Larry Levy:  The Best of the Gathering

Hello again.  Let me get the personal stuff out of the way by saying that I once again had an incredible time at the Gathering.  After five years of attendance, the number of people I look forward to spending time with has grown to truly immense proportions.  I was delighted to play a couple of games and have a few late night conversations with Mike Siggins and to meet, albeit briefly, Karl-Heinz Schmiel.  I want to thank everyone who was in attendance for helping to make this the highlight of the gaming year.  Most of all, thanks to Alan Moon for putting it all together and making it all work.

Now for the games.  The good news is that I think this Spring’s titles represent a fine crop of games.  I’m a little concerned, though, that for the second straight year, there are hardly any designs I’ve tried that I’d call great.  Last year, the only game that fit that description for me was Louis XIV; this year, I don’t think I’d include any game in that category.  Compensating for this is that just about all of the new stuff is good or very good.  I’d rather have quality than quantity, but it’s hard to complain too strenuously when you’ve just played a batch of good solid designs.

The other obvious trend is the pervasive dominance of the middleweight game.  I played 19 newly published or soon to be published games in Columbus and only two (Augsburg 1520 and Race for the Galaxy) are even close to being heavy.  There were also very few light games; publishers are clearly aiming for the middle ground.  I think they’re doing a fine job of releasing games which aren’t too complex, but are nevertheless interesting to hardcore gamers, so the trend isn’t necessarily unwelcome.  I do hope, though, that we wind up see more variety come Essen.

I want to spend the next several weeks discussing how I feel about the games I got to play.  First, I’ll deal with the 2006 releases.  I’ll do these in order, from those I liked the most to those I cared for the least.

Augsburg 1520 (Alea/RGG, 2 plays) – This one won’t be out for a month or so.  I got a chance to play with a pre-release version, and though I have a few nagging doubts, I think this will prove to be yet another excellent Alea game.  There hasn’t been too much information provided on this one, so let me describe the game in some detail.

The players are all rich financiers vying to loan money to impoverished nobles.  The reason for this curious behaviour is that when the I.N.’s invariably are unable to repay their debts, they lavish royal favors on their benefactors.  Evidently, this was what made life worth living in the sixteenth century.

The game is nothing but auctions, but before you go screaming into the night, let me say that the auction mechanic is a very nice poker-like one which gives Augsburg a different feel from most auction designs.  The game is played with a deck of cards with values in four suits (one for each noble).  Most of the auctions are limited to one noble.  Players bid the number of cards they wish to play.  Other players can match this number, fold, or raise to a higher number.  The players around at the end of the auction then play the number of agreed cards from their hands and the one with the highest single valued card wins.  This leads to some interesting tactics, as both high-valued cards and long suits of mediocre cards can be used successfully.  Among the items the players are bidding for are increases of the money, number of cards, and victory points received each round.  Players must buy the new cards they want from the new ones they receive (cards with higher values cost more), so there are both money and card management issues.  It’s also possible to steal increases from other players.  All in all, the game plays very nicely and I enjoyed it both times I played.  The auction mechanic is what makes the game, but there are the usual nice refinements you’d expect from an Alea design.  There is a bit of a luck of the draw issue and the concern is that it could conceivably dominate the game.  But the more I thought about the design, the more ways I could see how to get around most of the problems fate could send your way.  I do believe the game is more subtle than it first appears.  I’ll definitely be picking this up when it comes out, as it looks like another fine mid-size Alea release.

As an aside, the game’s designer is Karsten Hartwig, who also created the excellent Chinatown, as well as the less loved Lucky Loop.  This means that Hartwig now has three published designs and two of them are Alea games!  Not too shabby!  Rating:  8.

Ticket to Ride:  Märklin (Days of Wonder, 2 plays) – This is easily my favorite of the TtR games and is certainly the one I’ll play if given the choice.  The passengers add only a little bit of complexity, but in my opinion, they give the game the extra dimension it needs.  Now, in addition to deciding whether to take cards or build routes, you also have to decide whether to send out one of your passengers to collect merchandise, or to try to add a few more routes to make your haul that much more lucrative (and risk another player grabbing the choicest counters).  The split of the tickets into short and long routes (and the total choice of which to select) is also an excellent addition.  This, to me, is the gamer’s version of Ticket (although it would not be a huge step up in complexity for anyone familiar with the original).  I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again, but when it comes to modifying his own designs, no one is better at it than Alan Moon.  Rating:  7.5.

(By the way, I think I’ll be playing with a house rule from now on.  The display is replaced if there are three normal locomotives or three passenger cards showing, but it isn’t uncommon to get two locos and two passengers.  This can clog things up a bit, so my current preference is to replace the display if this happens.  Since the combination of cards which triggers this is two-two, we decided to call this the Ballerina rule.)

