In Urban Sprawl, two to four players compete to erect buildings and parks on a mapboard that is divided by streets into city blocks.  The players will have opportunities to manipulate the value of whole rows of buildings as they try to accumulate holdings that will generate the most prestige points.

Buildings come in four flavors: commercial, government, residential, and industrial.  (There are also parks to be built which have no zoning restrictions).  A player can only build a contract if he has enough permit cards of the appropriate flavor to fulfill the contract (there are some wild cards which can be used for any flavor contract). 

When a player builds a contract, he places a building tile of the appropriate size and color on the board, and marks it with one of his ownership cubes.  Buildings cannot be placed next to a building of a different flavor unless it is already adjacent to a building of the same flavor.

Many contracts trigger events or payouts when they are built.  For example, building a corporate headquarters may result in payouts for owners of commercial buildings.  Players have a choice of taking their payouts as either wealth or prestige.

Complicating the game are vocation tokens and political offices.  Vocation tokens are chits that players acquire by constructing certain buildings (building a school might yield an education vocation token).  Vocation tokens may lead to payouts if certain events occur. 

Political offices are cards which grant the owner some kind of game advantage.  The Mayor gets an extra action point each turn, the Police Chief gets both wealth and prestige when scoring vocation tokens, the Treasurer collects two wealth points from each opponent each turn, the Union Boss gets a one-permit discount on building contracts, and the District Attorney doubles neighborhood bonuses when he builds a contract.  Each of these offices has a different qualification at election time: the Mayor goes to the player with the most vocation tokens, the Police chief goes to the player with the most residential buildings, the Union Boss goes to the player with the most industrial buildings, the Treasurer goes to the player with the most commercial buildings, and the District Attorney goes to the player with the most government buildings.

Late in the game, a new role--the Contractor--appears, and he is allotted to the player with the fewest victory points.  The Contractor can remove old buildings as long as he can replace them with buildings that are equally big.  This role should help the game avoid a runaway leader syndrome. 

At the end of the game, the various roles earn their owners additional prestige points based on the number of buildings of the appropriate flavor owned by the player.

Urban Sprawl reminds me of a more complicated version of Big City.  The added complexity may offer players more opportunity for strategy, but there seems to be enough event cards and other random elements to keep the game from seeming like an urban chess game.  In short, Urban Sprawl looks like fun.  I hope it gets published.

Designer: Uwe Rosenberg
Publisher: Hall Games

Players: 1-4
Ages: 10+
Playing Time: 60-120 minutes
Rules Language: English / German
Links:

Version played: Purchased copy
Times played: Five, once solo, twice with 2 and twice with 4

So I’m in round eight of At the Gates of Loyang, just after taking cards in the first pass through the card phase. The other three players are still in, dropping cards slowly one at a time, while I’m starting to write this review. My goal: See how far I can get before it’s my turn in the action phase.

One of the other players in this game, who played in an earlier four-player game today and a two-player game yesterday, has dubbed Loyang “the best game that I never want to play again.” His emotional arc while playing the game went from confusion to liking the game to really liking the game to becoming annoyed to outright dislike. Pal that he is, though, he offered to play a few more times to see whether the game speeds up with experience. Has it?

Unfortunately, no, it hasn’t. What players gain in experience and forethought, they lose from additional depth of what’s possible in the game and how they can best squeeze an extra coin out of the rearrangement of a dozen or more moves during the action phase. Oh, wait, my turn…

Inside the Gates, the Fields

So how does Uwe Rosenberg follow up the incredibly successful and well-received Agricola and Le Havre, both winners of multiple awards? With a title that precedes both of them. Yes, At the Gates of Loyang was designed in early 2005, after Rosenberg was inspired by the harvesting mechanism in the 2004 Splotter Spellen release Antiquity. In that game, once the raw materials from an area have been harvested or collected, the land can’t be used again. (Are they harvesting with bombs? I can’t imagine what else would destroy the land so thoroughly.)

Each player has his own territory in which to work: his own set of fields of varying sizes, one of which is revealed each turn; his own customers and helpers that are acquired during the game, his own shop, from which he can buy or sell veggies; and his own market stalls at which to trade veggies, again acquired during play. None of this makes any sense thematically. Why am I the only one who can buy vegetables from this shop? Why are my fields trashed after the last plant is harvested? Why is this foreman or con man hanging out with me turn after turn until I need to use his services? No matter – don’t think about too much, and focus instead on the fundamental concept of harvesting crops to sell to customers. That’s easy to grasp, and everything else is just gamery details anyway.

Seconds, Minutes, Hours

Loyang lasts nine rounds, and at the start of each round you harvest one veggie from each field and turn over a new field. Players then have a card phase in which they’re dealt four cards – those cards being customers, helpers, market stalls and extra fields – then take turns either discarding a card from their hand into the courtyard or stepping out of the round by playing two cards: one from their hand and one from the courtyard. (The remainder of their cards in hand are then added to the courtyard.)

Players then each have an action phase in which they plant crops, buy or sell veggies to their shop, trade at their market stalls, use their helpers, deliver veggies to their customers or buy a “Two-pack” of cards. Each action except the last can be done multiple times, and all of the actions can be performed in any order. You have only two cards on your first turn, so you don’t have many actions open to you, but as the game progresses and you pile up more cards, the possibilities for what you can do and the order in which you can do them explodes – and here’s where I sour on the game.

While the game mechanisms in Loyang are nothing like Agricola and Le Havre – other than the bit of harvesting in Agricola – the feel of the games is similar. Each game begins slowly as players start with few resources on hand: nothing but cards and food in Agricola, a few coins in Le Havre, and a single nine-space field filled with crops and some cash in Loyang. You don’t have much that you can do, and the initial turns fly by with you feeling like a chump because you’re not making any progress. “I have only one customer, and I can’t even serve him this turn!”

As the games progress, however, players start voltronning up their resources and equipment and buildings, and by mid-game they’re standing in the snow puzzling until their puzzler is sore because so many possible plays are available to them. Loyang differs from the earlier Rosenberg designs, however, in that in Agricola and Le Havre players generally take only one action each turn: I place my token in this building; I choose this action; I take these resources. While the other players take their turns, I can contemplate which of four or five choices is best based on my current circumstances. By the time my turn arrives, I might have only 2-3 choices left based on what other players did – or someone does something unusual and I now need to rethink my options. Whatever the situation, though, once I take that action, the next player goes and the game keeps moving.

In Loyang, instead of having atomistic actions that build over time into mighty compounds, you do all the chemistry at once while the other players examine their fingernails and contemplate which toppings to order on their pizza. “If I serve this customer first, I’ll make $X, which will then let me buy this vegetable from the shop and trade at this stall in order to sell to this other customer. But if I trade first, then I can sell to this other customer. Or maybe I should buy a Two-pack first – but if I keep a casual customer, then I’ll earn less this turn for my sale, unless I get the helper that lets me pay to take someone’s else customer in which case I’ll earn more. But perhaps I should run through the trades at the market stall first in order to reduce the price of the Two-pack.” And so forth and so on. I’ll admit to being more sensitive to downtime and dithering than the average player, so perhaps this is my bias showing, but I’m not the only one who’s joked about taking out a book while another player takes his turn.

During another player’s turn, you can try to mentally run through the options to see how much money you can earn and what will leave you in the best situation for future turns but this planning doesn’t work in practice for two reasons:

1. You can buy a Two-pack during your turn, which gives you new options. The cost of a Two-pack is the greater of the number of helpers or the number of market stalls in your area, so you often want to mess with those areas during your turn in order to reduce the Two-pack price as every coin is precious – yet that Two-pack often lets you do better things than what you can do initially, perhaps by giving you a new casual customer or a helper that lets you trade for a leek at another market stall, so you may want to buy it sooner than later.

   The Merchant helper, for example, lets you buys veggies from your shop at a discount if you need to deliver the same veg to two regular customers, so buying a Two-pack might let you save a bunch of money in the current round, which would then require other adjustments, too. With all this in mind, you’re might then be figuring out how to use market stalls and helpers while not yet serving customers in order to maximize the potential payoff – unless certain cards are already in play or were discarded in the distribution round, in which case.... Eventually, though, you have to pull the trigger and do something. No, really, just do something – I’m tired of waiting.

2. A number of the helpers let one player mess with another one, either by delivering veggies to their customers, stealing a customer outright, swapping one market stall for another, or swiping a helper. If I’m playing after someone else, I’ll have a tough time planning all that I want to do as I won’t know which resources the other player will leave available to me. If they don’t deliver to that customer, then I’ll do this, forcing me to buy A to trade for B in order to serve regular customer C – but if they do deliver to that customer, then I’ll instead use helper D to buy vegetable E at a discount before buying Two-pack F giving me unknown cards G & H.

