I'm usually wary of games named after Samurai or Ninja because the name can often be an unsuspecting lure, preying on the general coolness of the topic, to get me to purchase a lackluster game. I'm pleased to report that such was not the case with Samurai. Instead, the simple game became increasingly strategic. The cities are close enough together that if you try to surround one, you will likely also be partially surrounding a second. Thus, if you play a tile to get one resource, it may help an opponent surround a neighboring city get a resource of his own.

I'm not sure that I liked it enough to own it, but I would definitely play it again if given the chance.

Review: Munchkin - Stab your Friends!

2010-06-25T12:09:00.000-07:00

As I posted previously, Munchkin is one of the more underrated games that I've played. Munchkin is thematically light hearted. Every card is humorous, and most play off of recognizable monsters and spells for the D&D player. One quick example is the monster that a player may face: The Grassy Gnoll. If that got a chuckle out of you, then this game may be right up your alley.

But be warned, Munchkin is all about screwing over the other players while you try to climb to the top. If your group can take it in good fun, then this will be a fabulous endeavor. If your players tend to take assaults personally, then Munchkin is the perfect way to breed mistrust, hatred, and loathing where once was camaraderie.

The Basics. In Munchkin, each player is an adventurer traveling through the dungeon. There are two types of cards: treasure cards and door cards. Treasures are items that can be equipped, used, or otherwise help your character out (or hurt other characters). Doors contain monsters, curses, monster enhancers, classes, races, and anything else that isn't strictly a treasure.

Each turn, the player kicks open the door to a room of the dungeon and draws a card face up. If it's a monster, he has to fight it. Otherwise, he gets the card, then can either 'go looking for trouble' and fight a monster from his hand, or simply take another door card face down as he loots the room.

Fighting a monster means that if you win, you get a level and a certain number of treasures. If you're not quite strong enough to kill a monster, you might be able to use items to help you. Of course, the other players can play cards to make the monster much more difficult to kill. You can also allow one player to help you fight the monster together - though they usually want to share in the treasure. If you can't kill the monster, then you have to run away, lest its bad stuff happen to you.

In this way, the players try to kill their own monsters to level up and get treasure, and try to throw their negative cards at other players to prevent them from doing the same. Becoming special races or classes give the players additional powers. The first munchkin to level 10 is the winner.

Components: 3.5 of 5. The cards are a good size which allows for ease of shuffling. The artwork is quite hilarious and is reminiscent of other Steve Jackson games, including Chez Geek. However, after repeated plays (and I've played this a few dozen times), the cards do start to show a little wear. Also, the cards are done in a semi-sepia tone and some color artwork would have advanced the look of the game.

Strategy/Luck Balance: 3 of 5. As a card game, there is a significant luck aspect. If you draw the potted plant as your monster to fight, you'll have a much easier time than fighting the Plutonium Dragon. However, over the course of play, you can expect to see some high points and low points. The luck element doesn't unbalance the game. In fact, towards the end, there are often two or three players who are close to getting their last level and it becomes a dog-pile match to prevent everyone from winning until you can do so. Striking after the other players' spite cards have been used is key. There is also excellent strategy in deciding who to help and who to have help you.

Mechanics: 4 of 5. For the most part, the rules are very simple and laid out clearly. The game progresses quickly. Even during other players' turns, everyone is still involved as they need to decide whether to use their cards to hamper the acting player, or save them for a better moment. However, not all of the cards are self-explanatory. More than one session of Munchkin has devolved into rules arguments and my particular group has removed the "Cursed Thingy" card because leaving it in caused too many debates that side tracked the game entirely.

Replayability: 2.5 of 5. The random nature of the cards and the ability to help or hurt other players helps the replayability of this game. It's never quite the same twice. However, the whole of the game is very similar. You hope for small monsters, you beg for help on larger ones, and you try to get good treasures that will help you get to level 10. Plus, there's the strong incentive to screw over your friends. So, while the particulars change from game to game, the broad strokes remain very much the same. It loses its initial appeal after a few plays, but it will hit the table every so often - especially when there's a mood to throw spite at one another.

Spite: 5 of 5. Munchkin is probably one of the spite-ie-est (most spitey?) games out there. One of the central components of the game is in throwing hateful cards at your friends. If you failed to do so, not only would you likely lose the game, but about half the cards in your hand would be worthless. It's important to play this game with the right group of people. If your friends can have fun as they prevent one another from winning or getting treasure, then this is great fun. But if they take the loss of treasure and levels too seriously, play with caution!

Overall: 4 of 5. As long as your friends can handle the spite, this is an excellent gem of a game. This is especially true if you've played your fair share of D&D stories and can relate to many of the references. If so, you will be laughing as you read each card and view the artwork. When I first bought Munchkin, my friends and I played it probably ten or twelve weeks in a row, every week. It's the kind of game that always allows for a good time - even if you hate your friends just a little by the end.

You can pick up your copy from boards and bits here.

Or from FunAgain here.

Variant: Underrated Games

2010-06-24T09:09:00.000-07:00

One of the nicer aspects of BoardGameGeek (the mega-resource for gaming) is that you can review the rating for each game. Every user of the site can rate games on a scale of 1 to 10 (with five being 'meh'). The aggregate score is caluclated and you can quickly pull up a game you're interested in and see what the gamers have been rating it.

Overall, it's a nice feature. And you'll rarely be disappointed with a game rating above 7 or so. But, sometimes, I find myself a gem of a game that, nevertheless, doesn't get much love from other gamers - whether online or in person.

The one that sticks out in my mind is Munchkin. Munchkin is a devious little game where you and a group of adventurers travel through a comical dungeon looking for treasure. It also offers a lot of back stabbing and spite throwing. Munchkin has numerous expansions and several theme spin-offs. However, the original Munchkin is rated below a 6 on BGG, and rated lower than any other version of the franchise. And some of my real life gamer buddies do not enjoy the direct attacks that are so flagrant in this game.

Since I've played more than my fair share of D&D, the deliciously pun-fueled cards really strike a chord. I enjoy reading the cards and running from the Plutonium Dragon as much as I like the game itself. Perhaps non-D&D players are missing out on an essential part of the experience. (Stay tuned for a full review of Munchkin).

What about you? What game do you enjoy that doesn't seem to get much love from your friends or the board gaming community?

Steve Jackson Talks Zombie Dice

2010-06-23T08:47:00.000-07:00

Zombie dice recently hit the shelves in my local game shop* If you're not familiar with it, it's a 'press your luck' type game where you play as zombies trying to eat humans. Keep rolling for delicious brains, but if you accumulate too many shotgun blasts, the humans kill you.

However, Steve Jackson recently posted his notes on the design of Zombie Dice (he recently did the same thing for Cthulhu Dice). It's an interesting insight into the process for fans or would-be designers of their own games.

In the case of Zombie Dice, it started out very similar to the finished product. But, when play-tested, it was pretty broken. Jackson then revamped the whole feel of the game with an almost, according to his description, board game like feel of various 'houses' and the ability to strengthen or weaken them. When that didn't work, he returned to his original idea and tweaked it until we got the game we have today.

Though I don't design games for a living (or even for a hobby, really), I guess I would take away that a designer shouldn't stay married to the original concept. Keep the theme and story, but be prepared to play around with it a lot. Any amateur (or professional) game designers have thoughts on his notes?

*Due to recent closures, "local" is a relative term in my neighborhood

What Kind of Robot?

2010-06-21T09:07:00.000-07:00

A Giant Fire Breathing Kind!

So I've been talking with Andrew over at Giant Fire Breathing Robot. He liked what I've been doing over here and wanted someone to cover board game developments. So now you'll start seeing my posts over there as well. I'm super excited to be joining the GFBR team over there.

Here's a link to my additions, but check out the whole site. It has awesome comic news and other geekery for your reading pleasure.

Genoa and El Grande: First Impressions

2010-06-21T08:59:00.000-07:00

Once again, stock footage prevails as I forgot to take pictures. I intend to take pictures, promise.

This weekend found me playing two interesting games for the first time. The first was Genoa. In this game, you take the role of a merchant. The goal is to have the most money by the end of the game. The play is heavy on negotiation. Essentially, each player takes a turn being the "merchant." The Merchant has near total control over what actions are available and which each player can take. Thus, the other players must bribe the merchant and haggle with him in order to take actions.

The Merchant can't be too evil, however, because then the next player gets to be the merchant. If you don't build some good will while you are in charge, you'll have to pay a steep price for actions when another player is calling the shots.

Overall, I was pretty impressed with Genoa. Being in control was, of course, fabulous. And being out of control meant using your negotiations skills with as much precision as possible. However, there are times when it is best to deny another player any action whatsoever. This extreme move can cut a player from a turn entirely. So Genoa will only work with the right group of people. If a player easily has their feelings hurt, will feel 'picked on' even if they just happen to be in the wrong place at the wrong time, you may want to avoid this one. Same for those players who seek out extreme vengeance when they are harmed in a game. That activity would really hurt the fun of Genoa.

Next up was El Grande. This is an area control game. Each player plays cards to determine turn order and to decide how many cubes are available for placement. Then they select cards that allow for special actions and allow the player to place a certain number of cubes onto various territories.

El Grande turned out to be quite entertaining. The area control base was very much enhanced by the special actions and strategic turn order placement. If the game had just been about placing units and scoring position, it would have fallen very flat. Instead, the special actions revealed a whole host of potential extras. Sometimes it was important to go first, even if that made things more difficult, just to snag a card to prevent another player from getting it. There were several key decisions to be made each turn. In the end, oru four player game had the top three players within five points of each other.

I can see how Analysis Paralysis could creep into this game. Luckily, we played fairly quickly without much downtime. A Deep Thought player, though, could significantly increase play time. Barring that, however, I'm very much looking forward to playing this game again and further refining my strategy.

Once Upon a Time - More Structured Storytelling than a Competitive Game

2010-06-18T08:11:00.000-07:00

Most games can be categorized one way or another. There are competitive vs. cooperative games. "Ameritrash" vs. "Euro" games. Deeply strategic vs. lighter fun. But, occasionally a game comes along that defies the usual descriptions and just is what it is. Once Upon a Time is that kind of game. This is less of a competitive endeavor than a structured means of facilitating a group story telling session.

The Basics: In Once Upon a Time, the players are called to tell a story. Each is dealt a number of cards depending on players. Then, one person just starts telling the story. All the stories are fantasy themed. Evil step-mothers, brave travelers, far away kingdoms, beautiful princesses, and enchanted objects are likely to feature strongly in any of the tales. The cards and the game don't exist so much to determine a winner, as they do to assist in telling a good story.

In addition to their regular cards, each person also gets an ending card which is a single sentence. "And it fit perfectly," would be a typical ending. The goal is to use the cards in your hand to get to that ending. Each person's ending is different, so each tale teller will twist the events more toward their own end.

The first player starts the story. Each time the player says a sentence, he can play down one card if that card's title was included in his sentence. Once he plays all of his cards, he can finish the story with his ending (if appropriate as judged by the other players). However, any player can jump in and take over the storytelling when one of two things happen. If the current storyteller happens to mention something in another player's hand, that player can play it and interrupt the story. They become the new storyteller and pick the tale up exactly where it left off. They can now change the direction of the tale towards their own ending.

The second way is with special interrupt cards that allow another player to take over the story when the storyteller plays cards of a certain type. Either way, the new storyteller cannot go back and change events. He can only move the story forward in the way he desires.

The storyteller doesn't have to play a card to tell his story, either. Maybe he wants the tale to take place in a distant and aging castle. He can simply say so even if he doesn't have those other cards. While that does risk another player jumping in with a "castle" or "old" card, it also allows the storyteller to craft the tale he wants.

Components: 4 of 5. The components are all cards. They are a good size and easy to shuffle. They are on good stock and will withstand numerous plays. However, their new glossy sheen does seem to wear away fairly quickly.

Strategy/Luck Balance: NA. There is an element of luck in this game. On one memorable play, I was stuck with the "Wolf" card trying to break in to another player's tale. The odds of him saying anything about a wolf were nil. However, there really isn't a "strategy" element per se. Instead, it's all about the player's imagination and how he can craft the story towards his ending while keeping the continuity of what came before going. So, strategy is limited only by imagination.

Mechanics: 3.5 of 5. Overall, the rules are fairly elegant. All of the cards are there to support the story. However, I had to subtract points for a glaring mechanical error. As noted above, if a player is stuck with one random card that is unlikely to be mentioned in the story, they are pretty much out of luck through the end of the game. To fix this, my group developed a variant where any player, at any time, may draw two cards. Doing so gives the player additional chances to interrupt, but also make sure they tell much more story before they can simply 'go out' and end the game.

Replayability: 5 of 5. The replayability of this game is immense. Every time the story is different and are guided by the random draw of the cards. Different endings encourage different versions. After multiple plays, I've never had the same experience twice, but always had a good time.

Spite: 0.5 of 5. Spite is not encouraged in this game. While you can interrupt a player, you always interrupt the current speaking player. And it's always a good thing to interrupt when you can. The half point here is for the possibility, however counterproductive and against the spirit of the game, that a player saves all his or her interrupt cards to use on another specific player.

Overall: 4.5 of 5. This is a wonderful gem of a game. It forces players to use imagination and encourages what could be termed Karaoke storytelling. Everyone has a good time and there is always laughter around the table. The sole negative is making sure you have the right group. Those who are easily intimidated by sharing their ideas will not find much fun in this game. And, enter it with the mindset that the group will be telling a story. If someone tries solely to win it, the essential charm of Once Upon a Time will vanish.

You can pick the game up from Boards and Bits here.

Or from FunAgain here.

Variant: Where do you get your games?

2010-06-17T09:03:00.000-07:00

I have sort of a lot of games (though by no means "enough"). Among my regular gaming group, I have the clear majority by far. In fact, when my friends do purchase a game, they often leave it at my place. I think they do this so that it can grow up among friends and not stay home alone - like taking a child to preschool.

Anyway, where do you usually get your games? I like the idea of supporting the local game shop. In fact, if more people supported them, maybe they wouldn't all be closed in my area. Buying at the local shop means you get to open up the game and tear into it right away. But, it also means you have to pay tax. Sales tax is the devil.

The alternative is an online retailer. Maybe even (cough, cough) boards and bits or funagain. No tax and they usually have significantly better prices than the local shop. The downside is that paying for shipping tends to cut into the savings on the price and you have to wait a week to get your game. A whole week!?

