BGN members:
• Log in
• Log in
Kris Hall: Cruel Wind, Mean Seas
I thought that Winds of Plunder, GMT’s new pirate game designed by Alan Newman, was going to be the most Euro-ish of all the upcoming pirate games. And it probably is. But if you think that means that WoP contains kinder and gentler pirates you are very much mistaken.
The game that WoP reminds me of the most is Fire and Axe. In both games, players control a single ship, and they sail for various ports in the hope of gaining victory points. In both games, players can use their action points to draw event cards, and these cards are one of the major ways of zapping your opponents.
But there are two major differences between WoP and Fire and Axe. Fire and Axe has a much greater luck factor due to the die rolling that occurs when players try to raid or settle in a port. And in Fire and Axe there is no way to go after your opponents other than with cards.
Winds of Plunder allows players to raid other players.
Oh boy, does it.
You see, each player moves markers on weapons, crew, and provisions tracks to mark the assets of his pirate ship. Having the most of any of these assets provides advantages. Having the most crew points gives you an extra action point every turn. Having the most provisions allows you to score an extra action point every time you sail into a port. And having more weapons than another player allows you to raid his ship and steal one of his assets whenever you sail into a port that he occupies. You can even steal one of his weapons to increase your superiority in weapons.
This can lead to a poor-gets-poorer syndrome as the pirate with the least amount of weapons becomes the target of all the other pirates who see how easy it is to steal his lunch money. The phrase that one player used to describe this syndrome was gang rape. The game does have some cards that try to aid a player who is falling behind in the arms race, but these can be too little, too late for a player who has been brutalized by all the other pirates.
Are you sensing that maybe I was the victim in our first game of Winds of Plunder?
Don’t get me wrong; there is a lot to like in WoP. I didn’t actually time our game, but it seemed to play quickly, and it was certainly a faster game than Fire and Axe. And there are multiple ways to score in the game, and this can lead to interesting dilemmas. Should I sail east with the wind and save my action points for drawing cards, or should I spend my action points sailing south and put a reputation marker in Puerto Rico and score the reputation bonus for this area? Like many Euro-games, WoP is often simply about maximizing your scoring potential.
But the player-on-player raiding can give the game a mean streak. Before I played the game, I thought that Winds of Plunder might be one that my non-gamer friends might enjoy. The rules are certainly simple enough to seem user-friendly to anyone who can handle Ticket to Ride. But now that I’ve played Winds of Plunder, I have my doubts that this is a non-gamer game. I can’t think of any non-gamer friends who would be amused by becoming the victim of non-stop pirate abuse.
If you get a chance to play Winds of Plunder, I would recommend giving it a try.
But look to your weapons. There is a cruel wind blowing over the mean seas.
Posted by Kris Hall on May 19, 2007 at 01:00 AM in Columnists, Kris Hall / 1786
Comments:
You must register with BGN in order to comment. Registration is free, but if you appreciate the news, previews, reviews and other material posted on Boardgame News, please consider becoming a member to keep the info flowing to your screen!|
Kris, it’s been a while since I last played Winds of Plunder, but I think it’s kind of similar to Through the Ages with respect to military strength--having the most is nice, but having the least really sucks. Consequently, a major goal is maintaining at least an equivalent strength with most of the players. On the other hand, an interesting strategy might be to ignore weapons altogether and focus on crew or provisions. You’d hope to gain more in extra actions than you lose in raids. But hey, it’s about pirates and it’s from GMT. You’d expect at least a little blood on the board! Posted by Larry Levy on May 19, 2007 at 09:53 AM | #
|
|
Great to have you aboard, Kris, and thanks for the review.
A bit of advice: be careful with what you write, even if you are simply quoting a phrase that “one player used.”
A careless phrase spoken can be forgotten, but don’t underestimate the power of print. You risk alienating readers from your column and from this site. Posted by Jeff Allers on May 20, 2007 at 03:08 AM | #
|
|
I didn’t mind the use of “colorful” language in the review whatsoever. The theme of the game is about pirates, after all. I think sometimes people just need to loosen their ascots a bit… Posted by Matt Fullenwider on May 20, 2007 at 03:57 AM | #
|
|
Gang rape is a harsh and ugly phrase that describes a brutal reality. In a five-player game of Winds of Plunder, the player with the least amount of weapons could be robbed by three or four players every single turn. Unlikely, but possible. That is the harsh reality I was describing. The phrase gang rape may be hyperbole, but I believe it is appropriate. Posted by Kris Hall on May 20, 2007 at 05:52 AM | #
|
|
Matt and Kris, it has nothing to do with using colorful language, but rather desensitizing us to a very true harsh reality, one that unfortunately happens much too often and destroys peoples lives.