Despite all my kvetching, I think that At the Gates of Loyang is a very strong design that hits a lot of the elements that appeal to me as a gamer: Engine-building of a sort crossed with the mental depth of a tricky logic puzzle and the variety of a CCG, while also featuring subtle interaction between the players in the card distribution round, the turn order tricks (with four players), and the interactive helpers that crowbar in more Goldbergian elements to the logic puzzle that already lies before you.

I’m just not sure that I actually want to play the game that often – at least not as published. As I noted in my initial impression of Loyang, it would make a great title on the online gaming site SpielByWeb. SpielByWeb already features Reef Encounter, Tikal and Hacienda – three titles in which you can take multiple actions within each of your turns – and Loyang would be a perfect addition to its line-up as I could then take all the time I want to futz with this, that and the other option before settling on a course of action. (As with Tikal and Hacienda, the purchase of a Two-pack would create a time-reversal backstop beyond which you couldn’t cross since the knowledge of those cards would likely affect earlier choices.)

I hope an online version along these lines comes about because I am still interested in exploring the game further. While playing, I’ve been both fascinated and frustrated by situations in which I come up a coin short to advance the next step along the Path to Prosperity, holding ten coins when I need eleven, for example. As long as you have goods for delivery next round, you don’t need to sit on a ton of cash in this game – and ten is a ton – so I’d want to see whether I could avoid ledges like that and use my goods and customers more efficiently. After all, if I’m on step 9, I can pay 1 this round to reach step 10 and 13 the next round to reach step 12 – or I can pay 12 this round to reach step 11, then 1 the next round to hit 12. I’d save only one coin in the process, one lousy coin, yet every coin is vital in Loyang, just as every resource is vital in Agricola and Le Havre. Ideally that online version will come to pass as I’m unlikely to push Loyang onto the table again anytime soon.

. If you’ve yet to play the game, you can download the rules in three languages – – which will make the following article far more comprehensible!]

Assyria is a subtle game. Even if it’s smooth and easy to understand, it requires a lot of tactical and strategic subtlety, and you’ll frequently have to deal with crucial choices to develop your tribe. By overcoming these difficulties, you’ll be able to compete for first place, and it is the goal of this article to help you choose wisely what to do when you play your first game...and subsequent ones!

As a complement to this article, you’ll find pieces of player-made advice on the net; I particularly recommend Thomas Cauet’s ”A la carte” – here are the Assyria-specific links – as Thomas helped us test the game in the first place.

Turn order: The first choice you’ll have to make in the game pertains to the turn order; to master Assyria, you must be able to juggle skillfully with it. Indeed, opting for first place allows you to position yourself on the board before your opponents and seize the areas which are essential to your strategy. However, if you play first, you generally have access to fewer goods and so, clinging to the first place is a bad idea as your huts are going to be disappearing massively from the board. The last places shouldn’t be neglected either because they allow you to “catch your breath” by yielding more goods. What is more, being the last player in the last turn of a reign allows you to control Assur and score points while spending fewer camels.

Goods: Obviously, goods are essential to your survival. Even if the object of the game isn’t to own as many huts as possible on the board, the worst mistake is to lack foresight! Good players will be able to keep cards between one turn and the next to ensure the tribe’s subsistence. For this you must remember that you choose the order in which you spend your cards; consequently you can play a joker or a plow earlier in the turn to “salvage” double or triple goods. What is more, redundant cards are powerful since they allow you to ensure some huts will survive for two turns. Finally, don’t forget to save a few camels to buy the goods that remain after the harvest or to buy your plow back if you feel the next turn is going to be tricky. The surplus of goods will be particularly useful for those who will play in first place.

Huts: In Assyria huts, unlike ziggurats, are tactical elements, so your goal isn’t to have as many huts as possible on the board on a permanent basis but to make the good ones last by playing Food cards properly. To use your huts well, you must determine what your priorities are – which huts can be “sacrificed”, which huts must last – in order to obtain a good balance between your victory points and your camels.

Wells: Wells are an “easy” access to victory points in the short term. At the beginning of the game, they make for a lightning fast start, but there’s a cost: Wells hamper the development of ziggurats (which can’t be built on wetland) and are very expensive. (You need three different Food cards to feed the huts that allow you to place a well.) If you take advantage of the arrangement of the board, you can build wells massively over several turns (or even in one turn). For instance, by ensuring that two of the three huts that allowed the construction of a well survive, you have a firm basis to place a second well on a position mirroring the first. Once again, this tactic is fruitful as far as points are concerned, but it’s expensive in terms of goods and it makes the placing of ziggurats more difficult.

Camels: Camels are the currency of the game since Assyrians had no monetary system. They are the driving force behind every strategy. At each turn, we advise you to place at least one hut on a river (3 camels) or you’ll helplessly watch other players develop. Of course you can keep camels from one turn to the next, for instance if you want to make sure that you have six camels available to build a ziggurat. Camels are used for everything; having a good stock allows players to reshape their strategies according to the circumstances of the turn.

Flood: Floods are turning points in the game, and players who don’t apprehend these turning points properly will fall behind in their development. Given that huts placed on the rivers are removed each time a flood occurs, players will redeploy in the next turn if they have enough goods to meet requirements. The turns preceding the floods must be played with caution. Being left with no goods at the end of these turns is risky.

The favor of the gods: The favor of the gods is a particularly profitable source of points. For instance, a single camel yields one to four points according to the number of ziggurats you’ve built (counting incomplete ones). Plus, with a second camel, you double this total of points! Of course, the next step (x3) is more expensive, but you have two to three turns (depending on the reign) to reach it. Finally, for the last step (x4), you must spend seven camels. You can’t reach it in less than three turns (since you can’t advance by more than three steps per turn), so you need to anticipate and spend camels at each turn of the reign to reach 16 points at most (4 ziggurats x4). Interesting indeed!

Assur: Like the favor of the gods, Assur offers a substantial number of points which differs from one player to another. Between direct gains and bonuses granted by the various dignitaries, the extra points may be vital (especially for players who have few ziggurats). However, the points gained in Assur are but a strategic supplement; monopolizing the first places won’t yield enough points to win the game. Why? Assur is very expensive, and the points it grants are insufficient on their own. So don’t run out of camels to buy yourself a place that is insecure. Try to control Assur, either through an aggressive placing strategy at the beginning of a reign to dishearten your opponents or by playing with the turn order at the end of a reign.

Dignitaries: Apart from the points offered by the expansion, Assur also grants interesting bonuses through its dignitaries. So, the higher dignitary is a formidable source of points; thanks to him, you’ll not only secure a good place in the race for majority, but you’ll gain a maximum of eight bonus points if you manage to seize all the spaces. (Doing so, however, will cost you eight camels.) This dignitary is interesting for players who have few ziggurats and who will naturally be looking for supplements of points at the end of the game. The other two dignitaries offer a particularly interesting “return on investment.” The middle dignitary allows the player to get his Plow card back at the end of a flood, which means saving two camels while preparing the next reign. (However, if you keep your Plow before the flood occurs, you won’t take advantage of this bonus.) The last dignitary yields a little camel per hut which will help you to start the next reign on the right foot.

Strategies: The strategy of the game wholly depends on the number of ziggurats built by the players during the game. Winning the game without building a single ziggurat apart from the one you get at the start of the game is extremely difficult. So I advise you to build at least one ziggurat as soon as possible in order to make the most of the income it yields at each turn. Strategies with two, three or four ziggurats are all possible but must be carried out differently: a player with two ziggurats must find extra points in Assur or through wells, whereas a player with four ziggurats will be more interested in gaining the favor of the gods. Owning three ziggurats is obviously a mixed option.

However, you should never take anything for granted in this game, and it would be a mistake to think you’re safe because you follow a given configuration. Never hesitate to question your strategy following the other players’ decisions and you’ll be playing to win. Have fun!

While in Essen, Germany this past October, I met several people who said that the BGN Spiel 09 preview – a document containing details of hundreds of new games that would require 400+ pages if printed, a document created from months of work and hundreds of emails and phone calls to designers and publishers – was a huge help to them when preparing for the convention, both in pointing out games they wanted to try and saving them money by steering them away from clunkers. I’m thankful that they and others have found the previews that useful and want to continue to provide this service in the future.

Consequently I’m raising the BGN membership rates as of January 1, 2010. Anyone who is a BGN member prior to this date will be able to maintain his or her current rate – $25 annually or $5 monthly – whenever they renew, both in 2010 and beyond. Anyone who signs up after January 1, as well as members who let their membership lapse then resubscribe, will need to pay the new membership rates of $50 annually or $25 monthly.