Another avenue is the second hand game. Looking around on different websites (even craigslist) can net you some pretty good deals. Second hand games tend to be far, far cheaper than even the online retailers. And you can pick them up in person. But, with these pre-owned (like a fine automobile) games, you have to be careful about missing components or broken pieces. Plus, for me, half the fun is punching the chits and tokens out of the boards. And second hand usually means you miss out on that.

The same is true for ebay or other auction sites. There is another potential negative that you can't really inspect the product until the deal is complete. And, you're paying for shipping again. On the plus side, you can get a very good price and it's easier to find a desired game on an auction site than spending time on random listings hoping something good shows up.

For me, it depends on the price point. Less expensive card games I'll grab at a local shop. Weightier games, I'll grab through one of my sponsors (and you should, too!). I've been pretty pleased with the second hand games I've picked up, but it's rare that someone is selling something I want.

What about you? Which is your preferred method?

(Note: I had a poll placed in here, but it changed the formatting of my page. Anyone know a good way to add a poll on blogger?)

News: Meeple's Choice Winners!

2010-06-16T10:19:00.000-07:00

This week, the Spielfrieks jury voted and came up with the Meeple's Choice awards. This year's winners are:

Small World
Hans Tuetonica
Endeavor

Like the Spiel des Jahres, Meeples' Choice is a prestigious game award that is given to well designed games that are fun to play. A "Meeple" is short for "My People" and comes from the little wooden men in Carcassonne. The term has since come to be applied to any wooden disc representing a player or their workers. If a wooden disc or cube represents an animal, you'll often see talk of the animeeples.

Past winners include some of my favorites: Le Havre, Brass, and Agricola. Looking over the awards for the past three or so years, I also see that it overlaps nicely with much of my wishlist. And I do have a birthday just around the corner....

Recap: Tikal First Impressions

2010-06-14T10:15:00.000-07:00

Stock Footage Because I'm Apparently Incapable of Remembering My Camera

This weekend, I had the chance to try out Tikal. Tikal was the Spiel des Jahres winner in 1999 so I was eagerly anticipating a first play. The game is a mix of tile placement and worker movement. So it's a bit like Carcassonne meets checkers. It's difficult to judge the worth of a game after only one play, but on the whole I liked it. I'm looking forward to an additional game now that I know which tiles are better and the approximate distribution.

The one potential negative for Tikal is that there isn't a general scoring time. Instead, when the scoring round occurs (four times throughout the game), each player takes a turn and then scores his points. So, Player One will move his workers, and then score his points. Then, Player Two will move his workers and score and so on. This means the same temple might be scored multiple times as first Player One has the most workers, then after Player Two adds some workers to it, Player Two will also get the points. It also means that the first to score has an advantage because each succeeding player must put more workers in the hex in order to score it, making it more difficult each time.

I found this encouraged players to look for outlying temples that had low competition, rather than to directly compete. In fact, that strategy nearly won me the game until another player decided to directly compete with me and the resultant resource war dropped me to second place. So, I'll have to play a few more times before I make my decision, but I generally like the game with that one bizarre exception.

Review: Caylus - Fun Wrapped in Complexity

2010-06-11T08:57:00.000-07:00

The man on the box seems angry you want to play...

Every once in a while, the Spiel des Jahres jury selects a game that, while awesome, doesn't quite fit into the Family Oriented type games generally in the running for the award. In those cases, they will create a special prize. Caylus was awarded the best Complex Game award by the Spiel jury in 2006. Agricola also received that special designation.

Caylus has several key methods to obtain points, immense interaction, and cutthroat competition. On the plus side, this means every game plays a little differently, and allows for extreme strategic depth. There are no dice in Caylus and no cards, so the game is a strong exercise in strategy. However, Caylus also is one of the more complex games in my gaming closet, so this is not a game for the faint of heart.

Buildings on the Right, Resources on the Left

The Basics: In Caylus, the goal is to build the King's castle. Each player is in charge of several workers that can contribute to the work. Though the players can build parts of the castle directly, they can also build up the town surrounding the castle in order to allow more actions. Some actions allow them to gain Kingly favor. And they gain prestige by constructing certain buildings within the town.

Other than determining who the starting player is, there are no elements of luck in Caylus. After that, the turn order can be completely rearranged by player actions. If the player uses a builder to get moved up in turn order, then he gets moved up. Going over all of the actions and choices available in this game is well beyond this review, but I would be remiss not to call attention to two interesting mechanics.

The first is the pass ability. There are numbers on the board, 1 through 5. The smallest number showing is the cost of playing a worker. So, with the one showing, all the workers cost but one denier. If a player passes (decides not to place any more workers) his token covers up the one. Now everyone else must pay two deniers for the privilege of placing a worker. And so on as each player passes. This leads to interesting decisions where it may be better to sacrifice taking a turn in order to either bleed a rival's resources or prevent them from taking additional actions (because they can't afford the increased cost). It also means that a player with fewer deniers, who passess early, helps to mitigate the other players' advantage from having higher resources.

Close up of the start of the road, the favor track, and the castle

The second ability is the provost. The little white disc is the overseer who makes sure none of the workers slack off As you can see from the board, the town is created along one main road. The provost travels down that road and only the workers before him actually work. If the provost doesn't get to your worker, that worker takes the day off because the boss ain't watchin'. The players also get the opportunity to move the provost, with an appropriate bribe. So if you place a worker near the end of the road, you run the risk of the other players moving the provost back so that he doesn't reach your worker.

Various actions on the board (building castle parts and hosting tournaments being the major ones) also result in favors from the King. Favors take the form of deniers, victory points, resources, or the ability to build a building. Gaining favors at the right time can be an important part of victory.

The buildings that are constructed have a large impact on the game. For example, there are two spaces from the start where players can move a worker and build a wood building. But the mason must be built (which is itself a wood building) before any stone buildings can be built. And the lawyer and the architect must be created before residential or monument buildings can be constructed. Sometimes they come out early, sometimes late or never, and that alters the way players gain points and favor dramatically. A player may choose which building he creates. He does not simply draw a random tile.

Wood Buildings, Stone Buildings, and Deniers

Components: 4.5 of 5. The buildings are on sturdy stock and all the pieces are made of wood. The board has excellent artwork. Hidden around the board are reminders about how much it costs to build the castle, what actions give favors, bonuses and penalties when scoring castle parts, etc. This limits the need to refer to the rules. My one complaint is that the goods are all (very) little cubes. A little variety would have been nice, or at a minimum, a little bit larger cubes. God help you if you accidentally drop the cloth ones (deep blue/purple) onto a dark floor.

Strategy/Luck Balance: 5 of 5. This game is pure strategy. Without introducing a chance element (such as dice or cards), there really needn't be a balance. The player is in total control of his actions and must make decisions that will directly impact his standing.

Mechanics: 4 of 5. Mechanically, the game plays very well. Once you have a firm grasp, everything falls into place and makes perfect sense. Plus, the board contains numerous reminders, without being obtrusive, to keep you from having to refer to the rulebook. However, the rulebook is written in small print and will take you a bit to go through it. There's a lot going on, and there is a steep learning curve on the first play or two.

Replayability: 4.5 of 5. This game plays out differently every time. Different players adopt different strategies to maximize their points. Good strategies can focus on the castle, or they can focus on constructing buildings (which also give victory points). And, depending on which route your opponents go, it'll impact your choices as well. And, despite its complexity, I've never seen the game take more than two hours - even with five players. So you don't have to commit an entire afternoon and evening to a single game.

Spite: 3.5 of 5. There are many ways to strongly take from your opponents in this game. The provost is one good example. If a player places a worker on the castle to build, but doesn't end up with enough resources (because another player starved him out), he'll actually lose points. Residential buildings can build over the starting buildings, thus eliminating worker choices for other players. While not the main focus of the game, these dastardly tactics are prevalent and effective.

Overall: 5 of 5. If you enjoy a deeply complex game, I highly recommend Caylus. It is always different, is entirely devoid of chance, and allows for some pretty hefty competition. There are numerous paths to victory, and the player is free to focus on one strategy in particular (unlike some games where diversification is required -e.g., Agricola or Tigris & Euphrates). In my view, the only negative is that the depth of the game keeps it from coming down when there are new players around, or when certain gamers who prefer lighter endeavors join us.

You can grab it from Boards and Bits here.

You can also get it from FunAgain here.

Variant: What kind of Gamer are you?

2010-06-10T07:49:00.000-07:00

While perusing the interwebs, I came across an interesting article by Dave Lartique over at Analog Gaming. It describes the most common gamer archetypes. It made me smile because, over the course of many years of gameplay, I've pretty much run into every type of person described. I contacted the site and they were kind enough to give me permission to reproduce the gamer types here for discussion.

I've made some edits for length, spelling, and grammar, but I'd encourage you to read the original article here.

1. Deep Thought
Is it this player’s turn? Hope you brought a magazine! Deep Thought has to completely analyze every possible move he can make and extend it out to its logical conclusion to determine which is the optimal one. If there’s math in the game, he’ll do it. He wants to know how much money everyone has, how many points, who has actions left this round, the relative humidity, if anyone is diabetic, current position of Saturn; anything that can possibly factor into his calculations must be taken into account before he can risk any all-important decision. (And all decisions are important.) Trying to hurry him up will just make him lose count and have to start over.

2. The Coach
The Coach enjoys his turn so much, he makes it last through your turn as well. After all, he’s a much better player than you and you can probably benefit from his helpful advice. Why would you want to make your own decisions when The Coach can easily show you better ones? He’s not trying to sabotage your game, either, just make you a more worthy opponent. Wouldn’t you rather just be there to move pieces for him so that he can essentially play himself — the only true challenge he has at this table?

3. Blood Ninja
Blood Ninja wants to win. Period. Oh sure, we all want to win, but Blood Ninja lives only to win. No less will do. If he does not win, something went horribly wrong. Either someone wasn’t playing right, or there’s too much randomness in the game, or sinister forces conspired to deny him a victory he so obviously earned. He may find a way afterward to explain that, although it doesn’t seem like he won, when you think about it, he really did. That’s only if he doesn’t win. And during the game, if his winning makes things utterly miserable for everyone else, so be it. The important thing is that he wins. Because really, what else matters?

4. Social Joe
Hey everyone, Social Joe is here! Boardgaming is a social activity and no one knows that more than Social Joe. Say, that card you just played reminds me of a story! Hey, I’m gonna go have a smoke! Oh hey, where’s your computer? You gotta see this YouTube video! Oh yeah, I have to make a move, don’t I? Screw it, I’ll just do this. I don’t even know what’s going on anymore! Hey, anyone want another beer?

5. Serious Joe
What are you talking about? Serious Joe also likes having a good time. A good time is quiet, focused play with opponents who are all working at their best. Sure, sometimes things get a little raucous and someone chuckles, but we tend to keep that kind of horseplay away from the game table (along with all food and drinks, because maybe you want your games to look like garbage, but I don’t). The good news is, Serious Joes pretty much can’t stand to play with anyone who isn’t a Serious Joe, so they tend to self-segregate.

6. The Negotiator
Everything has a price. Everything’s negotiable. So says The Negotiator. No matter what the game, what the situation, he’s ready to make a deal. Don’t take the action I want and I’ll not take the action you want. If you leave me alone, I won’t play this card against you. Sure, that’s a featured part of many games, but the Negotiator makes it the main part of every game. Even if he’s completely stomping you and you don’t stand a chance, he has an offer for you to consider. (He can also, in a pinch, explain how everyone at the table except him is a threat to you right now, and they only way you stand a chance is to team up with him against them.) Very often his offers consist of something you can do for him for which, in return, he won’t attack you, but “threat” is such an ugly word.

7. Whiney Whinerson
Double-dubs never does good at this game. And the cards aren’t shuffled well. Also, dice hate him. People are teaming up against him for no reason. That guy isn’t playing right. He didn’t get much sleep last night. He can’t see which cards are in front of you. There’s glare on the board. It’s hot in here. He’s not used to playing by these rules. That one strategy is unstoppable. People are playing too fast. People are playing too slow. Someone’s playing a denial deck. He can’t seem to draw a magic item. The start player has too much of an advantage. This board layout is strange. That card is broken and un-fun. Can we get better light in here? He’s just used to playing green. And then he wins.

8. Johnny Takeback
When Johnny Takeback plays a videogame, he saves his game constantly. Unfortunately there’s no such thing in boardgames, but he makes do. While Deep Thought agonizes for years over his move, he eventually makes one and sticks with it. Johnny Takeback does the same agonizing but can’t settle. He’ll make and unmake a move several times, paying and restoring his cash or resources or whatever each time until only he has any idea what his “save game state” is. He’s not cheating, he just can’t settle on a course of action. In addition, once his turn is over, he still hasn’t decided. He may need to re-think it again. Or he might have forgotten to get his money. Or maybe he was going to do a point of damage to you with his war wizard, but he forgot. Is it okay if he just goes ahead and does that?

9. Someone’s Friend
Usually Someone’s Girlfriend, but not always. Someone’s Friend showed up for game day! Now, if that friend is really interested in trying out boardgames, this is great. More often than not, though, Someone’s Friend has just been dragged into this. They have no interest in playing, can’t (or won’t) follow the rules, are pretty much just doing whatever Someone tells them to do, and pretty much having a miserable time. This is not the fault of Someone’s Friend (though often they will continue to insist on participating even after it’s more than clear that they’re not really interested), it’s the Someone who will keep pushing them into this. Nevertheless, you can count on a pretty lousy time for everybody.

10. Captain Chaos
Have your boardgames become too stale and predictable? Captain Chaos is here to liven things up! He doesn’t care if he wins or loses, so long as he has a good time, and what he considers a good time is making the entire game unbearable for everyone else. Do you have any kind of strategy whatsoever? Too bad, because Captain Chaos is going to behave in a completely unpredictable manner and do things that don’t help him in the slightest just to screw with you. If you get frustrated by all this, lighten up, it’s just a game! And God help you if he somehow ends up winning.