I’m sorry, but I am haunted by their stories, and I just cannot believe that someone could seriously consider their game experience to be the same thing. Posted by Jeff Allers on May 20, 2007 at 08:09 AM | #
|
|
I had the same sort of reaction the other night when I read the description on Tanga for Blood Feud in New York. I didn’t recognize the allusion and even if I had, I don’t think it was necessary. I was surprised that no one else had a negative reaction to it. I just don’t think that equating games and rape is somewhere we need to go. Posted by Paul Sauberer on May 20, 2007 at 09:24 AM | #
|
|
While I harbor no ill will towards Kris (or anyone else on this site), put me down as also uncomfortable with the common usage of the term “rape” for things that are not actual rape. (I find this entirely too common among video game players...) I don’t really want to play a game where one of the encouraged strategies of the game is to rape someone. By the same token, I’d rather not have that reference describe (in metaphor) a game I play. So, folks have every right to use the word if they want, but put me down for wishing they didn’t. (The same is true for lots of other vulgar language that doesn’t tend to appear on this site...) Posted by Matt J. Carlson on May 20, 2007 at 11:30 AM | #
|
|
And I do not harbor any ill will towards you either, Kris. Posted by Jeff Allers on May 21, 2007 at 09:22 AM | #
|
|
Actually, I think the term is reasonable. Mostly because I cannot think of another term that applies quite so well, save perhaps for plunder. The word rape is pretty archaic, but did not originally have the sexual overtones we apply to it today.
From Dictionary.com
If any term has replaced it in common usage, it might be “robbed”. Perhaps the pick on the loser thing doesn’t really have any other modern analogy. But it definitely applies to games. Anyone have a suggestion for a decent term for the effect? Posted by Frank Branham on May 21, 2007 at 10:36 AM | #
|
|
Well, if you have trouble with the phrase Kris used, it’s probably a fair indicator that you won’t like Winds of Plunder much either :) I don’t think that expression is appropriate for a family forum myself (I personally would never use it), and I didn’t care much for Winds of Plunder. It’s definitely a very American, multi-hour kick-the-guy-when-he’s-down type game, with a couple abstract game mechanics layered on top. I’d agree with Larry that it has that same feeling of Through the Ages, in that being the strongest has its advantages, but you really, really want to avoid being weakest. And sometimes you have no real control over that. Not a terrible game, but I was ready to be done at the 60-minute mark, after which I got to engage in about another hour of clock-watching. Posted by Chris Farrell on May 21, 2007 at 12:57 PM | #
|
|
Folks, it’s a metaphor. A blunt one, but it makes the situation - in the game - very clear. Surely we understand that when someone says “I got killed in that last game”, no deaths were involved, nor was any disrespect meant towards the murdered. Had there been some flippant reference to an actual assault, I would agree that it was inappropriate. Posted by Erin Sparks on May 21, 2007 at 02:43 PM | #
|
|
Back to the game at hand. I have already decided to always use the variant rule mentioned in the rule book where “second cache of weapons” can be played from the hand when the target of plunder. In fact, upon reading the rules, I wanted to add this rule immediately, but the group consensus for the first play was not to use it. Our initial play was very tight with the plunder mechanism used to help keep the leader in check. Sure a person can get plundered repeatedly - but this requires everyone to sail to that port to do so - not always the most desirable option. Furthermore, it requires setting up that weak player in turn order by forcing them to go first. When bidding for turn order - the choice of who does go first is important. In our game, the bidder often did so, but towards the end of the game, we started to see advantages of winning the bid and not going first just to avoid being targetted. As a result, I like the plunder mechanism in the game. And I think I will like it more with the variant I noted at the begining. Posted by Rich Pardoe on May 21, 2007 at 04:54 PM | #
|
Next entry: Valerie Putman: Prose on Cons—Atlanta Game Fest
Previous entry: Fraser McHarg: An Autumn Evening at Gamers@Dockers