Thanks for understanding, and I look forward to continuing to provide you with all that you expect from BoardgameNews.com in the years to come…

...Anyway, I’m torn between supporting my OLGS (only local game store) and buying more games at lower prices. Do I (or should I) have some moral obligation to support it?

From the introduction to my column: “If you have questions about gaming etiquette, you can send them to askmsmeeples@gmail.com and Jennifer will answer them.”

So this question is outside of what I plan to cover with this column. I touch on ethical issues, but I’m not an ethicist per se, and this is somewhat of an ethical issue. It’s also a financial issue, and I’m not a financial person, so I will have to pass on this. This conundrum has been discussed previously on BoardGameGeek.com, so search the forums on that site for ideas on what to do. Moving on…

….There is one person at the meetings who doesn’t show up every meeting but to maybe half of them. The player complains about “Being ganged up on”, “Bad dice rolls”, “Unclear rule explanations”, etc. The complaints are almost a non-stop barrage of “Woe is Me” attitude, whether the player is winning or losing. I have seen a few other gamers openly and pointedly tell the player to quit complaining… to no avail. Complainer just points to the dice and loudly insists you look and agree that nobody else has rolls that bad. Any kind of logical statement, regarding the bell curve affecting everybody the same, just falls on deaf ears and results in more pointing at the bad roll or whatever the complaint is regarding.

I have also seen, during game selection, folks jockey to get into other games that the Complainer is not interested in. It seems everybody is aware of the problem but avoids it as best they can or just tolerates it when they cannot avoid it.

The following is a comment from my previous column regarding table talk. I wanted to address it as a continuation of the previous discussion.

…Occasionally, though, the talk will drift from general kibbitzing into manipulation. I’m not sure where the line is, but it is not much fun to play in a game where one or two players are trying to pressure other players into doing things that will hurt one player and benefit themselves. We almost lost a player once because he was consistently a strong player and some of the others at the table would start saying “Get X!” before the game had really even had time to develop. It’s one thing to take on the table when you’re the leader; it’s quite another to have to always take on the table just because you generally play well. I don’t blame him for being sour, and even though I wasn’t the target it definitely diminished my enjoyment, too. Luckily we got past that, but things were ugly for a while.

I’d be interested in Ms. Meeples’ take on table talk that has that mean-spirited flavor. Are there types of table talk that aren’t fair?

Pressuring players to play a specific way is certainly a problem….my local con had to stop 1830 tournaments for a while because of all the strongarming going on during a specific tournament. Puerto Rico can have this problem, too, and it’s not much fun to be either the subject of the strongarming or a witness to it. I don’t know if this is a clear gender issue or not, but I notice that men do this a lot more than women – in fact, I can’t think of a game in which a woman tried to pressure someone into playing a certain way but I know plenty of men who have.

What you need to do is to clearly say when you are uncomfortable with it, whether you are the target or are just participating in the game. You can also scatter the pressure by asking other players what they think about the pressuring player’s suggestion: “Chris, do you think it’s the best thing for Daniel to make that specific move?” This will lead to more strategy discussion with all the players, and it sounds like you are okay with that. Unfortunately, as you’ve seen, things can get pretty heated if not stopped early, so try to say something as the pressure is beginning. Otherwise it can become a full-blown fight and that’s never good. Take the comments as they come instead of attributing a negativity that may not be there. That’s what happened at that 1830 tournament that blew up; some of the players took the pressuring personally, then everything went downhill from there.

The other thing that is happening in your group is that a player is being singled out before he can even start playing. What I’ve done to settle this a bit is to use some humor: “Okay, we’ll all just concede to Bruce and then play a pretend game where Bruce actually may not win.” That usually defuses the situation to the point where at least the other players are aware that the strong player deserves a fair chance, too.

There is no question that table talk can be divisive, mean, attacking and/or personal, but there’s no reason it has to be that way. If you can keep the discussion focused on the game with participation by all or nearly all of the players, you’ll go a long way toward keeping the game fun.

Comments welcome as usual!!

Designer: Hans van Tol
Publisher: The Game Master

Players: 2-4
Ages: 12+
Playing time: 90-150 minutes
Release date: October 2009
Languages: English, German and Dutch
Price: €40
Links:

[Editor’s note: Part 1 of this series covered the inspiration for Opera, part II detailed a sidetrack in the realm of family games, part III examined an overload of strategic possibilities, part IV started pulling everything together, and part V brought us into the final testing phase. Hans van Tol submitted this write-up on November 1, but I’ve been busy.]

The SPIEL Effect
One week after Essen I am getting a little bit organized. What a fair, with all the chaos, noise, excitement and inspiration that SPIEL always brings to all of us! Each year it is a great experience to find almost ten halls filled with 150,000 people who just want to play games. When I was sitting in the bus on the way back to Holland it occurred to me: SPIEL’09 was over and I have to wait for almost 12 months before SPIEL’10 will be there. Such a long time! But this year (my sixth) I was very satisfied with the result. No nightmares for me anymore about what could have gone wrong. We did all we could to make it a SPIEL to never forget. I will just give you a short report before I go back to the last and decisive phase of development of the Opera board game.

Novelty Show
The novelty show – the press day on Wednesday – with the two opera singers was a great success. Many journalists, TV cameras, etc. followed the great performance of the Cantarte couple on the first day.

Of course I want to thank all the demo players who really worked hard to make it possible to bring Opera to the public. During the fair the game was played or explained about 100 times!

Prototype VI: Getting to the Final Game

Overview
The assignment now was to break the Money Strategy, as discussed in Part V. Also we wanted to make sure that a number of strategies gave satisfying results, but none of them would dominate the others. In fact the main thing to do in the coming five months was to balance the game further and further. The basic structure of the game was perfect. The strategic players enjoyed themselves very much in two sessions of two hours of play. None of them got bored with the game, and all wanted to play the game again and again. But still, we were sure that the game was not good enough. It is the last 2% of a game – like adding the salt and herbs to give it the right flavour. So now this was what we did.

What did we do to break the Money Strategy?
Sometimes things are very difficult, but most of the times they are very logical. The only thing is that you have to see them first. What we did was decrease the maximum capacity of the opera houses in the start of the game. The fifth prototype allowed the players to build a “money machine” in each city. When a player could extend an opera house to six halls within three rounds of play, the last six rounds would be abundant. A player having six halls filled with operas would allow him to grab so much money that he did not need to get any victory points in the beginning and could just focus on money. After half of the game he could switch his strategy radically towards power and VPs; he would be dominating the budget table and buy all valuable peaces and transfer them later into VPs.

Smooth build-up of Opera
In the final version we adjusted the maximum capacity of the opera houses in the earlier stages of the game, so there is now a smooth build-up. During the first episode (round 1-3) the biggest opera house has a maximum capacity of only four halls (Statsoper in Wien). This maximum increases to five halls in the second Episode (L’Opera in Paris) and only in the last three rounds of play can a player manage to invest in the biggest opera house of all (La Scala in Milan) with six halls. Aside from breaking the one winning strategy, the other advantages of this change are that:

• The slow build-up gives new players the chance to learn to play the game, and

• When you make mistakes in the beginning, the effect on the final score will be less, so the chance of having one leader in the beginning who also wins the game is very limited, especially because of the high interaction and competition throughout the game which also decreases differences in power in case they were substantial.

1. Cutting out buildings: The Architetto became more important due to our adjustment of the maximum capacity to break the money strategy. We then cut even more buildings to make buildings a more scarce resource. As a result, getting the initiative to play the role of the Architetto became more important, especially in rounds 4 and 7 when new buildings are added to the game. A player must want to play all six of the roles simultaneously, but of course this is never possible.

2. Limiting the roles: Since we want to make sure that the game cannot be dominated by one or two players, each player may initiate a role only three times (for 2 players: a maximum of 4 roles).

3. Helping the player with the fewest VP: We added the rule that the player who chooses the Esperto must give his best piece to the player with the fewest number of Victory Points. This added balancing rule keeps the scores in an acceptable range in order to keep the tension in the game high.

4. Breaking power through movement: If a player wants to activate the role of a character, he must move its piece. This way the strong role of the Esperto cannot be played in the same city twice! The players cannot concentrate on only one city (for example, Paris or Milano) and score several times in the same city, winning many VPs in a row. This change makes the game play more dynamic.

5. Adding blocking possibilities: In the cities of the second and third Episode, mainly the bigger cities in which more money or points can be gained, only one position is available for a Character. This way a strong player is unable to play, for example, the Maestro and the Esperto in Paris or Milano and this way make much money and many VP in one turn!

6. Breaking the power: The Critico may upgrade the popularity of a Composer and bring him down, both with a maximum of 2 levels. In an earlier prototype the Critico was only “the bad guy”. Later he became only good. But we found out that if we did not give him (or the player who activates him) the chance to choose + or -, it would be very hard to stop somebody who is doing really well.