11. Mr. Fix-It
You’ll know you’re playing with Mr. Fix-It before you even open the box. He’ll take a look at the cover and tell you how the fonts and color choices are all wrong, and what they should have done. Then he’ll examine the components and be totally amazed that any serious company would make these kinds of mistakes with them. He can tell you what kind of cardstock they should have used and why the finish is all wrong for the board. And speaking of the board, who the hell came up with that awful design and color scheme? Through Mr. Fix-It you’ll find out how the rules SHOULD have been written and what player aids they should have included. Once you start playing, he’ll determine, on first play, what strategies are “broken” and how poorly the game was playtested. After that first play, he’ll have the whole game figured out and a list of ways to improve it. He’s got the answers.

In my group of about seven regular players, we have a Negotiator, two Social Joes, one Blood Ninja, two Serious Joes and one guy that just sort of plays. We're converting him from a casual. One of our Social Joes sometimes will turn into a Captain Chaos depending on the game situation.

Of course, I see little bits of myself in a lot of these descriptions. I know I've had periods of being a Deep Thought on occasion, and I'm guilty of some Johnny Takeback behaviors from time to time. But, I think I'm closest to a Serious Joe. I'm not nearly so serious as the description, but I do like highly competitive games with all players playing to win it. And I refuse to play with any Whiney Whinersons.

What about you? What category do you fit in? Who plays at your table?

News: Sign up for Catan Beta on the iPad

2010-06-09T08:53:00.000-07:00

I've previously reported on a number of games coming to Xbox and Playstation. Recently, Carcassonne has made an appearance as an iPhone application.

However, now it looks like Settlers of Catan will be coming to the iPad. If you are the proud owner of apple's newest iGadget, then you can sign up for Beta invites to "Catan" here.

I'm really happy about this trend for board games, especially the more accessible kind, to come to electronic devices everywhere. I think it will spawn a new breed of board gamer who, after playing some games on their device, will be more likely to dip into the cardboard pool with real people.

Recap: Fluxx Strategy - An Oxymoron?

2010-06-07T11:00:00.000-07:00

My Type II Deck

This last weekend found me at none other than a Magic: the Gathering tournament. Many moons ago, I loved Magic. I eagerly bought each new expansion, made weekly or bi-weekly trips to card shows for the best prices on the best cards, and even competed in a few tournaments. I never won anything grand, but it was all fun.

At some point, however, I realized that the people at Magic were going to keep coming out with new cards. And if I wanted to continue to play Type II, that meant continuing to buy new cards. As I realized how much money I had been spending on a single game, I broke ties with Magic. As much as I enjoyed it, I couldn't justify the expense.

Fast forward about five years (more?) to last weekend. Two of my friends recently got back into it. They've been trying to drag me along, but I've stuck to my Magic-is-too-expensive line. But this last weekend was a free tournament. And they happened to have an extra (pretty crappy) deck. So, I decided to join them. I didn't do too well, and I'm pretty sure my opponents got sick of me asking "what does that do" since I hadn't seen any cards in several years. But overall, it was pretty fun.

And that's when I saw Fluxx sitting under the glass case. Fluxx is one of those games I've been meaning to pick up, but hadn't. It was reasonably priced right there so I grabbed it and immediately played with my two friends, plus a new one we picked up just for Fluxx.

In Fluxx, the rules are constantly changing. Hand size will grow and suddenly decrease. Sometimes you play a lot, sometimes a little. It was great fun, even though the game is highly luck dependent. But it has a nice challenge of keeping and monitoring the ever growing number of rules changes. There is just the barest hint of strategy. It's usually best to get Keepers down as quickly as possible. And its also good to hold onto a goal (if you can) where you have one of the two requried keepers so that you can play it when you get the other keeper. But, other than a few instances, it's mostly just hoping that the tides of fate turn your way.

I also got in a play of Carcassonne with some nephews. Interestingly, one nephew who is only about six, managed to win the entire game! I played his meeples based on whether they (the meeples) wanted to be robbers or knights or farmers. He got a good 20 point farmer in the early game that lead to his victory.

Review: Jaipur - A Favorite for Two

2010-06-04T08:57:00.000-07:00

Jaipur is the capital of the largest city in Rajashtan. It also lends its name to probably the best two player game I have had the joy of experiencing. In Jaipur, the Maharaja will invite his top merchant to his court. While many lesser traders exist, only you and your top rival really have a chance at being that invitee.

Jaipur is quick to set up, easy to grasp, moves quickly, and has a surprising depth of strategy for what, on first glance, appears to be a relatively simple game.

The Basics. In Jaipur, the players can trade and sell six different kinds of goods. From most precious (i.e., worth the most points) to least precious they are: Diamonds, Gold, Silver, Cloth, Spice, and Leather. The players may also maintain herds of camels which can be used to obtain additional goods.

On a turn, a player may either sell goods, or obtain goods. This keeps the game rolling along as there aren't any long delays between drawing a card and then deciding what to do with it. The market consists of five cards. It begins each round with three camels and then two cards pulled from the top of the draw pile. If a player wants to obtain goods from the market he may either take one card, OR take as many cards as he wants, but replace an equal number from his hand or camels, OR take all the camels.

Camels don't count against the hand limit, so having a ready supply can be handy. It allows the player to trade them in for valuable goods.

Alternatively, a player can sell any number of the same kind of good by discarding them from his hand. When he does, he gets the topmost disc for that commodity for each item sold. The tiles are numbered with the highest numbers on top. So, for example, the first two diamonds sold are worth seven points each. The next three are worth only five. By contrast, only the first spice is worth five, and the next two are worth only three and they decrease from there. If he sells three, four, or five at once, the player will get a bonus tile worth additional points.

It seems simple enough, but there are a number of strategical concerns. On the selling side, there is tension between selling early to get the higher valued discs, or trying to save up to get the bonus tiles. The bonus for a five sale can be between 7 and 10 (more valuable than the most precious diamond).

On the buying side, there is strong strategery with respect to taking camels. It may be great to snag four camels off the board, but they are immediately replaced with four random cards from the draw pile. And now it's your opponent's turn. That means, if gold or diamonds are drawn, your opponent now can grab them before you have the opportunity to do so. It may be best to forgo camels if your opponent has a small hand and a large herd (thus enabling them to steal many of the new goods played to replace the camels).

It can also be advantageous to 'starve' your opponent of camels by taking them first. Without them, your opponent will only be able to take one good per turn (a huge disadvantage) or will have to replace cards he takes with cards from his hand.

After a round is played through, the players count up the points on their discs. The one who has the most wins that round. The game is played best of three rounds for the winner. In sum, Jaipur provides a number of strategic choices that can impact game play.

Components: 4.5 of 5. The components are of top quality. The discs are made of sturdy cardboard. The cards are about the size of normal playing cards making them easy to shuffle. They are also on a nice quality stock that I expect to stand up to many, many plays without much damage. The artwork is also well suited to the theme.

Strategy/Luck Balance: 4 of 5. As a card game, there will sometimes be lucky draws. I've been dealt two diamonds in my opening hand with one on the board to take right away. I've also had some tough draws where it was hard to get leather together. Yet, there is a nice balance. As explained above, there is substantial depth about when to take what items, when to sell, and when to buy. It's also possible to end a round by buying up all of three types of goods. So, if a player is ahead, he may try grabbing up a few one point chips if by doing so he'll end the round.

Mechanics: 5 of 5. The manual is very straightforward. And, mechanically, the rules are very clear. Sell or buy - and buying only has three options. There aren't a lot of special exceptions or other alterations. A read-through of the rules took much less than five minutes and we were up and playing within minutes after that.

Replayability: 4 of 5. This game comes down from my shelf quite a bit. I've only owned it for a few weeks, but my wife and I really enjoy it. We play several times each week. The game plays mechanically the same each time. The only difference is what cards you are dealt and how you maximize your sales. But, I find that it injects just enough of a random element to keep me coming back to the game for another play.

Spite: 0 of 5. There is no mechanical way to throw spite at an opponent. No cards allow you to discard from your opponents hand or discs. No cards allow you to make an opponent lose a turn. The most you can do is take an action that would give you the biggest benefit - but that's just competition, not spite.

Overall: 4.5 of 5. I've played Jaipur over a dozen times now and am still looking forward to more. It is light, thematically enjoyable, quick to play, and simple. I've been using it as the conversion tool for my non-gamer wife who now requests that we play Jaipur from time to time. (All part of the Master Plan). My only complaint is that this game is limited to two players. I'm not sure that it would work as well with more, but it's a shame that it can't be played in a group.

Oh, and its also way, way, way better than Lost Cities. There's no needless math in Jaipur.

You can get it from Boards and Bits here.

You can also get it from FunAgain here.

Variant: When is it OK to quit a game?

2010-06-03T09:04:00.000-07:00

Angry Baby hates to lose

I was speaking with a friend of mine and the question came up, when is it OK to quit a multi-player board game, and what is the proper etiquette for doing so? I looked around online and was very surprised at the divergent views. Everything from, "when its not fun anymore" to "as long as it doesn't impact the other players" to "well if they are playing by the wrong rules" found supporters. But I found very few people with my take.

When is it OK to quit a game? Answer: Never.

Alright, maybe not never, but close enough. In my opinion, the biggest sin in gaming is the spoilsport. This is the person who complains incessantly throughout the game (everyone is entitled to bemoan a bad roll or two) no matter what is going on. The spoilsport may be the person who, after realizing he won't win, decides that rather than try a come-from-behind strategy, he's simply going to play kingmaker and throw his support to a favored player.

But, the worst spoilsport of all, is the I'm-taking-my-football-and-going-home kind. It's a bit of a cliche, but playing the game really should be about the gameplay and strategy - not about victory. Enjoyment should come between opening the box and reaching the end of the game. If you win, neat. But you should also be able to cheer the victor when it isn't you. If you adopt that mindset, it really makes games a lot more fun.

Getting up and leaving the game inherently changes the game dynamic. Games with area control or competition (Catan, Power Grid, Ticket to Ride) are dramatically impacted as there is suddenly a vacuum of space, or at least less competition for where the absent player would have expanded. In card games, there is suddenly an influx of previously unavailable cards that can dramatically change strategy.

But most importantly, it puts the rest of the players in a bad position. They can finish playing their game, but now they have the quitter pouting in the corner reminding them that he didn't have fun. It also puts a real damper on the joy and camaraderie of playing with everyone. Or, they can stop playing the game where they were all having a good time and cater to the quitter's selfish whim.

No, if the game just isn't for you, it's best to tough it out to the end. Even long games eventually end. Bite the bullet and see it through. Then, the next time the game is suggested, you can politely decline. Better to voice opposition to the game from the get go than to quit in the middle.

The only times quitting a game in the middle is defensible is:

All the players are clearly not having much fun and its a mutual decision to cease; or
The game has gone on many hours longer than anticipated (I'm looking at you, World of Warcraft) and if you don't leave, you'll fall asleep on the drive home.

Other than that, quitting a game midway through is the peak of selfishness. A game is a communal endeavor of enjoyment.

Or am I wrong? When is it appropriate to quit a game midway through?

News: Spiel des Jahres nominees announced

2010-06-02T08:35:00.000-07:00

The nominees for the Spiel des Jahres (German Game of the Year) were announced on May 31, 2010. The SdJ is a prestigious game award which, according to Wikipedia, can triple the game sales of a nominee, and multiply the sales of the winner by thirty times or more. So far, I haven't run across a single SdJ winner that I haven't thoroughly enjoyed. Past winners include: Settlers of Catan, Carcassonne, and Ticket to Ride.

This year's nominees include (in alphabetical order):
A la Carte
Dixit
Fresco
Identik (aka Portrayal)
Roll Through the Ages

Some of the games are a little older in the U.S. market, but this was their first year published in Germany so they are up for the award.

The jury selecting the nominees also creates a list of "recommended" games (sort of an honorable mention). Among those recommended was Jaipur - a game that is fast becoming a favorite of my wife and I.

Two other quick news items: Settlers of Catan will be coming to the Play Station Network. It looks like Sony has decided to jump on the board game bandwagon after Microsoft obtained, among others, Carcassonne.

Finally, a German game from World War I, where the object was to conquer Britain, after being found in an attic in pristine condition, is being auctioned. You can read about it, and see pictures, here. According to various reports, Unterseekriegspiel (loosely translating to Submarine Wargame), it is expected to sell for four hundred pounds.

Recap: Scottish Festivals and Wife Conversion

2010-06-01T10:13:00.000-07:00

Autumn makes her best I-have-a-wicked-knife-rawr face

This memorial day weekend (which is why Monday's post comes a day late) found my wife and I attending the Scottish festival. Just to be clear, I love bagpipes. I have requested them at my funeral so that they can play something really sad and make people cry (its always good to have a little insurance for these types of things). So, going to the festival and seeing dancing, highland games, and music sounded great. But I have to say that it ended up (to continue the overuse of the interweb meme) very meh.

The sword dancing had 100% less swords than advertised. The highland games occurred very matter-of-factly without any real fanfare or audience involvment. There were a number of vendors that had cool weapons or celtic/british type fare, but there's only so long you can window shop. I also enjoy renaissance faires (does anything scream nerd quite so loudly?), and the scottish festival wasn't as good. The immersive element was missing, and there was no one pretending to be from ye olde anywhere. So, next year, its the ren faire for me.

More importantly, I sat my beautiful wife down and we played some major board games. She is thoroughly enjoying Jaipur - especially because she won the last game we played. We also played some Agricola and a 5 player Puerto Rico. It turns out, she likes games when she's played them several times and feels like she knows all the situations that could arise and possible strategies. So, my plan to convert her into a board game lover is to pick one or two games, and play those several times until she's comfortable with all of the rules so that her enjoyment can flourish. My theory is that once she falls in love with three or four games, she'll be more eager to try new ones.

I believe my theory is sound. We will begin Phase 1 of the implementation of this, my Master Plan, in the coming week. Progress will be reported here. Anyone have additional suggestions?

Review: Triplica - Very Enjoyable Light Family Game

2010-05-28T08:20:00.000-07:00

Triplica is a light, but very fun game. Triplica is not an involved, highly detailed, strategy oriented endeavor. It would be difficult to classify Triplica as a "euro" type game. However, it is quite enjoyable if you're looking to play something with kids, need something short, or are playing with non-gamers. A full game of Triplica lasts about five to ten minutes and is immediately replayable. As part of this review, I took this game to a number of my non-gamer friends and family to get their reaction. Universally, they liked it and wanted to play more.