Um Krone und Kragen (Amigo, 4 plays) – This game was truly designed for me.  A dice game with meaningful choices, powers acquisition, and a strategic element?  Ooh baby!  The interesting thing about this is that it can be enjoyed on at least three levels.  Many players said they thought it was a nice light dice-rolling (i.e., luck-driven) game.  Then there are those who enjoy the tactical element, trying to figure out how to best play the probabilities and use the powers they’ve already acquired.  Finally, the strategists like to formulate plans on which tiles are the best to acquire (and in which order).  I’m definitely in the tactical camp and give at least a little thought to the game’s strategy.  Mostly, it’s just a lot of fun using the dice freezing rules and the powers to try to make the best combination possible.  Played like this, I believe skill plays a very large role in the game.  Sadly, Amigo went the form over function route with the tiles, leaving us with tiny and confusing icons to explain what each of them does.  I’ve played Tom Lehmann’s original prototype and it was much easier to use!  Hopefully, there will be a future version of the game which does this better.  This is a must buy for any lovers of dice games, but only if your numbers are small.  I think the game plays great with three players and is also very good with four, but with five, there’s too much downtime and it’s too hard to see what the other players are doing.  I’ll still play it with five, but I think it’s much better with fewer players.  Rating:  7.5.

Cleopatra and the Society of Architects (Days of Wonder, 2 plays) – I don’t think this game is getting enough love in the early Gathering reports and the reason is that it seems to have a one game learning curve.  I kind of floundered in my first game, but felt much more in control in my second (and it was obvious that the other experienced players had a better idea of what to do as well).  Managing your cards and having a strategy for how to handle your corruption (the game gives you several ways of doing this) is key, along with just being familiar with what builds what.  Plus, you need to be aware of how the different scoring items affect each other.  I think the tendency is to look at the amazing components and assume that the game is probably a piece of fluff, but this is actually a very solid middleweight game with a good deal to think about.  This makes two very strong designs for DoW this year, as the company seems to keep getting better and better.  Rating:  7.5.

Aton (Queen, 3 plays) – This was one of my best surprises of the week.  Aton plays fast, is filled with choices, and is a lot of fun.  I was originally a little wary of what appears to be a blind selection mechanic, but it’s actually more about making the best use of the cards you draw; anticipating your opponent’s actions is only occasionally important.  Designer Thorsten Gimmler is definitely a name to look out for, with two wonderfully elegant designs in the past three years (Geschenkt is the other one, and his earlier Odin’s Ravens is also a fine game).  I’ve criticized Queen in the past, so let me give them props for this game—it is superbly developed and I wouldn’t change a single rule.  This is a must buy for me and figures to get a lot of play.  Rating:  7.5.

Thurn und Taxis (Hans im Gluck/RGG, 2 plays) – I imagine that most attendees have this one ranked higher, as it was unquestionably the hit of the Gathering.  No insult is intended, however, as I still think it’s very good.  Some have compared the mechanics to Web of Power or Showmanager, and it does have a bit in common with both games.  But to me, the design that this feels the most like is Ticket to Ride, for its simplicity, ease of play, and decision of whether to score points via short or long routes.  It’s probably a little deeper than Ticket, although I really have to play it more to be sure of that.  I finished dead last in both of my games, which is actually a plus for me, as it shows that the strategy isn’t that straightforward despite the simple rules (or perhaps it just shows I was playing like a dork).  Based on the game’s reception, I have to think this is a leading contender for this year’s SdJ award, and wouldn’t it be nice to see Seyfarth rewarded after missing out with Puerto Rico?  Rating:  7.5.

Blue Moon City (Kosmos/FFG, 3 plays) – My one sentence review of this is, “Mesopotamia on steroids and speed!â€?  Knizia provides plenty of variety with the different card powers and the various tile awards.  He also includes a number of yin-yang conflicts for the players to deal with:  using cards for values vs. powers; trying to place in many contests vs. winning a smaller number of them; making frequent visits to the center square to grab the cheaper builds vs. going for greater efficiency (but possibly at higher costs); focusing on shards or scales (or both).  In addition to the multiple victory paths, what makes this game work for me is the speed of play—slap down your cards, plop down a cube or two, replenish your hand, and then hand the baton to the next player.  The additional awards that completed projects provide also means the game accelerates at the finish, which is another nice design touch.  I strongly prefer this to Mesopotamia (which, despite my snappy review, it is only marginally similar to) and this should be a design that appeals to a good segment of the hobby.  Rating:  7.5.

Race for the Galaxy (Rio Grande, 1 play) – I assume most of the gaming world now knows that this is Tom Lehmann’s development of the work he did on the Puerto Rico card game design before Andreas Seyfarth decided he would take it on (which resulted in San Juan).  The new game, which has Alea’s blessing, is supposed to be released by Rio Grande sometime this year.  I played Race last year and was somewhat befuddled, as it has a definite learning curve.  But things were a little clearer this time around (it helps when you aren’t playing the sharks with 50+ games under their belts).  Anyone looking for a meaty, deep card game with several paths to victory should definitely check this out once it hits the streets.  Rating:  7.5.

California (Abacus, 3 plays) – This is very much a Schacht-like design:  it plays quickly, it provides players with limited choices, and it crams a reasonable amount of strategy in its short duration.  The “take a tile or take money (but lower the other players’ costs)â€? option is a nice one and gives the players some interesting choices.  Gameplay is pleasant and quick, but far from mindless.  I don’t think it’s quite up to Web of Power’s standards, but is similar in luck factor and skill required.  This should make a nice choice when time is short and you want to play something more demanding than a filler.  Rating:  7.5.

That’s my take on about half of the new games I played.  Next week, I’ll look at the lower half of the group (which still includes some good games).  But now, it’s time for some much needed sleep!

© 2006 Larry Levy

---

Comments:

No comments yet.

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!

< Back Home