   We had quite a lot of discussion about this rule. My co-designers Hjalmar and Ruud were convinced that the Critico should be able to be used in both ways. I was not convinced, until we played a game with the three of us. I was really doing very well in the game, but even with joined forces they could not really do enough to stop me from scoring my VPs at the end of the game. It was clear after this specific game that we had to give the Critico more credit. His character has become more important due to this rule change. Also, the very nice side effect of this rule is that the ladder of fame can be influenced in many subtle ways, with many different effects – which you may notice after you have played Opera a few times.

7. Helping the poor: As another way to help players who have a hard time catching up with others, if you end up at the lowest level on the budget table at the end of a round, you will receive a bonus of 1 ducat. For some smart players who have enough money, they can plan their actions carefully and end up with a nice bonus.

8. Developing special rules for two players: After I had played a two-player game with Hjalmar, I found out that because I was a bit careless in the beginning, he managed to dominate the game completely. Because I hate to lose :), I changed the rules – and the change worked out very well. He won the game, but playing Opera with two players became much more fun. The first “playing along” action does not cost you any budget level; this way the players’ budget markers literally ‘stick’ together. We also decreased the risk of domination in a two-player game significantly.

• The Composer of the Century: This came in April or May when Ruud had played the game with a few friends. A very nice feature of the game, it gives more alternatives for strategic game play.

• The home composer!!! Where did he come from? In fact it was Christian Hildenbrand from Hutter Trade, our German partner for Opera, who advised us to put a little bit more money in the game in the beginning, in case players made mistakes or the distribution of music pieces is a bit unfortunate. We introduced the home composer, whose fame is 0, but he always “fills the halls nicely” and therefore creates standard income. We also did a very nice thing with the home composer graphically, which some of you might even have noticed already. The images of the house composers refer to real people:)

• The Signora changes her role: First the Signora was there only to try to seduce the players to cash in on one of their most valuable assets: the operas. But we observed that in the last four rounds her role normally diminished because the players would rather play the Maestro to get extra money. Also, as the result of a comment from a publisher who tested the game, we found out that it would be great to give the Signora a second role to score VP. This way the Signora is tempting for the players to use throughout the game, giving double value of a music piece in money or transferring the value of a piece directly into VP.

Suggestions?
If there are game lovers or opera lovers out there who have good suggestions for what they would like to add to the game, I am inviting you to send in your suggestions. Some discussions have been started on the composers which were chosen for the game. We do not mind because as designers we have to make decisions based on numerous factors of which not all consumers can be aware of. In case you would like to add Puccini, Bizet or other famous writers of operas, please send in your suggestions. To make it clear: Opera has been made to be performed for the public, to share it with many people.

Please send in any suggestions, ideas or other questions to ontwerp@thegamemaster.nl

Hans van Tol

It’s a quick little game that takes about 15 minutes to play.  I’ve got two sets which I suppose I could combine, but I don’t think that this is such a good idea because I think that you wouldn’t have enough control as not be rolling the dice often enough – as generally you can come up with something good on your turn when you roll and arrange the dice, while you just try to survive the dice that your opponents leave you with.  There is definitely some skill in the gameplay though as evidenced by the fact that in my 6 games thus far, the same two people have always won.  It is definitely a keeper for me, and it continues the tradition that I have of finding a small under 7-euro game each year that becomes a permanent addition to the game collection.  The only downside I can find of the game thus far is that it comes in a metal tin that the TSA really doesn’t like.  Every time that I’ve had this in my carry-on luggage, I’ve had my bag opened to make sure that nothing nefarious is hidden within the tin.


Climb! - Well, if Mosaix is the pseudo-hit of Essen 2009 fore me, Climb! Deserves an honorary mention.  Of course, since I didn’t pick up the game at Essen (nor was it new this year), it’s probably not actually eligible – as I mentioned before, I had managed to miss this one (again) at the Ferti booth.  Luckily for me, Jeph Stahl was happy to sell me his used copy at Great Lakes Games – and I finally got a chance to play it… And, I can say that it’s a lot of fun, and I’m sad that I’ve missed this for almost two years now. 
Climb! Is a simple dexterity game where you use your fingers to climb up a “mountain” which is made of cards.  The cards have different shaped and sized holes in them (no more than 4 holes in the 3 inch x 3 inch square card), and each opening has a color around it which tells you what finger(s) you can legally use to climb up the mountain.  A course is initially made up of 10 cards which are set up by the players.  On your turn, you start by placing one of your fingers in the start zone, and then put other fingers down in the holes in the cards to start your way up.  At each step on the way, you score points based on how many fingers you had down at once (1 pt for 2 fingers, 3 pts for 3 fingers, 6 pts for 4 fingers and 10 pts for all five fingers).  Your turn continues until you: a) finish the course, b) put a finger in the wrong hole, c) move one of the cards or d) somehow lose contact with the table.  As you move up, you may only use a hole once, so you generally have to keep moving upwards towards the summit. 
The scoring can be a bit fiddly, as someone has to remain vigilant to record the scores at each step of the way.  But, once all the players are used to it – it’s not too bad.  In our games, we have developed a convention where the climber has to say “Score” out loud so that the scorekeeper knows when to record the score.  While this is going on, the other players can help out by watching to see if any of the cards move.  Whenever your turn ends, you score all the points you have accumulated thus far – which means that you don’t have to make it all the way to the top to score a lot of points as the game rewards style over climbing success. 
I know that it doesn’t sound like that much fun, but trust me, this game is a gas.  At Great Lakes Games, when we broke it out, we suddenly had a crowd of 5 or 6 people at all times watching alone.  Watching a climber try to crunch up his or her fingers to try to make a 4-finger play always caused much laughter (or derision) from the peanut gallery.  And, almost everyone who watched the game wanted to try it out – and it’s definitely much more difficult that it looks!  The only bad thing about the game (that I can find thus far) is that it’s not readily available in the US – but it does appear that it is distributed in Canada through the French speaking stores.


Mini Heckmeck - If Mosaix is the pseudo-hit of Essen ’09 and Climb! Is #2, Mini-Heckmeck would be #2a.  There is nothing different (other than size) than the older Heckmeck (aka Pickomino) – but this game comes in a tiny 1.5 inch round metal tin which you can easily tuck in your pocket or purse.  While we were traveling in San Francisco this weekend, this little gem was a lifesaver with the kids.  My kids have grown to love Heckmeck, and it’s turned out to be a pretty good addition practice tool as well.  The boys have definitely learned to add the dice up quickly, but they still have a bit of work to do on the risk assessment side of the game.  It’s funny how often the kids will go for it when they only have one die left to roll and only one possible valid number to roll.  Of course, the kids have been successful far more often than the expected value, and this might be influencing how often they go for it, but they seem to be getting the basics of the probability and are getting much better at the game. 


Well, that should wrap it up for now.  I’m leaving for BGG.con later tonight, so I should hopefully get to the rest of the Essen games after the weekend!  And, as much as I like travel, I’m actually looking forward to being able to spend a weekend at home soon…

Until your next appointment,
The Gaming Doctor

Somewhat random anecdote: A friend of mine illustrated a few cards for the Tomb Raider CCG that Precedence Publishing released a decade ago. What advice did the art director have to offer regarding the proper look for Lara Croft? “Just when you think you’ve made her breasts big enough, make them a tiny bit bigger.” Plus c’est change…

Reiner Knizia’s En Garde first appeared in 1993 from Abacusspiele, then was reissued in 2007 by Ferti in two editions, one with a 3D gameboard and a travel version with a flat gameboard. Pierô’s graphics from the Ferti travel edition will be used in FRED Distribution’s version of En Garde, which is the first title in Gryphon Games’ two-player line. Two pewter fencers will be included in the game, along with the gameboard, cards and scoring stones. En Garde plays in 20-30 minutes and will retail for $30.

Cornucopia, by Carlo A. Rossi and Lorenzo Tarabini, will be #10 in the Gryphon Games bookshelf series. Here’s a description from the publisher:

In Cornucopia, your goal is to fill your basket with a bountiful collection of fruits and vegetables, while at the same time correctly predicting how long it will take you to fill your basket.

You can try to assemble a basket with only one type of fruit or vegetable, which is difficult to do; or you can try to collect the entire range of harvest products. In either case, you want to complete your harvest as efficiently as possible to earn the most coins.

Players can bet and win more coins by correctly predicting the outcome (success or failure) of their opponents’ efforts to assemble their harvest, so players stay involved and engaged in the game even when it is not their turn!

Cornucopia is for 2-5 players, ages 8 and up, with a playing time of 45-60 minutes and a price of $26.