(Full Disclosure: The copy of Triplica that I reviewed was provided to me by Fun Q Games)

The Basics. Triplica comes with three different variations. There are two different (though similar) multiplayer versions, as well as a solitaire game. In the multiplayer game, you lay out a number of cards in the center depending on the number of players. Each card has three symbols on it. A second deck, the goal cards, each have one symbol on it. Each player gets three play cards and one goal card.

From there, you simply try to get three in a row with the symbol on your goal card. Diagonal or Horizontal is fine. In the left picture, there's a Triplica of yellow diamonds. When three in a row of your goal symbol occurs, you yell, "Triplica," reveal your goal card, and grab a new goal. The first player to meet five goals wins. The interesting part is that each card you play goes right on top of one of the cards already down. Which means that while you try to build your Triplica, your opponents are doing likewise and may cover up your cards. Any player can call Triplica whenever their symbol is met - even if another player plays the final card.

This leads to an interesting bit of strategy in this light game. You can usually figure out what your opponents' goal cards are if you pay attention, but the goals get met so quickly that knowing your opponent's goal doesn't provide much benefit. However, because any player can build on your cards, it means you want to play the card that contributes the least to other Triplicas. Since your opponents can call Triplica at any time, you don't want to build up the blue squares if you need green ovals.

Triplica's quick pace contributes significantly to its enjoyability. There is almost no opportunity for analysis paralysis. And, because the game is completed so quickly, it leaves everyone clamoring for another go around. Even my non-gamer friends, who would never suggest a card game to begin with, wanted to play multiple times after the first game.

Components: 5 of 5. The cards are top notch. They are about the size of traditional playing cards, making them easy to shuffle. Moreover, the cards are on good stock with a nice glossy coating. These cards will stand up to repeated plays and also readily weather abuse from younger children.

Strategy/Luck Balance: 4 of 5. Between randomly drawing your goal, and randomly drawing your play cards, there is a significant luck element. But it is fairly well balanced. Every card has three symbols which means each player will have nine chances to get their desired symbol into their hand. Sometimes, the luck isn't with you and you have cards devoid of your goal - but that occurs rarely. Moreover, there is still a strong strategic element. For example, I found that it was often better to build my Triplica on the outside cards first and move in, rather than start in the middle. The middle tended to get covered up before it came back around to my turn.

Mechanics: 5 of 5. Triplica's rules are immediately understandable. It's a very simple game at heart that can be explained very quickly, even to children. Everyone can start playing right away without a full recitation of arcane situations and special circumstance rules. The rulebook is well written and straightforward. And everything becomes apparent after the first round or two of the game.

Replayability: 3.5 of 5. The replayability was a little hard to quantify for this game. I never played it only once. Each time I brought it out, the group played it at least twice and usually three to five times. After about five plays in a row, though, everyone was ready to move on. Triplica will be my go to game for family affairs, but it isn't as likely to hit the table when my gamer friends come around.

Spite: 1 of 5. The game moves too fast, and cards are far too precious, to waste on throwing spite at opponents. If you tried, your opponents would simply play over your cards, make their goals faster, and win the game. It gets a one in this category, though, because there are times when the cards you've drawn into your hand simply don't match your goal card. In that case, the best thing to do - since you can't help yourself - is play where it messes up potential Triplicas for opponents.

Overall: 4.5 of 5. I very much enjoyed this game. It's important to accept this game for what it is: a light, quick, family style game. From that perspective, Triplica is a fun, durable, and well designed game. If you're looking for the complexities of a San Juan, or even the plethora of decision-making of a Munchkin, you won't find it here. However, as a light diversion for families, Triplica excels. I imagine it would be a wonderful tool to inculcate the younglings into the joy of boardgaming while they are still impressionable.

You can order it from Boards and Bits here.

As of this writing, Triplica isn't available from FunAgain.

Variant: The Gateway Game

2010-05-27T08:47:00.000-07:00

Somewhere along the line, the board game hobbiest goes from board games like Monopoly (::shudder::) and Parchisi and finds the world of real games. Getting past the hurdle of the boring or the kiddie type games, and finding the fun, interactive, and challenging ones starts somewhere. It's hard to imagine that you set Candy Land down and pick up Power Grid. Usually, the player starts with a so-called "gateway" game. Something that is interesting and fun, adopts mechanics not found in simpler games, and convinces the player that board games are not all bad.

Several games usually pop up as potential gateways. Carcassone and Ticket to Ride are favorites. For me, it was Settlers of Catan. Having not played much in the way of good board games, the negotiation aspect ("I need brick! Give me sheep!") was great. The random rolls also kept the game interesting so that you would never be guaranteed production. I enjoyed that game so much, that I bought the expansions. When I did, I went to a local game shop that carried a number of challenging, adult oriented games. (Note, every time I want to write "adult" games, I'm worried someone will think it's an XXX endeavor. Stupid pornographic euphemism). That's when I saw there was a whole world of goodness out there.

If you are an entrenched hobbiest like myself, what was your gateway game? What was it about that game that got you into the adult board gaming hobby? Alternatively, what games do you bring to non-gamers because you think it would make a good gateway game for them?

Random: The Lost Finale - Flash Sidways Only

2010-05-26T13:29:00.000-07:00

NOTE: MASSIVE SPOILERS BELOW. IF YOU INTEND TO WATCH LOST, YOU MAY WANT TO AVOID THIS POST

The blogosphere is abuzz with critics and apologists of the Lost finale. The real failure of Lost isn't that it didn't explain every mystery (nor, honestly, could it have). Instead, the failure is that the real finale, the wrap-up and reveal, applied to the flash-sideways world rather than the characters we've been following for six seasons.

Lost and I have had an on-again, off-again relationship over the years. Our love couldn't be stronger during Season 1. We were getting to know each other and, like the beginning of most relationships, we were on our best behavior. We made a good impression on one another and I rushed to purchase Season 1 on DVD so that I could convince friends to watch it.

Our relationship entered season 2. Season two was good, but it just wasn't season 1. Yeah, I still liked it, but now I've seen it in the morning without its make-up on. Somehow, the magic was gone, but there was a solid base (and some cool new mysteries) so we kept forging ahead.

Season three. Oh, the horror. This is when Lost betrayed me. Gone were interesting insights into the main characters (they had all pretty much been revealed previously). Instead, we have the paralytic spiders, and episodes about fixing up a junky car ... um ... for victory? Plus, this is the first season where the writers really didn't know what to do and so decided to make Desmond nothing more than a lazy writer's plot device. Now he can see the future and travel to Eloise's jewelry shop. Lost and I parted ways after this season. Things were said that we couldn't take back, and it was best to have a clean break.

During seasons four and five, people told me that Lost was sorry. That Lost was making overatures to get my attention. But I wouldn't believe it. The past was too painful. Finally, a friend of mine sat me down, explained that Lost was a better person (er... show) now, and that I should give it another chance.

I watched seasons 4 and 5 on blu-ray. It opened up a lot of new mysteries without really answering much of what came before (with notable exceptions). But, the writing was good again. The characters had purpose, and the plot - while making exceptional use of Desmond's magic time travel special-cuz-the-writers-said-so - was engaging. Ok, Lost. I'm sorry too. Lets never fight again.

Season 6 was billed as the season to answer all of the questions. So I got together with Lost, older and wiser now, and watched. Season 6 did not answer every question. Not even a little bit. See below for College Humor's video with just a few of the unexplained events.

See more funny videos and funny pictures at CollegeHumor.

And the mysteries they did explain, like what the Island's whispers are, were sometimes done in an off-handed manner. Plus, the mysteries they introduced in even the latest seasons (like that the smoke monster and Jacob operate by a set of "rules") were never explained. So the "rules" were merely cuz-the-script-said-so's.

But, having known disappointment from Lost before, I expected it. I hoped for more, but braced for the worst. Until the finale actually happened. The finale was that all the people in the flash sideways world were actually dead and that they were moving on together. Ok. I can accept that. It's not the most interesting ending in the world, but at least it sort of wraps up the flash sideways storyline.

But that storyline was only introduced in season 6! The finale was not for the characters we'd grown to know, the individuals who enticed us with all too brief insights via flashbacks. No, it was for the characters introduced only in season 6. The actual storyline of Lost - the smoke monster, Jacob, the tunnel, the Others, Whidmore, Eloise, the Dharma Initiative, the Swan - all of it doesn't get a finale. Instead, Jack and the smoke monster die and life continues on without explanation. And it makes even less sense that it would continue because Jacob said the Island was the stopper keeping the evil (smoke monster) out. If the smoke monster is dead, then what's the point of the island?

Anyway, after going through all that, after engaging in six seasons, I was emotionless after the finale. I didn't even have strong opinions against the finale. It just sort of ... happened. No revelation, no deeper meaning, just Hurley and Ben picking up for Jacob and Richard. That's the true loss here. The opportunity to provide a final big reveal, or to give the viewer an understanding of the Island's significance (other than simply because the script says its important) was utterly missed. And, as a consequence, the finale was an emotionless let down.

That said, I think Klaus Teuber may start working on a Settlers of the Island.... Rolling a seven moves the smoke monster.

News Item: Catan Blog and Gaming Litigation

2010-05-26T08:26:00.000-07:00

Klaus Teuber, the designer of Settlers of Catan, has been blogging about his efforts to re-implement his Catan card game (currently titled Princes of Catan). The fifth part was recently posted, but if you're interested in how to redesign or re-implement an existing game, its worth reading from the beginning. The links to all five articles can be found here.

Interestingly, in his latest post, Teuber has to defend himself from accusations that he is making the game 'too easy.' His phrase is "appropriate for the public." Understandably, gaming aficionados who enjoy the current complexity are aghast at their game being "dumbed down" for family style play. Teuber responds that the game will have an "Introductory" style play separate and apart form the base game. The introductory game will familiarize the players with the basic mechanics, but will not allow for every element to be in play. In this way, the complex element of the basic game remains, but allows for a family or newbie variant.

In principle, I don't have a problem with it. I fully endorse games like Agricola that have a 'family style' and a 'complex style' to choose from. It allows the game to accommodate different groups. Though I love complexity, some very deep games (Caylus springs to mind) are basically eliminated from any group that isn't already immersed in the board gaming hobby.

On a second note, I had to touch on the litigation over "Would you rather?" As a legally inclined individual, something that touches both board games and the law piques my interest.

Two different companies, Falls Media and Zobmondo, began using the phrase "Would you Rather" to sell their products. Falls filed first for the Trademark and made books with that title before Zobmondo. But Zobmondo made its Would you Rather game before Falls. The District Court ruled for Zobmondo as a matter of law (meaning that there was no relevant fact dispute and the law required a ruling for one party).

For a trademark to be protected, it usually has to be more than merely "descriptive." It has to at least be "suggestive." The District Court found that "Would you rather" was only descriptive of the game, and therefore, there was no trademark right for Falls Media and they lost. On appeal, the Ninth Circuit disagreed. They stated that, the mark could be "suggestive" because an ordinary consumer might see the phrase "Would you Rather?" but not necessarily know that it involved a game of funny choices. While it might still be merely descriptive, it wasn't descriptive as a matter of law. So, they sent the case back down to the lower court for a trial.

At this point, the parties will go through a trial and produce evidence of what "Would you Rather" means to consumers. It's quite a dry read, but if you want to take a look at the appellate decision, you can find it here.

Recap: Of Barbarians and Triplica

2010-05-24T13:43:00.000-07:00

This week, I was able to play my first game of Traders and Barbarians for Settlers of Catan. Unlike the other expansions, T&B doesn't expand the playing field or introduce a complete set of new game elements. Instead, it offers several different scenarios or mini-expansions that are compatible with the base game. Some scenarios are not compatible with the prior expansions.

The scenario I played was the Barbarian attack. Each time a settlement is built or upgraded to a city, Barbarian hordes invade Catan. And, because the dice dictate where they invade, they tend to gum up the most profitable coastal hexes. Once they do, that hex is locked down and no longer produces for the settlers. The Barbarians are busy stealing all the goods. The players can use knights to combat the Barbarians and eject them from Catan (worth potential victory points), but Knights sometimes die in combat to Barbarians.

I found that staying away from the coastal sections altogether was a good strategy. When I had the winning cards, I waited patiently for my turn, only for the player to my right to win on his turn. A good game. Plus, towards the end, there were so many Barbarians on the board, that they appeared to be the new Settlers of the island. (And, on that note, I'll be making a more concerted effort to get photographic evidence of weekend plays).

Then, one of the Barbarians fell into a hole at the center of the island and turned into a smoke monster. That was weird....

I also played a very light, family oriented card game called Triplica this weekend. I had a blast and shared it with many of my non-gamer friends who enjoyed it. I'll be giving it a full write-up this Friday, but for now, it is a very pleasant, very uncomplicated game that can occupy a group for 5-10 minutes in one play.

Review: Arkham Horror - Cthulhu fhtagn

2010-05-21T08:40:00.000-07:00

In his house at R'lyeh dead Cthulhu waits dreaming...

Have you read Call of Cthulhu? If not, go ahead. I'll wait (and, by sheer coincidence, Ruth recently dedicated a post to the Mythos). Arkham Horror is a board game for 2-8 players (and you'll want as much back-up as possible) set in H.P. Lovecraft's world of mind bending horror. You take on the role of an investigator as you attempt to close the portals that open between our world and the terrors of the night. You'll fight monsters and cultists, equip your character, explore other-worldly areas, and try to prevent an elder god from taking over.

Unlike most board games, Arkham Horror is a cooperative game. Meaning, the players are all on the same team against the board. You all win together, or you all lose together. In my experience, playing Arkham Horror means we all lose together a comfortable majority of the time, but the challenge is what makes this game so enjoyable.

The Basics. Arkham Horror is very rules heavy. It'll take several reads through to get all of the rules right, and expect to refer back to the rules pages your first few times playing the game. All of the monster movements, attacks, and the like are controlled by player rolls or indications on the board. Thus, when and where the monsters go, as well as whether and how much they attack for, is out of the players' control for the most part.

You take the role of an investigator who has been touched by the Mythos in some way. There are a dozen or so different characters to choose from. You can select, or pass them out randomly. My particular group likes the random feel. You then also select, randomly, an old god that is trying to burst through into Arkham. Good luck with that. All of them carry horrible powers that change the game up. There are no good elder gods. Every single one of them will make you and your group cry. Pro tip: get someone else to make the random selection so that you can blame them when a bad one gets picked.

From there, you equip your character. They get starting supplies, and usually some random additional mundane items, money, or mystical artifacts. You also get to decide what your character's stats are (from a pre-arranged list on the character sheet). Hmmm... stats, items, character sheet? Sounds a lot like roleplaying. And, it actually recreates that feel.

Each time you move into a new area, someone draws from a random deck of cards (segregated out by area) and you read the event on that location. Think of them as random encounters. Some are good, most are bad. Some are really bad unless you make your skill check, and then are moderately pleasant. Getting into the mood and enjoying the RPG aspect of this game is really key. My group will have someone other than the acting playing read the card. If it calls for the player to make a choice, the reader will say, "Do you open the rickety cabinet?" That way, the acting player will have to make the choice without knowing the consequences.

During the game, portals to other worlds start opening up. R'yleh is just one, but several others show up. As investigators, its your job to close them. Too many portals open, and the investigators lose the game. To close them, the players will often have to travel through them and risk significant loss of sanity before making their way out and closing the portals.

When closing a portal, a player has the option to "seal" it by expending clues, or to just close it. Sealing it means that no more portals can open at that location. Closing it means the next time a portal opens there, you start all over at that location. At the end of each round of actions, a card is revealed that tells you which monsters move and where, the location of the next portal, and any rule changes that screw with you. Sometimes, they will include onerous additional tasks that keep you from closing portals.

Meanwhile, every time a portal opens, the elder god gets one step closer to breaching into Arkham and destroying everything. So it's a race against time. When the elder god enters the game, its pretty much game over.

So, how do you win? There are three major ways: (1) seal 6 portals (our usual method of victory); (2) close all portals on the board, and every player has a portal token that he or she has closed (possible, but very difficult); or (3) defeat the elder god in combat after he shows up (lolwut?).

You lose when the elder god emerges and inevitably eats you up. For some reason, the players seem to be the first thing extra-dimensional beings love to eat. You can enter combat with the big bad guy (and at that point, its really all you can do), but if you felt overwhelmed before, you will see yourself crushed by the elder.

This game tends to be extremely difficult to win, especially for new players. Once you get into the swing of things, a few strategies start to open up and the players can really work as a team. Even then, there is no guarantee of victory. It's a difficult endeavor, but did you really think that banishing an incomprehensible creature from a mind-flaying world would be easy?

Components: 2 of 5. The game pieces are pretty average. The players are represented by little cardboard pictures that slide into plastic stands. The monsters are cardboard discs with pictures. The cards are on good stock, but about half of them are very small, which makes them difficult to shuffle. The artwork on the monsters and on the outer worlds is decent, but not extremely exciting. But, what the components lack in impressiveness, they make up with sheer quantity. Little cardboard dollars, little rings to keep track of stats, clue tokens, health and sanity tokens, monster tokens, world tokens, and on and on. Be sure to clear a nice big table if you intend to play Arkham Horror.

Strategy/Luck Balance: 3 of 5. Since there are only three ways to win, there are relatively few effective strategies. You can either close gates as fast as possible, try to seal gates when you can, or prepare for the final battle. The strategy in the game comes from how well you can deal with the bad luck you inevitably receive. Many cards have ill effects that persist throughout the game (or at least until another bad card with another ill effect replaces it). Luck plays a strong role, but there are very few "good cards," so really, the luck is about getting the least terrible draw.

Mechanics: 3 of 5. Once you have several plays under your belt, the rules become very clear. The tokens have symbols that inform you of their health and potential sanity cost. But, the rules are a bear to get through the first time and are generally not intuitive. Once learned, they have a nice consistency, but expect to keep the rulebook nearby for the first several games.

Replayability: 2 of 5. Arkham Horror does tend to be the same game each time. The portals pop up randomly, and a different elder god will impact the game differently. But it's the same basic process. Plus, the lengthy set-up, and the many pieces that have to be brought out and put back are, I've found, a barrier to playing this game more frequently.

Spite: 0 of 5. Spite is a non-issue in this game. It's a cooperative game and hurting your fellow players, to the extent its even possible, is to everyone's disadvantage.

Overall: 3 of 5. Despite its steep learning curve and its samey game play, Arkham Horror still makes it to my table now and again. It's a great mood piece when we really want a horror game. It also provides us with a great challenge, and can re-establish friendships that have been broken in a play of Munchkin or Diplomacy earlier in the evening. It also has a semi-RPG feel so that you can do a little bit of role-playing without committing to a character over the next several months. And, if you're at all a fan of Lovecraftian literature, I'd recommend picking up Arkham Horror.

You can get it from BoardsandBits here.

You can also get it form FunAgain games here.

(Claim code for Technorati: XUJBJJ2BHTUD)

Variant: The Evil House Rule

2010-05-20T09:21:00.000-07:00

(The Smile of the Evil House Ruler)

Yes, Thursdays are usually Errata days. But I'm changing it up. Errata is being moved to Tuesday and the Discussion topic, now called Variant, will see its new home on Thursday.

Today, I got to thinking about House Rules due in large part to John's comment on last week's Errata. He mentioned a few of the more populare 'alternative' ways to play a game, including putting Monopoly fees in the center as an added bonus for Free Parking. In general, I tend to be a purist when it comes to the rules. I only change the official pronouncements in the rulebook if the game is absolutely broken. And even then, I usually elect to discard the game entirely rather than 'fix' it. I'm even resistant when an expansion changes rules from the original (like allowing players to build between turns in a 5-6 player Settlers game).

But, many gamers enjoy a good House Rule here or there to vary the game. But, when I arrive at someone's house and find that they've got a new rule that completely changes the game mechanics and strategy, I find it actually offensive on some level.

So, my question to you is, what's the worst offender you've experienced? My most memorable involved traveling to a new player's house to play a game of Munchkin. I was new to the group, but had played Munckin many, many times. I laid down my elf card, promptly helped somebody kill a monster for no treasure, and then leveled up. At that point, I was told that there was a House Rule that the elf's ability was not used in their games. I had given up other cards to play that elf, and had given up treasure for the level. Not cool.

What House Rules live on in infamy from your own experience? And, am I being too harsh on a beloved tradition of taking a game and making it your own?

News: Rosewater on Design

2010-05-19T09:33:00.000-07:00

Mark Rosewater, the head designer for Magic: the Gathering, recently wrote a couple of posts about good design of games. You can see the full posts for Part 1 and Part 2. In it, he discusses ten essential design principles:

1) Good design is innovative.
2) Good design makes a product useful.
3) Good design is aesthetic.
4) Good design helps us to understand a product.
5) Good design is unobtrusive.
6) Good design is honest.
7) Good design is durable.
8) Good design is consequent to the last detail.
9) Good design is concerned with the environment.
10) Good design is as little design as possible.

For those of you who may be entering the Rio Grande game contest I posted about earlier, you may want to give it a read as you design your game.

If I may grossly paraphrase Rosewater's posts, good design is about getting information to the user, without a lot of clutter. The design's purpose should be an attractive method of telling the player what they need to know to play. But, a designer should be wary of putting every rule on every component for fear of information overload.

Renegade Win & Jaipur First Impressions

2010-05-17T11:26:00.000-07:00

I got into an 8 player game of Bang! this weekend. In general, I think the Sheriff/Deputies win about 70% of the time, with the Outlaws winning about 30%. I've never seen the Renegade win ... until last Friday.

Using Indians, a Gatling, a Howitzer, and few other cards, the Renegade took down almost every other player in one turn. A few dynamites that exploded on the sheriff later and the first ever Renegade victory took place. Anyone else have Renegade wins?

Also, I got my copy of Jaipur in the mail. I'm always on the lookout for good 2 player games. Games designed for two players are often sub-par and games that are designed for multiple players but can be played with two are usually less than stellar as well.

My wife and I played two games this weekend. It's a bit early for me to do a full review of this game, but I have to say that I really enjoyed it. There's a nice tension between taking something from the market or choosing to sell instead and thus leaving goods available for the opponent. The same with taking camels. While they allow you to take more goods later, the market will be replaced with random cards and that means your opponent gets first pick. It's also relatively simple to learn and play.

So far, it gets a thumbs up, and I'm looking forward to future plays.

It even got me to bring out Lost Cities. But LC is a miserable game in comparison and it just made me enjoy Jaipur more.

Jaipur is available from BoardsandBits and FunAgain.

Review: Citadels - Easy to Learn, Fun to Stab Friends

2010-05-14T09:21:00.000-07:00

Even the thief helps build the city.

This week, I thought I'd take a look at Citadels. In Citadels, each player builds his city, district by district, until a single player has eight districts. Along the way, the player picks the city denizen that he feels will best help him that turn. The catch is that the cards are selected in such a way that no player knows what another player has chosen. At least, no better than a 50/50 shot.

Citadels is a crowd pleaser that supports up to 8 players, but can be played with as few as 2. It shines between 4-7, though. Citadels moves quickly, doesn't last long, and has great interaction between the players as they try to guess who picked what job in an attempt to thwart one another.

The Basics. Each player is dealt four cards to start and gets two gold. On their turn, the player can either draw two cards (and keep one), or take two gold. Then, the player can build a single district from his hand for its cost in gold printed on the card. The first player to build eight districts ends the game and gets bonus points. Other players able to complete their eighth that turn get fewer points. And players who have one district of each type get bonus points. Then points are tallied for the winner.

That part of the game is really nothing to write home about. What makes the game very fun is the variety of jobs. Depending on the number of players, the jobs are distributed slightly differently. But, in general, the pile of eight jobs is shuffled up at random. One or more are removed from the pile (with at least one being placed face down) and the remainder are given to the first player. He picks one and passes the pile to his left.

That player then receives the pile. He will notice that two cards are missing. So he has to guess which was placed face down at random, and which was picked by the player. Then he picks and passes the remainder and so on. The last person generally has two to choose from, so the player that passed to him knows he picked from two, but not which of the two he picked.

This uncertainty is important. While some jobs help the player get more gold, others are spite cards. The Assassin, for example, kills another character. However, you can't pick the player and say, "Steve, I kill you" (as much as we would all love to kill Steve). Instead, he has to guess what Steve is and say, "I murder the King!" Since the assassin is always the first to act in a given round, he makes his pick before anyone else has played.

So, not only is this a game of managing your resources and building the cards that you get, but also of selecting the best jobs available and hoping against hope that you aren't killed, stolen from, or made to give up your hand. All those evil jobs act before the jobs that give you additional gold or let you draw more cards.

Also, getting the first pick of jobs is a double edged sword. On the one hand, you have the widest variety to choose from. But on the other, you leave yourself open to someone stealing or killing you. Especially if its obvious what you took (e.g. Warlord is missing and you have a lot of red districts).

Components: 4 of 5. The cards are on nice stock and are about the size of regular playing cards making them easy to shuffle. The eight job cards get shuffled repeatedly every game, yet mine show only minimal wear after many plays. The gold pieces are a sturdy plastic and the crown pieces (indicating the King for the round) are solid wood. Given how much the jobs are shuffled, a thicker stock could have been used here, but all in all it's sufficient.

Strategy/Luck Balance: 3 of 5. This is hard to quantify for this particular game. The building of the Districts, and thus how you eventually win and score points, is highly luck driven. It all depends on the cards drawn. And, in general, you don't draw all that often in the game. So if you get a few poor draws, it can really hurt your chances. On the other hand, guessing who picked which job and trying to fake the other players out is really the crux of the enjoyment. And that involves a lot of bluffing, and a lot of sneaking in the good jobs for yourself. So, I split this down the middle(ish) at 3.

Mechanics: 4 of 5. In general, a single read through of the rules is sufficient to play this game The cards are very self-explanatory and the game plays smoothly. And, since the turn occurs in numbered order (Assassin as one goes first, Warlord as eight goes last), the game proceeds very orderly.

Replayability: 3.5 of 5. The random nature of the cards adds replayability to this game. Also, depending on what districts you draw, different jobs will be more attractive to you. This means that one game might see you taking on the role of the merchant, while another you primarily play the bishop - that is until your opponents figure it out and assassinate or steal from you.

Spite: 4 of 5. Between the Assassin, the Thief, and the Magician, not to mention the Warlord, the game has some serious spite built into it. Two of those items, however, are not guaranteed. You have to make your guess of who is who before you can assassinate or steal. But, the magician and the warlord can go directly after a player, rather than a job. So, be prepared to target other players and be targeted in Citadels.

Overall: 4 of 5. This game is great fun, especially in larger groups. The interaction among players is particularly enjoyable. Unlike many 'euro' games that sometimes feel like group solitaire, Citadels encourages interaction and misdirection. It's quick play time also helps it come down off the shelf more often and it is very easy to teach to new players.

You can get this game from Boards and Bits here.

It's also available from FunAgain here.

Errata: All quiet

2010-05-13T10:27:00.000-07:00

(Errata is the weekly Q&A feature on Geek Insight. Feel free to post any board game related questions, concerns, or disputes).

This week was questionless. All is quiet. The board gamers serenely play without the need for mighty e-wisdom.

So, today a question for you.

I hate finding out I've been playing a game wrong. It happens every now and again that I've misread some minor rule somewhere only to find out later, on a re-read of the rulebook or when a new friend who has played before comes along, that I find out I've got something totally bass ackwards.

It's like when you've been singing the lyrics to your favorite song and your friend stops and laughs at you. "Alanis isn't singing about her 'cross-eyed bear' in "You Oughtta Know," she's saying 'the cross I bear.'" (True story, by the way).

The most memorable example is that my group used to play that a hex in Settlers of Catan produced only one good for each player no matter how many settlements they had on the hex (or two goods for a city). We played that way for about a year before a re-read of the rules set us straight. It's a minor thing that didn't impact the game very often, but it does slightly lessen the impact of a crowded four or six player board.

So, what memorable rules mis-reads do you have?

(Questions for next week can be sent to me over twitter, via e-mail, or left as comments to this post)

News Item: Rio Grande Games Contest

2010-05-12T19:26:00.000-07:00

Rio Grande Games has announced a contest to create a new, original boardgame as part of the Chicago Toy and Game Fair. They posted the complete rules and requirements here.