Out with the old, in the with the new - it’s a way of life for many in the board game hobby.  I love to revisit old classics from time to time, but nothing beats exploring a new game, learning the rules and working your way through that first play as you see how the game comes together and the mechanics interact.  As I discussed last month, many games lose their appeal after you’ve played them a few times because the sense of adventure is gone and the spark of interest that unfamiliarity breeds is extinguished.  In that spirit of constantly trying new games and exploring their rule sets, I decided to mentally revisit all of the new and new-to-me games that I played during the first half of 2009 and share my thoughts on them with you.  I’ll save the games from the second half of 2009 for a follow-up column at the end of year.  These are meant to be a cross between mini-reviews and tangential commentary on topics that the games bring to mind.  Hopefully these will spur your interest in a game or two, whether it’s one that I enjoyed or didn’t enjoy personally, perhaps these comments will provide a kernel of information to pique your interest to further investigate and try out a few new-to-you games.

Aber Bitte Mit Sahne - Takes the wonderful split-and-choose mechanic from San Marco and incorporates it into a shorter and lighter game.  Results in some nicely tense decisions in this quick game, but pales in comparison to the depth, involvement, and engaging nature of San Marco.

Beep! Beep! - Silly filler game by Valley Games that takes only a couple minutes to play.  You’re simply trying to recognize color and pictures combinations on a handful of face-up cards, but it’s amusing to play while waiting for people to arrive.

Black Vienna - Surprisingly rote and mechanical deduction game given its cult status.  The entire game felt boring, scripted, routine, and ultimately random… perhaps I’m missing something about this supposed classic.

Blue Moon - Disappointing card game after all of the Magic-lite descriptions.  The decision-making possibilities were uninteresting and generally obvious.  Perhaps investing enough time to try various decks and deck-building would yield the game’s hidden intricacy, but after two plays I don’t particularly want to play ever again.

Catch Phrase - Fun party game, but infinitely inferior to Taboo.  The “game” itself is completely broken as it’s immediately obvious how to cheat the system and win.  Given that it’s a party game, I suppose this is irrelevant since everyone can just agree to play by the spirit of the rules, rather than the letter, but nonetheless it seems silly to design a game that is so blatantly flawed.  Why not just play the similar but superior Taboo?

GIPF - After having played YINSH, DVONN, PUNCT, ZERTZ, and TZAAR, I finally got to try their parent game GIPF.  Just like its offspring, GIPF is another abstract game with easy to learn rules, yet an overwhelmingly confusing array of options for at least your first few plays.  The gameplay feels wide open and boggles the mind for those of us just starting out.

Guillotine - Light filler card game that was quick and inoffensive, yet ultimately not particularly memorable.  I don’t really see any reason to play this over the likes of Coloretto or No Thanks, unless you’ve really gotten sick of those classic filler card games; even then I’d go next to things like Bull in a China Shop and Fairy Tale.

Jamaica: Extra Treasures - One of those mini-expansions that the collector in me just has to have, even though the game player in me knows that it adds nothing worthwhile to the game.  These mini-expansions are insidious because they make you yearn to have them, but they generally add nothing to the game (e.g., Ticket to Ride Mystery Train, Fishermen of Catan, Carcassone: Die Katharer), and sometimes they actively hurt the game (e.g., St. Petersburg: The Banquet).  The new Jamaica treasures seem a bit overpowered, but don’t quite rise to the level of the broken St. Petersburg cards.

Santorini - Another abstract game that is fairly easy to learn, yet baffling at first, like GIPF.  However, unlike GIPF, Santorini didn’t have that same wide-open feeling, and felt a bit more constraining.  It’s not one that I’m dying to play again anytime soon, but I’m not really the target market given my irrational phobia of most abstract games.

Vikings - Surprisingly fresh German-style game, and a solo outing from Michael Kiesling (of Kramer & Kiesling fame, e.g., Tikal, Maharaja, Torres).  I’d overlooked the game when it first came out because it looked like just another boring game with recycled mechanics and a pasted on theme, but I was wrong.  A friend convinced me to give it a try, and I quickly went out to purchase a copy later that week.  The “advanced rules” are what make the game good and I recommend skipping right to those if you have any board gaming experience.  There are loads of interesting decisions to make in this game and a plethora of scoring options that have kept me coming back for 10 plays so far, and hopefully many more to come.

FEBRUARY

Cash ‘n Guns - A party game from a few years back that I finally had a chance to try, but as I had suspected, it wasn’t really my cup of tea.  It could definitely be an enjoyable romp with the right game group, but depends very much on the people you play it with and what they bring to the table as far as spicing up the experience.  The game itself gives you fairly little to work with as you simply try to outguess your opponents with very little actual information to go on.

Chang Cheng - Ehhh, a remarkably forgettable game that made little impression at the time, and has left even less of an impression now.  That’s not to say that it was an offensive or unpleasant experience by any means, but just that it’s not a game that stands out in any way among the 600 plus games that I’ve tried.  I wouldn’t even necessarily object if someone suggested playing it again sometime, but as the game did nothing to pull me in and make me want to explore the system further, I don’t see myself ever hunting down a second play.

Cosmic Encounter - Disappointing.  I had high hopes given all of the praise for this classic, but after trying the new Fantasy Flight edition, I don’t see what all the fuss is about.  If I want to play a fairly random battle game with variable player powers, I’ll stick with Dune.  I know Cosmic Encounter has the advantage of being much quicker, but I found the sheer randomness of the cards in Cosmic Encounter to be more offensive than the already extremely random distribution of potentially very powerful cards in Dune.  The decision-making in the combat seems highly outweighed by the potentially high-numbered cards.  The variable player powers are interesting and I’m sure far ahead of their time when first conceived, but experiencing them for the first time in 2009 make it harder to appreciate their original genius, given all of the advances in the science during the intervening years.  I’ve been enjoying a lot of Fantasy Flight games lately like Descent: Journeys in the Dark, Battlestar Galactica, A Game of Thrones, and War of the Ring, but this offering fell flat for me.

Exxit - A quirky and strange abstract game.  A back-and-forth struggle with clear rules that nonetheless led to surprising results in their application when a particular play would cause an unexpected chain reaction of plays that left you in a completely different place than you had anticipated or intended.  The stark black and red board and pieces certainly made this a very visually memorable game.

Lines of Action - Probably the best abstract game I tried for the first time this year, and there have been quite a few thanks to the Astoria Gaming Society.  A fairly old game from the 1960s that I’d never heard of, let alone played, before.  I try not to use the descriptor “elegant” too much as it means something different to everyone and is thus impossible to define precisely, but this game did feel elegant to me.  That is to say, it felt like the rules made sense, like when you heard them, you felt that is the way they should be, and were always meant to be.  The game felt coherent and easy to wrap your head around, but still challenging and engaging.

McMulti - I finally had the chance to try this impossible to find grail game.  Interestingly I tried it on the infamous version (for listeners of GeekSpeak) where Derk backbended Aldie’s brand new board and broke it in half (and you’ll be relieved to know that the game still plays just fine despite having been hideously vandalized).  This was one of those game experiences where you win on your first play against an experienced opponent despite not knowing what you did right, and the fact of your winning makes you question whether the game is any good.  I jumped out to an early lead due to some lucky die rolls and a lucky card that was flipped up near the beginning, and I never looked back.  I’d like to try the game again, but the experience of running away with it on my first play against a far more experienced opponent sours the game a bit for me personally.  It was an interesting money management and speculation game though, so hopefully I’ll have the opportunity to give it another shot.

Mimic - The worst new game I’ve played this year, in large part because the rules are very ambiguous and confusing.  It’s a card game where you play your cards onto the table to form a large tableau over the course of the game, reminiscent of Penguin Ultimatum, but the game just didn’t work or come together whatsoever, at least with the rules as written and interpreted.

Pacru - Add this to the list with Santorini and Exxit of quirky and intriguing abstract games that I recommend to people out there looking to further explore the wacky and wonderful world of abstracts.  Pacru was a game that seemed to particularly reward the ability to plan far ahead and anticipate how the board would develop, which is an ability I am sorely lacking, but I enjoyed my play of Pacru nonetheless as I just play by my gut instincts and go with the flow.

Roll Through the Ages - This was not my cup of tea.  I know many people have been enjoying Roll Through the Ages as a fast dice filler, like Yahtzee but I suppose with a bit more going for it.  I found the game to overstay its welcome, even though it didn’t last very long, but still somehow managed to get boring and repetitive before it was over.  The disaster mechanism, a staple of all civilization-themed games it seems, seemed flawed to me, as it randomly and significantly hurt yourself sometimes and your opponents other times.  The components were large and chunky, but still disappointing because the dice were printed so faintly as to be very difficult to read.  All in all, one of the biggest misses for me of the year.  If I’m in the mood for a fast dice filler then I’d much rather play Sid Sackson’s excellent Can’t Stop.