Games will be judged on these factors:
- Decision Driven (How much is the winner determined based on their decisions, as opposed to luck factors?)
- Originality
- Wait Time (How much time do you spend without interacting with the game/other players?)
- Unpredictability (How often is the outcome of a turn/round known before it ends?)
- Broad Appeal (Would you teach this to someone who is not a serious game player?)
- Replayable (Do you want to play it again soon?)
- Interactive (Do the player decisions impact other players?)
- Equal Opportunity (Does every player have an equal chance of winning regardless of turn order/role?)
- Fun
- Simple to Learn (the rules were clearly stated and communicated)

Finalists get a free pass into the Chicago Toy and Game Fair. The winners will see their games published by Rio Grande. So if you've been sitting on a great game idea, now's the time to whip that baby out and get her potentially published.

Weekend Recap: Out of Business

2010-05-10T12:02:00.000-07:00

On Saturday, my wife and I decided to check out our local game and comic shop. We've been in the neighborhood for just under four months and it was time for us to meet the locals.

The Gamex convention, which I previously discussed, has a list of "local game shops" all over the Southern California area up on its website. So, my wife and I picked the three nearest cities and decided to go for a little day trip. We decided on just the closest two as we had more to do that day. I plugged the address into my TomTom and off we went.

We arrived in a small strip mall for the first. The sign had a picture of a cartoon dragon next to the name, so we knew we were in the right place. As I pulled up to the ample parking, however, it said, "Space for Lease." No one was home. It looked like that game shop had been out of business. Not to be deterred, we traveled on to the second destination. Pulling in to a similar strip mall, again we found an empty building and a "For Lease" sign.

So that the day wouldn't be a total bust, we decided to travel on to the last shop. We found ourselves in a little downtown area (the quaint downtown of a suburb) and briefly saw the address and a store with lights on as we passed it. Success! We found parking and then walked back to the store. As we approached it, we knew something was wrong. There were no games or comics in the windows - no advertisements for Magic or other collectible card games.

When we entered, it was a very sparse toy shop. Not awesome battle toys, but regular old toys. In fact, many of their wares were things like toy soldiers, wooden horses, slinkies and other 1950's era fun. It was a neat little place and we did mosey around it, but there were no games.

All in all, the trip was a bust. And these aren't the only shops I know that have closed down. Do you find that the current economic climate is hitting your local stores as hard as my poor town?

Review: Ticket to Ride - Fast Turns Make an Enjoyable Game

2010-05-07T08:50:00.000-07:00

Ticket to Ride is the 2004 Spiel des Jahres winner, and a game that is immensely playable by families, but still good for a group of gamers. The main theme of the game is that each player is a rail tycoon attempting to build the longest rail lines. The game rewards longer routes, and thus bigger risks, more than it does the smaller, safer routes.

Ticket to Ride lends itself to very little Analysis Paralysis and, in general, is a fast moving game that keeps everyone engaged. Full review after the jump.

The Basics: The goal of the game is to build train routes. Each route is scored depending on its length. A one train route is worth a measly one point, but a six train route is worth 15 points. It behooves the player to build on longer routes in order to score more points. Of course, that means more turns without building and the chance that another player might snag a link that you need.

To encourage the players to build from place to place, each player receives two or three destination cards. The cards indicate a route (say from Los Angeles to Houston) the the player must connect in a single unbroken line of trains. If the player succeeds, they get the number of points located on the card. If they fail, then at the end of the game they lose the number of bonus points on the card. This creates tension and encourages risk taking.

To build rails, you have to discard enough cards of the appropriate color (or wild cards). So, for a five link route, you have to discard five cards. On his turn a player may draw from the top, or take any of the five face up cards that are shown. Each turn, a player may take two cards.

Where this game shines is in the turn mechanic. On your turn you may either draw cards OR build a train (or draw more destination cards). That's it. It's one or the other. So, you don't have long turns where a player draws cards, examines his hand, then strategizes his route. Once he or she draws, its on to the next turn. The player then can strategize to his or her heart's content during the other players' turns. This greatly cuts down on the AP and allows the game to move very quickly even while the players choose from among their strategic options.

Components: 3.5 of 5. The trains cars are a tough plastic. I prefer wooden pieces, but the plastic is high quality and hasn't suffered any damage after repeated plays. The cards are on good stock, but are very small. I'm not a fan of the small cards. It makes them hard to shuffle (and a typical game sees players going through the deck two or three times). On the plus side, the board is very big and has nice artwork. The point track is included around the edge of the board which I enjoy.

Strategy/Luck Balance: 5 of 5. This game has a strong element of both luck and strategy, but they balance nicely. Since the cards come up at random, there is a luck element. If you need green cards for your route but green cards aren't being drawn, it can be a pain. But there are other links to build. And, the ability to choose from the five face up cards gives the player the opportunity to grab something needed. So a player is free to use his or her strategy with available resources.

Mechanics: 5 of 5. The game is very straightforward. In fact, the mechanics make this game extremely playable in the family context. One quick read-through of the rules is really all it takes and you're ready to build train routes. And, as I mentioned above, I love that players can either draw OR build on a turn. It makes everything move along quickly. If players were able to draw and build a route, this game might bog down relatively quickly.

Replayability: 3.5 of 5. This game tends to be familiar each time you play it. Build long routes, save up cards and plop down trains. But the destination cards give this game some much needed replayability. Those cards are drawn at random and so you have to plan your routes differently each time. Plus, I've been in a situation where the game was ending and I drew destination cards just on the off chance that I had completed a route and thus would get extra points. (that worked once, but has cost me most other times).

Spite: 2 of 5. Players can only build on the printed routes on the game board. And if one player builds his train, then another player can't build there. Some of the more congested routes (notably in the Eastern U.S.) have double routes allowing two players to build links there. Spite is generally not worth it in the early game. When players have blocked my quick route, I'll build around it. That usually means longer links and more points overall. But in the late game, a late block can leave a player without time to complete an alternate route for his destination card. So spite sometimes does appear towards the end.

Overall: 4 of 5. Ticket to Ride is an enjoyable game that provides quality entertainment. The fast pace keeps everyone engaged and prevents one person from slowing the fun down. The simplicity also allows this game to be played with younger children and with families in general. However, the destination cards and the various routes allow seasoned gamers to see some challenge as well. It's one of my favorite lite games when my friends and I are looking for something fun, fast, and less time intensive.

(As an aside, my wife wins this game quite often, so its a 5 of 5 for her).

If you want to pick it up, you can grab it from Boards and Bits here.

You can also grab it from FunAgain games here.

Errata: Gaming Long Distance

2010-05-06T09:28:00.000-07:00

(Errata is the weekly Q&A feature on Geek Insight. Feel free to post any board game related questions, concerns, or disputes).

So, the Q&A feature, keeping with our board gaming theme, is now being called, Errata! Last week, I answered a question about how to find yourself a group of gamers when you're in a new city or don't know many people. In response:

Jonathan asked:
What's the best way for me to find other people to game with in a small rural town of 800?

I think the best way is to start with the local hobby shop as I discussed last week. But with a town of 800, there may not even be one. Or the closest shop may be miles away.

The best way to find gamers is to get to know your neighbors. With only 800 people, you'll soon come to know everyone in the town. Even if board gaming is foreign currently, you'll run into people who have the right personality to give it a try. And many of those people will like it. Reassure them that there are funner (yes, funner) board games than Monopoly and Risk ::shudder:: and you should be able to create gamers from scratch. You can then shape their experiences and mold them in your own image!, bwa ha ha h- .. ahem.

But, lets assume that the other 800 people rebuff your every advance and you find zero success. Then, it's time to turn to the interwebz. I know what you're thinking, but yes there are other things to do on the internet besides pr0n and LOLcats (heaven help us if they ever combine forces).

1. PBEM. Play By E-Mail. If you have a friend long distance, you can always do a PBEM game. Chess has been played by mail (and now e-mail) for centuries. Just set up the board and start corresponding your moves to the opponent. The only downside is that there is a substantial lag time between moves. So while you are technically playing a game, you're only playing it for maybe 30 seconds per day over the course of a year.

2. Skype it. Setting up a netbook at the table is awkward at first, but once you get into the swing of things its not so bad. Especially if you have a webcam that can be pointed towards the game board. Having one laptop around the table isn't so bad for the remaining players. It's a little stilted for the guy on the computer because they can't turn the camera to see what everyone else is looking or laughing at. But it beats PBEM.

Setup can be a pain to duplicate (especially with random boards like Settlers of Catan), but once its done things will move smoothly. Games with chance elements (like where the cards show up in Agricola or Le Havre) will have to be replicated on a master board. Games with cards or random draws will have to be drawn, then shown to the webcam and set down. This makes things logistically a little difficult, but again, when you get a system down, it's not so bad. And certainly better than not playing at all.

I've successfully used the duplicate setup with a laptop and speakerphone. We also logged into a chatroom and used the random number generator so there'd be no temptation to cheat rolls over the phone.

3. Play Online. Some games are available as multiplayer online versions of themselves. The Xbox 360 has an online Carcassonne game through the Marketplace. Days of Wonder allows you to play Ticket to Ride for free here. And there are a number of Catan games you can join. The downside is that you are playing with often faceless opponents, but at least you get to play.

On the whole, though, nothing beats in person plays, so I'd go with the conversion option. Find the people in that 800 that can game and bring them into the fold.

(Questions for next week can be sent to me over twitter, via e-mail, or left as comments to this post)

News Item: Andreas Seyfarth Interview

2010-05-05T09:15:00.000-07:00

Andreas Seyfarth was interviewed on a Nordic website. Luckily, they interviewed him in English so you can read it here.

For those who don't know, Andreas Seyfarth is the one responsible for creating Puerto Rico - the number one game on BGG for years. He also created Thurn and Taxis which I reviewed here. He is further responsible for the card game San Juan.

What caught my eye was his comparison of his own Puerto Rico vs. Agricola. In discussing the difference between the long time favorite and the newer darling, Seyfarth says,

"The main differences in Puerto Rico and Agricola....well for me it's the variation you get in Agricola through the cards you have to deal with - or not if you don't like. I always want to deal with them and look, what's happening in the game. In this regard, PR is a little bit more static (ok, there are different ways to expand in PR, but not as many as in Agricola). When you are a good player in PR, you know how to act and react."

Very true. I think Puerto Rico gives you quite a few options, but there are only five jobs (plus prospector). So there is often a 'best' job to take in any given round. With Agricola, there a many, many actions and there is tension between what you take now and what you leave and hope no one takes so you can grab it later. Plus, in Agricola the game ends before you feel complete.

That said, Puerto Rico is still awesome sauce.

Weekend Recap: Games for Large Groups

2010-05-03T10:50:00.000-07:00

This last weekend found me returning to Agricola and its expansion on Friday. One of our group is known for obtaining begging cards and having his farmers fall ill. In fact, we place the begging cards near him so that they'll be within his easy reach when he inevitably needs them. To our surprise, though, he totally rocked it the last game and came away with a four point victory (and a 14 point lead over 3rd place).

But what inspires this blog post is the game I played on Saturday. That day, my wife and I had a housewarming party for our new place. I spent some time on the grill and even set up a may-pole which many of my wife's friends used. (My family was never all that handy growing up, so I always feel extra manly when I get to use power tools). I also took video which is incredibly hilarious.

But, after things started winding down, I suggested a game and a number of my friends were up for it. Unfortunately, we had seven players. Many of my games go up to six, but few support that extra player. Citadels, Bang!, and Munchkin (with all my expansions) can handle a seven player game. I also have Taboo and Cranium and a few party games where you can break into teams, but we didn't really want to go that route. We eventually settled on Citadels and had a great time.

I'd really like to get a little more of selection for the larger groups. I've heard good things about the reimplementation of Werewolves of Miller's Hollow, newly subtitled, The Village, but that won't arrive in English until June.

So my question is, what games do you play when you've got the larger (7+) group to game with?

Review: Gloom - A Merry Game of Macabre Delights

2010-04-30T08:46:00.000-07:00

Last week I reviewed a card game I absolutely hated. This week, I thought I'd change it back to an enjoyable game. Thus, my review of Gloom. The typical card game in this competitive genre finds you trying to kill off your opponents characters while trying to make your own better or stronger. Gloom turns this idea on its head. Instead, you're trying to make your characters as sad as possible and then kill them, while simultaneously trying to bring joy to your opponents. Gloom promises a great game of morbid, but light-hearted fun for any group. Full review after the jump:

The Basics. In Gloom, each player has a weirdo 'family' of five cards. There's the mad inventor and his family, the swamp dwelling dam and her family, the noble family with possessed children, and the demented circus of Darius Dark. Your goal is to make the most depressing things happen to your characters. Each card has a number of sad points or happy points on it. If your character is shunned by society, for example, they would get a whopping -45. Negative points indicate sadness and are good.

Part of the fun of Gloom, however, is that you can't just play cards. Instead, you have to tell a story. In order to play the "shunned by society" card, you have to give a little background. Tell the other players what your character did that was so heinous as to be shunned by society. As more and more cards are played, the story grows and grows. It may seem a little daunting at first, but the names of the cards really help you to build off of where the last story went.

But, as you make your characters sad, your opponents try to bring happiness back to your characters' lives. For example, your character, after being shunned by society, might take a trip down to the local pond. There, despite his sadness, he found joy in watching the momma duck feed her children. Thus, he is, "delighted by ducklings." "Argh!" comes the scream from the other end of the table. "How could you do that to me? Why would you have him be delighted by ducklings!?" Yes, this is the game where when your characters find success and happiness in life, you only feel the need to redouble your efforts at making them sad and miserable.

One of the interesting aspects of this game is the mechanics of the cards. When playing a card on a character, you simply lay it on top. Each card is clear so you can see right through to the other cards. Thus, in the case of a character who was shunned, then delighted, his top card would look like the card at the right. His sadness would be reduced to a measly five points. Hardly even worth killing off.

Once your character is sufficiently sad, it's time to do the deed. There are a number of different death cards in the game. Interestingly, the death cards all have a pair that rhyme. When I first bought the game, they were in rhyming order and I enjoyed going through and reading the pairs one after the other. Again, the story continues and you describe how and why they "died of despair" or how they came to be "slain by an heir."

Components 2.5 of 5: Ordinarily, I would have scored these cards a little lower, but the clear cards are very cool. I really like that component. Unfortunately, the cellophane allows the ink to rub off a little easier than I'd like. Even after as few as a dozen plays, I started to notice smudges and smears from the shuffling. It's not so bad as to be unreadable, but it does mar the cards.