MARCH

Age of Steam: Berlin Wall - I’m a huge fan of Age of Steam and a sucker for new maps, so no surprise that I enjoyed the Berlin Wall map, although not as much as it’s companion the Washington, DC map mentioned below.  It was a particularly fun day because I had the opportunity to play two games of AoS back to back, first Berlin Wall then Washington, DC.  These don’t enter my top tier of AoS maps, such as Scandinavia, Ireland, Soul Train, and Japan, but they’re in a close second tier for sure, ahead of most of the AoS maps that I’ve tried, which is somewhere around 15-20.  The split of the game into two halves, before the wall collapses and after, is an interesting twist, and forces some tricky planning, vaguely reminiscent of the two halves and planning in Soul Train.

Age of Steam: Washington DC - I enjoyed the Washington, DC map even more than the Berlin Wall map.  I really liked the difficult decision between using the Beltway teleporters at the beginning for easier longer deliveries as opposed to going through the expensive central terrain, but the way the Beltway became more inaccessible over the course of the game was clever, along with the role for bypassing the blockades.  There was a nice risk-reward system here.  The only issue was that in our four-player game, only one person went with a Beltway-heavy strategy, which left them unimpeded, and I wonder whether this map might be better with 3 or 5 players.  This reminds me of when I tried Japan with 4, which meant 2 people had to fight over an island, while the other 2 people had their own area, and since then I’ve preferred Japan with 3 players.

Augsburg 1520 - I had originally overlooked this Alea release back when it came out because it looked like another unremarkable auction game, of which I already have too many.  But I later became eager to give it a try because I noticed that it was #1 on my BoardGameGeek personalized recommendations page based on my over 600 game ratings.  I figured the algorithm must have some good reasoning behind its recommendation so I sought out an opportunity to play it.  Thankfully I played it before I bought it because I was right, it is just another unremarkable auction game.  I really enjoy many pure auction games such as Ra, and many games with auctions in them such as Goa, Princes of Florence, Age of Steam, and Amun-Re, but its not a mechanic that particularly excites me so I’m not out there looking for more auction games to add to my collection unless they really strike me as original and fresh, and this one did not.  It’s certainly not that Augsburg was bad by any means, but it doesn’t offer anything new that makes it compelling enough to purchase for me.  Now that I’ve rated Augsburg (a 6 incidentally), BGG has removed it from my personalized recommendations, and the new #1 recommendation is Flaschenteufel.  I wonder if I should trust the algorithm and seek out a chance to play this one.

Combat Commander: Europe - I’ve been toying with the idea of wargames lately and was happy to have the opportunity to give Combat Commander a shot.  I’d only played a few before, and generally the simpler and perhaps somewhat atypical ones, such as Hammer of the Scots, Twilight Struggle, and Bonaparte at Marengo.  I’ve found that I don’t really love wargames.  I don’t think they’re exactly for me.  I like simplicity in my games and streamlined rules without many exceptions or caveats, which doesn’t seem to gel with the wargame mentality.  I also found this out when I started a thread on BGG seeking wargame recommendations and people asked what time period I was interested in, and I said I didn’t care at all.  Apparently people playing wargames are often interested in the background and time period, which I am not.  That all being said, I do enjoy the wargames that I own mentioned above (i.e., HotS, TS, BaM), and was happy to have the chance to play Combat Commander.  I liked how the cards were so versatile, including being used for die rolls, which I thought was clever.  I did feel it was odd in my one game how we had this big huge map with a bunch of units, but the fighting got bogged down in one contested area, then again maybe it was just a quirk of that match or maybe it really was a key, decisive area.

Dog - This is very similar to Sorry, except it is played with 4 players divided into 2 two-person teams, and it is played with a hand of cards to choose from and you pass a card to your teammate.  Otherwise it’s pretty much the same game as you try to get your piece out of the starting area, around the board, and safe at home, including bumping opponents back to their starting area along the way, and avoiding getting bumped yourself.  It’s certainly better than Sorry as there are some decisions to be made along the way, and of course everything is better with teams, but there’s not quite enough there to get this one particularly high up my interest list, especially given the stiff competition for table time.

Sleuth - I already mentioned above that I didn’t like Black Vienna, so it should come as no surprise that I didn’t care for Sleuth.  I determined long ago that racing games aren’t for me, and now I’ve determined pretty definitively that deduction games aren’t for me.  Fortunately there are more than enough games for me, and I have the hundreds of games to prove it, so never fear I should still find something to play despite ruling out a genre or two.  As with other deduction games, there was no there there for Sleuth.  It all seemed rote and mechanical.  I didn’t see any game in the game, let alone fun.  Maybe this type of game is too much like the logic games on the LSAT for me to be able to enjoy it.

Roma - Wow, this is excellent!  I was really impressed by Roma, so much so that I played it 3 times in a row that first night.  I’ve since played it 11 times and am still enjoying it.  I’m always on the lookout for short two-player games and this fits that niche perfectly.  I enjoy short two-player card games like Odin’s Ravens, Lost Cities, and Balloon Cup, but I find they sometimes don’t have quite enough meat on their bones to feel like I’ve really played a game.  So I’ve been resorting to short board games like Aton, Fjords, StreetSoccer, Cities, Hey That’s My Fish, LOTR Confrontation, and Ubongo: Das Duell.  Finally I’ve started to find card games that work great with just two players, are quick, and have enough interesting decision-making to be satisfying, and they are Scipts & Scribes and Roma.  I know I’m a few years late to the party on Roma, but better late than never.  This gets added to my list of good Feld games, including Notre Dame.  I really like how each turn in Roma can often be played a few different ways, especially since you can activate cards that weren’t in play at the beginning of the turn or hadn’t even been drawn yet.  So you can trigger one card or another card, or push your luck by drawing cards to try to find something even better perhaps, and take some money to play a new card, and trigger the new card by placing it in the perfect spot.  I like the feeling of pulling off a neat move in Roma.  My only issue is with the end game, which can seem to distort player choices as the victory point supply dwindles and you end up sometimes having to take actions that wouldn’t normally make any sense.  I can’t help but think that different ending conditions such as a set number of turns, a target number of points, or even a set amount of time (like Duel of Ages) might make the game even better, but I should play more before I suggest any rules changes.

Rumis - It makes perfect sense that this was recently re-branded as Blokus 3D since it is so clearly like a three-dimensional version of Blokus.  Blokus is one of those games that gets better with more plays, so I assume Rumis would also improve with more plays.  The first play was really just exploring the system and the pieces, feeling my way through without any semblance of a plan.  Puzzle-type games like this seem to particularly reward repeated plays.

Witchcraft - This was an interesting two-player spatial duel of characters with various special powers.  It was odd because your options became more constrained over the course of the game.  There were a lot of possible choices at the beginning, but the choices became more and more limited as you went (sort of the complete opposite of games like Le Havre or Caylus for instance, where the world of possibilities drastically expands throughout the game).  While it was interesting, there’s a lot of competition in the two-player, thirty-minute genre, as that’s a crowded field, so I don’t expect this to see an abundance of table time.

APRIL

Agricola X-Deck - I was very disappointed with the X-Deck.  I’m not in love with Agricola, but I do enjoy the occasional three-player game with the drafting variant (and ideally with the Through the Seasons postcard).  The cards in the X-Deck were amusing to read and clever, so I was looking forward to trying it, but in practice it doesn’t really work with the game.  Wacky and random events that affect the players differently make sense in some games, but not in a slow, plodding, decision-heavy game where the scores are precisely calculated and the options carefully considered.  The X-Deck just doesn’t fit the underlying game.  For instance, in one of the games where I tried the X-Deck, the “Mind the Jets” card came up, which destroys all wooden huts and upgrades all clay huts to stone huts.  One player had a clay hut, which was upgraded, and the other players had large wooden huts that were destroyed and had to be rebuilt before the family could reproduce.  It made the game completely lop-sided and seemed completely incongruous with the normal tenor of a 90-120 minute Agricola game.  Not all of the cards are so drastic, and I understand the expansion is meant in good fun, and many of the cards are very amusing, but actually using the expansion to play a full game makes no sense to me.