Strategy/Luck Balance 4 of 5: Like most card games, there is a big luck factor that depends heavily on what you draw. But, there are not many (with one notable exception) lucky combinations that allow you to rain terror down on your opponents. For the most part, everyone is on an equal playing field and it comes down to what cards you play and when.

Mechanics 5 of 5: The rules are very straightforward. Hand size 5. Draw up to that limit at the end of your turn. Play two cards per turn. You can only play a death card as the first card. Some other cards change these up a bit, but how they change it is printed right on the card. And, the rule requiring a death card to be played first is a smart one. That way, you can't make a character sad and immediately kill it. Instead, you have to make him sad and hope he doesn't find some happiness from an opponent before your next turn when you can kill him.

Replayability 3.5 of 5: The general premise of the game is funny, but by itself would get old after a few plays. What makes this game imminently replayable is the story-telling aspect. Each time, the characters are getting into different troubles - or the same tribulations for different reasons. And the story tellers usually have the families interact in their tales. It makes for a lively and fun time.

Spite 4 of 5: Spite is a large part of this game. You are encouraged to make your opponents' characters happy. There are far more sad cards than happy ones, so spite isn't guaranteed in every turn (unlike, Munchkin), but over the course of the game you should expect to see a good deal spite flung your way - and be prepared to fling back.

Overall 3.5 of 5: This game is an enjoyable interlude when you're looking for something a little less than serious. The comedic aspect can lead to some big laughs among friends. I recommend playing with friends who can laugh at the comedically dire situations in this grame. And since it's priced very reasonably, I definitely think it should be found in any gamer's collection.

If you want to grab it from Boards and Bits, you can click here.

You can also try FunAgain games here.

Q&A: Finding Your Group of Gamers

2010-04-29T08:36:00.000-07:00

Disclaimer: Your gaggle of gamers may or may not resemble this group...

Thursday brings us back around to our weekly Q&A session. I'm still trying to come up with a clever name for this little segment, but my creative brain has used up all its smarts in other areas.

Ruth wrote:
what's the best way for a young woman in her 20s to find other people to game with in a big city?

Finding gamers can be daunting. From my own personal experience, about half the people I have gamed with (including RPGs) turn out to be totally awesome human beings who I enjoy spending time with. The other half, well lets just say they turn out to be the 'wrong kind' of nerd.

First, as a young woman, I would definitely take a friend with you to any new group you're attending. You don't want to show up with Ticket to Ride under your arm only to find the filming of Eyes Wide Shut.

So, here are some of the best ways to meet gamers:

1. Through Friends. Like in business, it's best to network. You'll be surprised how many people your close friends know that they don't regularly talk about with you. I'd try this method first because this is the one most likely to find success. Plus, you at least know one person in common who can vouch that the potential gaming group isn't the 'wrong kind' of nerd. You can expand your friend network through other individuals you meet in church, through sports teams, or the like. I've always been able to find one or two that share my interest.

2. Local Hobby Shop. Every town has a local hobby shop somewhere in the surrounding environs. And quite a few of them will host games. Usually there will be one or two nights per week of one collectible card game or another (big profit centers for the shops - gotta catch 'em all!). And, there will often be a night where they play some board games (also with the hope that you buy it and play with your friends). You can meet people here who share your interest and get to know them in the setting for which you intend to befriend them. The only downside here is that there are, inevitably, one or two who take their game too seriously or make it their purpose to explain why you're a newb. That can be a real bummer while playing. But, avoid them as best you can, put up with it for a few weeks, and then you can make some friends with the cool geeks.

3. Local Events. Little board game conventions pop up more often than you'd think. They can be a great way to meet like-minded folk.

4. BoardGameGeek. Then, there's the online dating of the gaming world. There are a number of online meet-ups, chats, etc., keyed to finding a gaming group. One of the better ones is at BoardGameGeek here. A large number of Board Game Geekers frequent that site and include information in their profile about their location. You can then search by your zip code and preferred radius and find a number of nearby gamers. Most of them will be attached to a group of some kind. As with all internet meetups, be sure to feel them out through e-mail first. They also have a forum dedicated to people starting or finding gaming groups in their particular locality here.

Hopefully, that gets you started off on the right foot. And, if they are playing Settlers of Catan, you're in the right spot. If they tell you how awesome Killer Bunnies is, you're either among the insane, or have stepped into a parallel dimension. Either way, best of luck with that.

(Questions for next week can be sent to me over twitter, via e-mail, or left as comments to this post)

News: Dominion Most Played Board Game

2010-04-28T08:53:00.000-07:00

Mark Jackson put up his annual report of the 25 most played board games here. This list is compiled through a number of board game enthusiasts (note - "enthusiast" is polite speak for "geek") who log their plays and the number of players per game. It includes games that were played five or more times in the past year by the reporters.

Top 5 after the break:

So among the geeks, the top five were as follows:
1. Dominion
2. Race for the Galaxy
3. Pandemic
4. Agricola
5. Roll Through the Ages

As you all know, I think Agricola deserves to be there. Some other favorites that made it on the full list were Le Havre, Settlers of Catan, and Power Grid. I'm mystified as to how anyone could play Lost Cities more than five times in a given year.

The full list certainly tracks my wishlist of games very closely and I'm more eager than ever to pick up a few of the more popular titles.

Weekend Recap: Gaming with non-Gamers

2010-04-26T10:40:00.000-07:00

Three of my friends combined birthday parties this weekend, so it was off to Dave & Busters rather than play any board games on Friday.

Saturday found my Left 4 Dead 2 buddy coming over to my place. It had been a while and you know those zombies just pile up if they aren't kept in check. So we spent most of the day killing zombies followed up by a Kung Fu movie. Their Kung Fu was strong.

So, it looked like I would be without any board-gamey goodness this week. But my wife and I were invited for dinner to our church friends' house. They are older than us and have lots of kids (aged 13 to 19 present), so I decided to bring some games along. Since they aren't gamers at all, I elected to bring Bang!, Nodwick, and Carcassonne. I think they enjoyed each one, but we found the most success with Nodwick.

Nodwick is very simple and incredibly hectic. Since there are no turns, everyone just started shouting and building and putting their henchmen back together. We played two rounds and they really got into the second round of it. I'll make sure to add Nodwick to my stable of card games that non-gamers enjoy.

Review: Killer Bunnies - the next best thing to being waterboarded

2010-04-23T08:43:00.000-07:00

Part of the reason this game is so awful is because it seems like it has so much going for it. It practically screams, "Hey, I'll make sure you have a good time." Like Munchkin, Killer Bunnies and the Quest for the Magic Carrot touts itself as a fun, fast paced game where you get to stab your buddies in the back. Or, in this case, kill their bunnies.

Plus, when I first found it, it was sitting on the shelf at my local game shop. It had three great things going for it: (1) Cardboard box. Card games that come in a sturdy cardboard box (San Juan, Citadels, Bang!) tend to be better than ones that don't (Uno). This doesn't hold true in all cases, but I think its a good rule of thumb. Number (2) it was sitting between Munchkin and Gloom. Both those games are pretty fun and I was hoping some of that would rub off by proximity. And, finally, (3) it had a wacky name, art, and premise. How could it go wrong? I'll tell you exactly how after the jump.

First, the game is the product of money grubbing money grubbers. The game has ten (10!) expansions. True, the first expansion (Yellow) is contained within the blue box. Then comes Red, Violet, Orange, Green, Twilight, Steel, Pink, Khaki, and Onyx. Normally, I like expansions. But, Killer Bunnies does something sinister. See, the Red box includes cards that need a new Red die to work. Sounds reasonable. But, the yellow booster (the one prior to red in the series) also has a few cards that require that red die. Want to play with your entire yellow set? Buy the red set. But then the red set has a few cards that need the clear die from Violet. And violet has a few cards that need the pawns in Orange. And so on. So that reasonably priced blue box just became an investment in nine additional purchases.

Second, and more importantly, the game is fundamentally broken. Doesn't work. Is bad. Dumb.

Players draw their starting cards and put two in front of them, face down, one on top of the other. Each turn, the top one is played, the bottom is moved to the top, and a new card from the hand goes to the bottom. Thus, the card you lay down this turn won't actually be played for two more turns. This mechanic works thematically well in a game like Nuclear War where peace might break out but someone has already pushed the launch button. In Killer Bunnies, it makes no sense.

Then, you play your cards. If you have Bunnies, those go in front of you. Many cards (especially the good ones) require you to have a bunny in front of you to play. So its important to keep bunnies up and to kill the other players'. Finally, there's a pile of 12 (later expanded to 20) magic carrots. There's a set of small ones and a set of larger ones. One set is placed aside with the winning carrot randomly decided face down so that no one knows. Then, the rest of the game is getting as many of the carrots in the other set as possible so that you have the best chance of having the Magic (winning) Carrot at the end. I find this mechanic one of the few good points of this game. A player down on his luck with but a few carrots at the end might still be able to pull off victory. But a lucky player can still maximize his or her chances.

Here's where it breaks. There aren't so many bunnies that every player will get one in his opening hand. And, because of the mechanics, even if you draw a bunny that turn, it'll be two turns before it comes out. Thus, you've basically been set back three turns. And heaven help you if it takes longer than that. Thus, the first round is usually a few players who get their bunnies out, and a few players who throw cards away or take minor actions. Next, since you place down two cards, the first player who got a bunny out plays a "kill a bunny" card. So he kills the next player's bunny. That player also probably had a "kill a bunny" card - but those cards often require a bunny in order to be played! So now his card is worthless. And he may have to wait up to two more turns to get another bunny. So, the game is often decided in the very first round by the luck of the draw. Once someone gets that first initial lead, it is easy for him or her to continue playing the best cards, getting out more bunnies (so that there's a buffer), and getting the majority of carrots.

In fact, there's very little point playing after the first round. You might as well shuffle it up and start again.

Components: 4 of 5. For its other flaws, the game has nice components. A solid box along with good dice and nice glossy cards. The artwork is comical. If you purchase all the expansions, though, you've got well over 600 cards to shuffle and manage.

Strategy/Luck Balance: 1 of 5. This game is supremely unbalanced. The early lead, based entirely on luck of the draw, is difficult to overcome. Bad draws in later turns aren't as devastating because you may already have bunnies. Without a bunny, you can't play the game's best cards - or even most of the moderately worthwhile ones. The single point in this category is for the random winning condition which gives devastated players some slim (and often false) hope of success.

Mechanics: 0 of 5. Totally broken. There is no reason for the turn delay thematically and it completely hampers game play. It allows the strong to remain strong and forces the weak into a very difficult game of catch-up. If anything, a good game should give the advantage, however slight, to the person struggling the most. Many games do have such devices which rearrange turn order or other benefits based on the game's progression.

Replayability: 4 of 5. With the random win condition and the numerous cards, this game sees different abilities most of the time - especially with multiple expansions. But who would want to play it?

Spite: 5 of 5. The game actively encourages you to stab your buddies. While not a bad thing in and of itself, it is terrible as applied in this game. The spite encourages you to kick the other players while they are down (lest they get a surviving bunny that retaliates) leading to an unenjoyable experience for some at the playing table.

Overall: 0.5 of 5. Avoid this game at all costs. Some people may like this game. But as Bill Murray said in Groundhog Day, "Some people like blood sausage." This game is great if you draw well that first turn, but will lead to a completely frustrating time if you don't.

With all that said, if you'd like to own this spectacle of broken gaming, be sure to at least get the best price for it at Boards&Bits.

If its unavailable, you can also procure it from FunAgain Games.

Q&A: All Q's begin with a single A.

2010-04-22T12:10:00.000-07:00

Welcome to the first ever question and answer post. I had just one question this week, but I thought it was fitting to start the first Q&A with but a single question. Plus, it'll allow you to call me out if I blow it. But I won't because I'm awesome like that. True story.

@Autumnbuck (from the twitters) tweeted me thusly:
what board game would you recommend for a monday evening?

I answered her over twitter, but thought I'd put it out here as well. I'm assuming that Monday means you just got home from your first day back at work. You don't want to play anything too involved (fun as Arkham Horror may be) because you're still winding down. By the same token, though, I usually like to gear up for the week so nothing too simple (bye, bye Wicket the Ewok). So I'm looking for a game that's simple to play, relatively quick, yet still allows me some challenge to further gear my brain up for the work week.

The result: Carcassonne. Its simple tile laying mechanic is great for keeping the game very playable without having to remember dozens of rules and specific scenario exceptions. But, there is still a good amount of strategy as you try to create cities and roads for your meeples while keeping your opponent out. The two player verison would also be a good choice.

For a Monday, though, I would recommend against adding expansions. Not only does that increase spite opportunities (not terribly compatible with Monday), but lengthens the game which may not be super fantastic when you're looking forward to an early bed time to help catch up on the sleep you missed over the weekend.

Any other Monday recommendations?

(Questions for next week can be sent to me over twitter, via e-mail, or left as comments)

Emporio!

2010-04-20T20:57:00.000-07:00

Apparently it ditched the rustic look...

I traveled to San Francisco today for work. I have a meeting in the morning and came up the night before so that I'd be sure to make it on time. But that's boring work stuff, the exciting part was what I saw at the Airport. Emporio!

For those of you with the good fortune to have played, you know that Bang! is a fun little game themed on spaghetti westerns where you can pretend to learn Italian while saying, "I bang you!" in a totally legitimate context. All of the cards are in Italian with English translations (for the most part). But one of the funner (yes, there it is again, funner) cards is the General Store which deals a card for every player and then the players get to pick from the cards in turn order. As a result, everyone is happy when the general store comes to town.

And that card, in Italian is:

Thus, my delight at seeing the above sign at SFO. I hatched a few plans to take each of their wares and pass them around to those sitting nearby, but my guess is that the employees and security guards are not as big a fan of Bang! as I am. Spoilsports.

Anyone have a similar tale of geekery?

Weekend Recap

2010-04-19T08:54:00.000-07:00

This weekend found me playing Brass and San Juan. We were able to play three player versions of both games.

I was expecting a fourth, but that individual couldn't attend. She was home being addicted to Sims 3. To which I replied, "They still make Sims games?" Hasn't the novelty worn off? I guess not.