Arkham Horror - Fantasy Flight games seem to divide themselves over the years very distinctly into those that I really like and those that I really don’t like; unfortunately Arkham Horror fell into the latter category after my first play, but I’m still willing to give it another shot to confirm, just as I gave Twilight Imperium two tries before deciding that it really wasn’t for me.  It’s interesting because I really enjoy Descent: Journeys in the Dark, War of the Ring, Battlestar Galactica, and A Game of Thrones, but really can’t stand TI3, Cosmic Encounter, and now Arkham Horror.  I suppose this means I really need to try some of their other games that I’m skeptical about, but which could I suppose end up being favorites, such as StarCraft.  I think the biggest hurdle to Arkham Horror for me is that I know absolutely nothing about the underlying subject matter and have absolutely no interest in that subject matter.  Theme is not usually a major consideration for me, but when it comes to these sorts of epic games, I guess it’s a different story, which explains why I like Battlestar Galactica, and Dune and War of the Ring for that matter.  This is really cemented by my explanation here of my initial dislike of BSG before watching the television show, which seems to be a common experience.  I think when it comes down to it, I’m happy to disregard the theme of a one hour game, but less inclined to do so for a three or four hour game.  This seems like a good theory until you try to explain my love of Die Macher, which is simply inexplicable, but so very fantastic; who knew German elections could be so much fun.

Botts & Balls -A disappointing game primarily by virtue of its grail status.  The game itself was a fine multi-player abstract robot soccer simulation, but given that it’s so incredibly rare and expensive, my expectations were inevitably built up beyond what was reasonable.  I’m certainly glad I got to try the game, but even more glad that I can cross it off my list and not try to track down a copy.  If only the same could have been said for games like Star Wars: Queen’s Gambit and Antiquity before I had to splurge for those!  I should warn you that Botts & Balls is an extremely spatial game where you need to try to see how the position on the board of many units will change as a result of various things happening, so if Chess or Project GIPF scare you then steer clear of this one.

Cavum -A solid Kramer & Kiesling design.  Better than Australia certainly, and perhaps on par with Maharaja and Tikal, but definitely doesn’t measure up to the K&K greats like Java and Torres.  Cavum is actually remarkably unlike any of those prior K&K offerings because it’s a route-building game, vaguely reminiscent of Age of Steam as you try to plan out routes to pick-up different color goods.  The twisty, turny routes were a bit frustrating (like in Metro) and the destructive dynamite was a bit frustrating as well, but the way in which actions were allocated and turns divided provided a nice amount of flexibility as to your approach.  Moreover, the scoring system seemed to reward various approaches, which is appreciated.  The Doyle artwork, including his signature attention to detail, makes for a visually appealing experience, and thankfully one that doesn’t prioritize form over function, as El Capitan has been accused of doing, perhaps rightfully so to some degree.

Diamonds Club - Frequently compared to Goa because of the way in which the available things to purchase are displayed and selected, but really nothing like Goa at its heart.  Diamonds Club appears after my one play to be a simpler and more straightforward design than Goa, with slightly less convoluted scoring.  This was one of those games that was very mediocre in my mind, which I don’t mean in a bad way because I’m on the fence about buying it, but it didn’t really stand out enough to purchase.  And the one thing that really stands out about it if anything is its theme, which I find fairly off-putting.

Fast Flowing Forest Fellers -Diamonds Club’s mediocrity beats out Fast Flowing Forest Fellers misery by a long shot.  Having disliked most Friese games that I’ve tried and having disliked most racing games that I’ve tried, I should’ve known going in that this one might not be for me, but I’m always happy to try any game once or twice, and I was hoping that this game might be fast and light enough to be enjoyable.  Unfortunately it’s light enough for sure, really too light in terms of rules, but not fast enough by a long shot.  It’s a ridiculous exercise of constantly taking two steps forward and one step back, or maybe three steps back, and thus painfully inching your way towards your goal.

Igloo Pop -After the rules to this game were explained to me, my first reaction was: “That’s it?  So who goes first?” That’s when I learned the most important rule of all: Everyone participates simultaneously!  That’s the key that makes this a fast, frenetic, and fun filler.  Just look at all those F’s used to describe a fabulous and fantastic non-Friese game.  For those not familiar with Igloo Pop, the basic premise is that players are confronted with a bunch of identical-looking plastic igloos, which you shake and then guess how many beads are inside (or fishsticks or Eskimo children depending who you ask; speaking of which, this game has possibly the best descriptive paragraph on the back of the box ever).  The game works because everyone is simultaneously grabbing and shaking these igloos so it’s a chaotic and loud scrum.  With the right group, this one is a perfect 15-minute blast.  Another winner from Zoch!

Geisterwäldchen (Ghost Grove) -An amusing children’s game with a clever gimmick of covering pieces to block the magnetic forces attracting them to each other.  Not on the same level of children’s games like Igloo Pop, Gulo Gulo, or Giro Galoppo, but a decent very fast race game in its own right.

Good Question -Seeing as this comes from the same designer as Mr. Jack among other things, I feel as if we must have gotten a rule or two wrong because this party game made no sense.  And given that party games are held to a very low standard in terms of making sense, this one was remarkable in its failure to even meet that low standard.  Basically it tries to use the same mechanic as Barbarossa, Cluzzle, and Dixit of trying to give vague clues to a group of people so that they eventually guess what you’re describing, but not too quickly or easily.  Your randomly given an answer and a theme, and must pose a question to the other plays, so that they guess your random secret answer, but ideally so that some people guess wrong before someone guesses right.  It’s intended to be a party game I suppose, but it’s simply not fun and not entertaining to watch people come up with random vague questions for random answers.  I enjoy many party games such as Taboo and Attribute, but this fails to grab players in the same way and make them engage with each other.

On the Underground -It’s the dreaded middle ground of a German-style game that is too complex to be a good family game, but too simplistic to be a good game for those who enjoy heavy games (i.e., gamer’s game, if the term wasn’t so loaded).  I felt Thurn & Taxis suffered the same problem (along with its other problems, including its utter lack of intentional player interaction, as opposed to random side effect player interaction).  The convoluted mechanics for moving passengers in On the Underground transform it from a fluffy game like Ticket to Ride into a game that really benefits from players’ familiarity and comfort with game mechanics and rules, which means it just won’t work for its likely intended audience.

Pitch Car Extension 2 & Long Straights -The more expansions for Pitch Car the merrier.  It’s a game that benefits from as many and as crazy expansions as you can muster.  After 4 plays, I’m still not convinced the game experience is worth the price or the setup time, but thankfully friends have invested the money and time, so I can just show up and enjoy the game without having to worry about justifying any investment besides the 30 enjoyable minutes it takes to play.

Ruse & Bruise -A decent little fast-paced card game that accommodates up to six players reasonably well.  The fact that you have an entire deck full of different cards with different abilities makes for a steeper learning curve than you’d normally want in such a light and quick game, but veteran gamers should be able to pick up the symbols and special abilities relatively quickly.  It’s ability to scale to accommodate various player counts and its speed are its assets, which may just overcome the shortcoming of its learning curve if you stick with it.

Sylla -It’s a Ystari auction game with an everything but the kitchen sink approach to the incorporation of mechanics, what more could you possibly need to know?  It fits the mold of all recent Ystari games, so if those are up your alley then Sylla will likely be too.  It seems like the kind of game that you’ll have a very good idea of whether you’ll like long before you sit down to play, if you have much prior Ystari experience.  As I’ve said before, Ystari releases since Caylus haven’t been my cup of tea, so just as with Amyitis, Bombay, Yspahan, and Mykerinos to some extent, Sylla didn’t grab me or hold my interest me.  I’m sure there must be a target audience out there for this type of game that Ystari keeps publishing, and I’m sure I must not be a member of that audience.

Wings of War: Famous Aces - Wow, this was surprisingly fun.  I’d heard of Wings of War before but never seriously looked into it and figured wrongly that a game about WWI airplane combat couldn’t possibly resonate with me.  It turns out that it’s remarkably accessible and enjoyable.  We played a six-player game divided into two teams of three people each, so we set out the 6 airplane cards on the table, and just started flying around the table trying to shoot each other down.  It’s a free-form version of RoboRally where you can fly anywhere and the secret and simultaneous movement selection makes for some unexpected results.  Fortunately the planes don’t collide since they’re presumed to have flown at different altitudes, but unfortunately your teammates can surprise you by flying between you and your target enemy.  It’s very light, but there’s enough there to keep it interesting for the quick time it takes to play, and the rules allow for customization depending on how many layers of complexity you’d like to include.  Fantastic game for large groups if you purchase enough expansions so that everyone can have a plane.