Brass is a little bit of a complex game, but this was my second time playing. So I only had to refer to the rules a half dozen times instead of every turn. During the canal phase, I earned major points by having canals all over the board. Unfortunately, my opponent realized this and sent his rails everywhere at the beginning of the Rail phase. Curses! The strategy worked out in the end and he beat me by a narrow four victory points.

After the heavy, and lengthy Brass game, we ended off with some San Juan. Since I've played it many many times, I often like to try new strategies. I tried a "build every turn and end the game early" strategy. It had .... mixed results. I started strong, but by end game, I didn't have the big buildings to keep cards in my hands or to continue my build every turn strategy.

Finally, I took a look at the site and realized that I've reviewed two games I very much enjoy. Agricola, reviewed here and Thurn & Taxis reviewed here. So as not to give the impression that I don't have standards and think all games are peachy, I'll take the opportunity, this Friday, to review the game I revile more than any other. Check back then.

In the meantime, what are your least favorite games?

Review: Thurn & Taxis - Light Game of Joy

2010-04-16T08:33:00.000-07:00

Back when Germany was best known for its Postal System...

     Friday brings us back around to review time. This week, I'm taking a look at Thurn & Taxis. It should come as no surprise that Thurn & Taxis gets the GeekInsight seal of approval. The game won the prestigious Spiel des Jahres for 2006. This game is very easy to pick up, moves quickly, and is a great family game. I've also found it to be a great 'gateway' game. The average person hears 'board game' and thinks of games like the endless, soul-crushing, and fun-sucking Monopoly. This is a game that is very enjoyable and will get them started down the path to the heavier and funner (I'm on a quest to make 'funner' a word. Don't judge me.) board pursuits.

Full review after the jump.

Basics.
     The theme behind Thurn & Taxis is that you are a postmaster building postal routes. There are several sections of Germany that you can bring your postal routes through as you serve various cities. The artwork on the board is fantastic and each city is represented by a famous landmark. Having never been to Germany, I recognized relatively few. But those of you who are well traveled might see a lot of familiar sights.

     Gameplay is relatively simple. There are six cards on the side of the board each representing a different city. Each turn, you must draw one and play one. (And, each player may take one special action per turn - drawing a second card, playing a second card, replacing all six cards, or getting a carriage better than you earned). Your next turn, you must play a city that is connected to the first city you played, and so on and so on for each turn thereafter. Your goal is to build a long postal route which you can then score. If you can't build onto your existing route, then you have to abandon your route. Thus, there is some risk/reward in going for a longer route, vs. scoring the smaller, but safer one.

     When a route is scored, you place your houses on the board. Either one house in each region in your route (represented by different colors), or filling all the cities in one region, and putting none in the other regions. So, a player must make the play that will garner him the most houses and the most points. In addition, you get a carriage which matches the length of your route. 3, 4, 5, 6, or 7. You have to earn the lower carriage before you can earn a higher one, and when a player earns carriage 7, that's the last round and the game ends.

     A player also earns bonus points for doing a number of actions. Scoring a route 5, 6, or 7 cities long, having a house on every city in a region or region pair, or having a house in every region are the biggest point getters. But, the points go down each time. So the first person to score a route five long will get two bonus points. The second person to do so, only one. The third and fourth - nothing. So the game rewards initiative.

     At game end, you simply count up the bonus points that have been awarded. The player with the most points win.

Components: 4 of 5. Nice wooden pieces for the houses. The board and artwork are also wonderful. The cards, however, are a little on the small side. It allows them to fit on the board, but they can be a real pain to shuffle.

Strategy/Luck Balance: 4 of 5. There is a pervasive luck element. You can't place a city in your route unless you draw the card. However, the game leaves many options open so that you can make the most of what is available to you. And, in desperate need, you can always exchange all the cards for new ones and hope for the best.

Mechanics: 5 of 5. The game is very easily understood. In fact, its ease of play is what lends itself so strongly to the 'casual' gamer crowd. This is a game I would not hesitate to play with my in-laws.

Replayability: 2.5 of 5. Thurn and Taxis suffers from some repetitiveness. It's essentially the same game every time. However, it moves quickly and is very light and enjoyable. So, when you're looking for something to wind down a night, or when you're playing with the less hardcore crowd, it can be a nice tension breaker.

Spite: 0.5 of 5. Another major factor in being accessible to the irregular board gamer (meaning someone who plays less often, not someone with bowel trouble). There is almost no way to attack or harm another player. The most that you can do is race another player for a bonus point. But then it really comes down to luck and skill, not any inherent ability to mess up someone else. The most one can do is take a card that the next person would want. But, that means you may not be getting a card you want and so its utterly impractical to do so.

Overall: 4 of 5. Thurn & Taxis is a great light game. It moves quickly and you can discuss other things and have a good time with friends as you play. There is little analysis paralysis or long moments of strategery. Instead, everyone talks and laughs and moves their pieces along. This light game can find a spot in most any collection. The only major down side is that it is limited to 4 players, so big groups (the kind where casuals are most likely to appear) cannot partake in the T&T.

You can buy it from Boards and Bits if you are so inclined.

The Nerd Wall

2010-04-15T21:42:00.000-07:00

Amy over at Geek with Curves posted about her Nerd Wall. So I got to thinking about my own geekily decorated home.

My wife and I bought our first home just a few short months ago, and we've been decorating it. The end result, is that every one of my walls is a nerd wall. I have autographed pictures of Princess Leia and Starbuck next to each other. Several Lord of the Rings inspired artworks (fully framed). Fantasy styled art of all kinds populates our humble home. Even a Magic: the Gathering Card artwork, the Cartographer, is on our wall (just the picture, not the casting cost or ability).

But, in truth, most of those things came from my wife. I like to think of it as her dowry. But, my biggest contribution to the Nerd Wall is the weapons. I've been collecting since my first convention at nine, and I've got a nice little selection now.

Behold!

Any of you have geekery to share?

Farmers of the Moor: A Second Look

2010-04-15T09:56:00.000-07:00

     So I had a chance to play Agricola: Farmers of the Moor with the (ahem) correct rules yeterday. This time, the expansion went from a take-it-or-leave it nothing-special type game, to a fantastic addition to the humble farm.

    A full review will be coming in the future, but my initial thoughts are that this is an excellent addition to Agricola. Like the Cities & Knights expansion for Catan, I don't see myself playing the base game without it any longer.

Full discussion after the jump.

     The key difference from the last time I played is that players are allowed to take special actions (such as turning forests into wood or plowed fields, or turning moor tiles into fuel) without using a person action. While it takes their turn moving through the board, they still have their people back home to take additional turns. In that way, a player risks losing a potentially lucrative board space to an opponent in return for an extra action. This creates just the right amount of tension so that players aren't constantly fighting over special actions.

     Perhaps most interestingly, it allows the player to manipulate turn order. In one instance, I needed to build fences and the player going first took the build fences action. That could have potentially cost me the game. But, I had an occupation that allowed me to select an action space and then, when I take that action, I would also get to build fences. If I played that occupation early, I risked someone going on that space just to prevent me from building fences. So I took special actions until I was the only one with person actions left. Then I played the occupation with my first guy, and built fences on the second action with my second guy.

     Overall, this expansion added a lot of depth to Agricola. With my first (correct) play under my belt, I can say that I look forward to many future games.

News Item: Memorial Day Conventions

2010-04-14T08:54:00.000-07:00

Kubla Con will be held May 28-31, 2010 in the San Francisco area. This convention focuses on a variety of games, including board games and RPGs There will also be a heavy involvement from the collectible card games including that old staple, Magic: the Gathering, as well as A Game of Thrones, World of Warcraft and others.

It features a wide variety of tournaments and games that you can sign up for, including a Settlers of Catan regional qualifier.

So, if you're angling to try out your board game skills among fellow geeks, and would like to be immersed in the exhibit halls and show rooms of a con, check out Kubla.

Similarly, Gamex will also be held the same days in Los Angeles. There will be tournaments, including another Settlers qualifier. I'm anglin' to attend this convention this year, though I'm waiting to see which game sellers will be showing up before shelving out my hard earned cash for a badge. Steve Jackson Games (producer of Munchkin series) will be in attendance, so I may go just for that.

A list of many upcoming conventions can be found here.

Any Memorial Day Conventions for you?

Weekend Recap - UPDATED

2010-04-12T18:41:00.000-07:00

15, 16, 33 ... Wrong Entry. The Swan implodes.

So this weekend found me playing Agricola, with the expansion, twice. On Friday, I participated in a three player game with the new rules. The score card can be seen above. For those of you keeping score at home (and you should all be keeping score), I've got more points than the other two players combined. It's important to cherish the blow-outs for they happen so rarely.

My other Agricola loving friend was sick, so he wasn't there on Friday. Oh, but when he heard about the expansion, he rued the day of his illness. In fact, based largely on his desire to play the expansion, we got together on Sunday for another round - this time with five players. I'd show the score card for this game too, but it doesn't really matter who won or lost - its about playing a fun game. And I didn't win, so the victory is practically meaningless.

Initial impressions of the expansion are a "ho-hum," an "eh," and a very solid "meh." It'll get a full write-up soon, but the gist of it is that it adds more things to do without adding many more ways to do them. Agricola is already about resource management with the players feeling like they don't have enough time to complete their plans. Throwing more in to that, while not unenjoyable, just plays as very uninspired.

After some helpful tips from a few online friends, it became apparent that we had not been playing the expansion correctly. With a re-read on the rules, I think it my perspective will change. I'll give it a few correct plays and then post a full review.

Review: Agricola

2010-04-09T08:27:00.000-07:00

This is What Fun Looks Like

So, this week, I thought I'd bring out one of my group's favorites, Agricola. So many pieces! What you see there are sheep, boars, cows, wood, clay, reed, stone, food, grain, and vegetables (and, if you look hard enough, two Nintendo Wii accessories). Because I tend to be compulsive about game pieces, each resource is in their own little plastic bag. Also seen in the box are the cards, board pieces, housing tiles, and more. I firmly believe that the more pieces a game has, the more likely it is to be fun.

The summary is that this is a fantastic game that is good for both the hardcore aficionado and the more casual board gamer. Full review after the jump.

Basics.
     Agricola is Latin for Farmer (or so it tells me on the box). In the game, you play a farmer trying to grow crops, improve the home, and raise a family - all while trying not to starve to death. In that sense, its a little like Farmville, only without the completely illigitimate, yet very real fear that your digital crops will die.
     Each turn a new action opens. Everyone starts with two farmers, which means they can take two actions per turn. The more kids you have, the more turns you get. But, after every few rounds, there's a harvest. During harvest time you might get more animals or crops, but you also have to have enough food to feed your family. The more family members you have, the more food they cost to keep alive. Failure to pay means you go begging and begging gives you a penalty to your score at the end.
     At the end of the game, you are rewarded for diversity (very progressive). The more sheep, boars, or whatever you have at the end of the game, after the final harvest, the more points you get. But if you don't have any of something (no cows, or no vegetables, for example), then you are penalized a point. You are also penalized for unused farm spaces. So a well rounded, complete farm is best.
   The game is for one to five players. With one player, you're trying to beat a personal best score. And, it comes with a normal mode for the players that like the challenge and prefer to use all their strategery. But for more family oriented games (like playing with the parents), you can play the Family Version which skips some of the more complex items by removing the cards and still have a great time playing the game.

     Components: 4 of 5. Good components on Agricola. The board is sectioned into three pieces each of which is sturdy cardboard. Each player also has his or her own farm board. The cards are about as thick as regular playing cards and can be shuffled without worry that you'll hurt them. The pieces are made of good painted wood. This game can be expected to last through multiple playings without significant damage.

     Strategy/Luck Balance: 4.5 of 5. This game is heavily reliant on strategy and the player's actions. If no one takes goods, they continue to accumulate in the next round. This builds tension between skipping an action in the hope that it is more beneficial later, or playing it safe and taking the goods before your opponent does. Players can take an action to be first in the next round, so turn order can change. Sometimes its important that you have first pick of the actions in the following round.
     There is a small amount of luck in the advanced game depending on what cards are picked. Some cards synergize very well. Still, you'll be forced to adapt your actions based on what hasn't already been picked, and what will maximize the benefit from the cards in your hand. And, when I play, I always feel like I'm just a few turns short of being being able to do everything I want - which forces choices.

     Mechanics: 5 of 5. The game rules are very straightforward. Place your farmer on the action you wish to take, then do that action. No one else can place there until the end of the round. And, if you have a special improvement or occupation that allows you to do something fancy, it'll say it on the card. The rules are very clear and stick well with the theme of the game.

     Replayability: 5 of 5. There are over 100 Minor Improvement Cards and almost as many Occupation cards. Each player (up to five) gets dealt seven of each. This means every game you have to maximize the potential of your cards and nearly every game you'll get cards that you've not had before. In addition, the order when new actions become available is random. Sometimes you'll be able to build those Major Improvements right away. Sometimes, sheep don't become available until the fourth turn. With each game, you have to react to the actions as they appear and adapt your strategy which allows for huge variation between games.

     Spite: 1.5 of 5. This game has only the barest potential for spite. By placing your farmer on an action, you can prevent someone else from taking that action that round. Sometimes it's advantageous, for example, to place on the "Build 1 Major or Minor Improvement" space and build a meaningless minor improvement just to prevent anyone else from building a Major Improvement. However, this is rarely advantageous and almost always it is better to take the action more helpful for you than to fritter your time blocking someone else. So, while available, Spite is not a major concern in this game.

     Overall: 5 of 5. This game has remained a mainstay of my game stable for all of the above reasons. It is tremendous fun for about three hours. It plays differently enough that you are constantly reacting to new events while trying to implement your master plan for growing your farm. If you dabble in eurogames at all, I highly recommend Agricola.

It can be purchased at Boards and Bits.

Welcome!

2010-04-08T09:27:00.000-07:00

Welcome to my minty fresh blog. The intent is to chronicle my geeky pursuits (board games, movie watching, and frittering away time online) and inform my readers what was worth doing, and what can safely be avoided without damage to the geek cred.

Currently, I'm constantly hitting refresh on the FedEx tracking page. I just ordered Agricola: Farmers of the Moor from BoardsandBits. It finally says "On FedEx vehicle for delivery." Now, through force of will and obnoxious use of the refresh button, I will get that package to my house.

I'll be reviewing the main game soon, and the expansion after I have a few plays under my belt.