MAY

Airships - I certainly don’t mind dice in games (see, e.g., Die Macher, Age of Steam, Twilight Struggle, StreetSoccer, Byzantium), but dice games don’t seem to work for me, such as To Court the King and now Airships.  Dice as an element of a game among a larger whole make sense, but dice as the focus of the game is just not something I find interesting.  Since Manhattan and Puerto Rico, Seyfarth has really struck out with me, from San Juan, to Thurn & Taxis, and now to Airships.  It’s not the kind of game that I’ll refuse to play again because it’s quick and inoffensive.  In fact, I played it a second time two months later in July when someone suggested it, but it’s not something I’ll suggest or purchase because I’m generally looking for a more memorable game experience, something that you can think back on later and that has substance worth recalling.  Even short and light games, like Wings of War above, can have this, it’s not just the province of the long and heavy games, but sadly Airships lacked this quality, in the same way that To Court the King felt pointless.

Burg Ritter - Well this is a strange and silly children’s game if I ever saw one.  It’s difficult to describe how the game works, so probably best if you just go check out this photograph.  Now that you’ve seen how it works, you know that it’s a strange cooperative exercise of trying to quickly stack large wooden pieces without actually touching those pieces, except by means of a strange implement that requires all four players to cooperate in concert simultaneously.  It requires finely tuned motor skills, so I can’t imagine young children being able to manipulate the device.  It was hard enough for adults to do it, especially given the time pressure.  I know I had fun and was laughing during the game, so that’s just about all you can really ask for with this type of game.

Cannonball Colony - Phil Harding has really impressed me with his two self-published games - Archaeology and Cannonball Colony.  The rules to both games are fantastically well-written and easy to understand.  The components to both games are surprisingly good for a self-published game.  And both games work very well and are interesting.  That being said, neither is particularly a game geared towards me as a game player and my interests, but I’m nonetheless very impressed by both.  Archaeology is a card game analogous to Lost Cities in terms of weight and length, which is not really my cup of tea.  Cannonball Colony is a very abstract spatial positioning game, with a neat theme certainly, but still practically a Project GIPF game, which is also not really my cup of tea.  So I’m not the audience for either, but I know there is an audience out there for both games, and hopefully that audience will have the opportunity to connect with these high-quality limited release games.

Chopstick Dexterity MegaChallenge 3000 -As you can no doubt imagine from the title, this is a very silly dexterity game where two to three players face off by simultaneously trying to grab small wooden bits from a common bowl using chopsticks and try to transport them to your own private bowl.  A certain shape and color of pieces is randomly determined each round as the target, and then it’s a no holds barred chopsticks match, which can get pretty vicious.  It works surprisingly well as a game, as long as no one player is significantly more of a chopsticks expert than the other players, in which case you can definitely expect a route, since a catch-up mechanic this game certainly doesn’t have.

Clocktowers -I keep trying Moon & Weissblum games hoping in vain that they can capture the magic that made San Marco so amazing.  Whether it’s Mammoth Hunters, Capitol, New England, Oasis, or anything else the duo has done, they’re often good, but never great in the same way as San Marco.  They really did set the bar too high and it’s colored my ability to objectively judge anything else they’ve done.  Clocktowers suffers the same fate.  It’s a decent little card game that distills the mechanics of Capitol down to a 15 minute filler, so if that’s something that appeals to you then by all means go for it.

Dominion: Envoy & Black Market - After playing Dominion over 100 times in the first couple weeks after it was released, I quickly tired of the game.  It was addictive, but not something I really enjoyed.  I was hoping that expansions like Envoy & Black Market and especially Intrigue would inject new life into the game so that I could get another 100 plays out of it.  Unfortunately new cards for Dominion haven’t had the desired effect and I think it’s time for me to retire from playing the game.  Despite how short the game lasts, I find myself getting bored halfway through the game usually and wishing it was over sooner.  This seems remarkable since I’m happy to sit through a 4 hour game, but Dominion nonetheless seems to overstay its welcome for me and new cards don’t seem able to cure that.

End of the Triumvirate - An older game, if you can call 2005 old, that I’d been wanting to try for a while, but had never gotten around to playing.  For no apparent reason, I always mixed this up with Scepter of Zavandor, I suppose because they’re both Z-Man releases that came out around the same time.  They’re both games that I had some desire to try, but no strong desire to buy.  Of course in practice they’re actually completely and utterly different.  I enjoyed the military aspect of End of the Triumvirate, although three-player games with a military aspect trouble me given the fact that they’re not zero-sum like two-player games, and the best course of action for Player C when Player A is winning and attacks Player B may be to pile on and also attack B in order to catch up to A.  It seems to be an issue with the military aspects of many three-player games, such as Through the Ages, and is why I’m often a fan of two-player gaming even for games that can accommodate more players, but this one is obviously geared towards three-player gaming so I should give it another shot or two before really passing judgment.

Finito - I suppose I’m generally not inclined to like many filler games, and this was one that definitely didn’t click with me.  Placing numbers randomly and then sorting them into sequential order… yawn.

Fits - Then again, here’s a filler that I actually enjoyed, despite my general spatial impairment.  This is just a really clever Knizia design and it’s nice to see him doing an original game for once rather than repackaging an existing design.  Of course it shares the same pieces as Blokus, but is really a completely different game.  It’s an enjoyable solitaire puzzle that you can try to solve while sitting around the table with friends and then compare how you did at the end.  The different boards, including the Alspach expansion boards, certainly help keep it interesting.

A Game of Thrones LCG - I enjoyed trying this game and would be tempted to buy it if I didn’t know that I’d feel compelled to buy all of the expansions, which I really don’t want to do.  It’s also the type of game that would benefit from a regular opponent, which I don’t see myself having for this game.  I particularly enjoyed the game because I’m a fan of the novels on which it is based.  I actually can’t really see someone who is unfamiliar with the novels enjoying this game very much, unless they’re a die-hard CCG fan.  It was a well-designed and intricate CCG, not just a licensed product for the sake of a licensed product, but knowing the characters and events definitely contributed significantly to my enjoyment (then again maybe I’m just particular about that sort of thing since I couldn’t enjoy the Battlestar Galactica board game until I’d seen the show, having tried it both beforehand and afterwards).

Genji - A game about composing Japanese poetry sounded original enough that I just had to try it.  Unfortunately they seem to have forgotten to include the game in there with the theme because the mechanics make little sense, fail to present interesting decisions or engage the players, and left everyone going, “Wait, huh?  That was it?” It was amusing to read the poetry on the cards, but there are better places to go looking for poems if that’s what you’re after.

Lifeboat - This game was remarkably unpleasant.  It’s just a long drawn-out affair of nasty and brutal negotiations without any interesting gameplay underlying those negotiations.  As someone who really enjoys Diplomacy, the fact that the negotiations and alliances in this game bothered me is saying something.  It’s because there’s no game there on which the discussion is based, unlike the tactical maneuvering in Diplomacy.  It’s also ironic given my enjoyment of Diplomacy, but Lifeboat took far, far too long to play for what it offered.  The randomness of the card draw and the capriciousness of the players got old long before the game ended.

Race for the Galaxy: The Gathering Storm - I gather I’m one of the few who really doesn’t like Race for the Galaxy.  The mechanic of having the cards in your hand double as currency is clever, but I dislike it nonetheless because it forces me to evaluate all of the cards I’ve just drawn, and then discard the vast majority of them in order to play one of them, so the cards themselves end up not mattering in most cases, which I find frustrating.  It forces all of this analysis and decision-making which ends up being wasted and irrelevant more often than not.  I think I must also just not be a fan of hand management and card combination games generally.  And cards games that aren’t really much quicker than a comparable board game always leave me wishing I’d just played a board game instead.  I suppose I’m a bit prejudiced against card games.  This game and San Juan also feel boring as players simply go back and forth building things, racing to build whatever they happen to draw.  Luckily it seems as if everyone else should be able to find plenty of Race for the Galaxy opponents without needing me to play.  Seven plays of Race for the Galaxy has been more than enough for me.

Railroad Tycoon with Rails of Europe - I came to Railroad Tycoon after having played Age of Steam over 30 times.  I had some trepidation because of the warnings that other Age of Steam fans had given me about the significant inferiority of Railroad Tycoon.  As a result, I was pleasantly surprised by Railroad Tycoon.  I didn’t like it quite as much as Age of Steam, but when it comes to Age of Steam, Railroad Tycoon, and now Steam, they’re really all so much more similar than I think most people admit.  I have a feeling most people just prefer the game among this trio that they happened to play first since it’s most familiar, at least that’s the case with me.  I enjoy playing the other offshoots since they’re basically just like variants and I don’t see any reason to pick a single favorite that you need to stick with to the exclusion of the others.  The essence of all three is the same and I’ll happily play any of them just about any time.

Rukshuk - Dexterity games can be really enjoyable if they are challenging but don’t cross the line into frustratingly difficult.  Rukshuk crossed that line.  Stacking oddly shaped rocks turns out to not be fun, go figure.  I’ll stick to the tried and true dexterity games like Crokinole, WeyKick, Loopin’ Louie, Piratenbillard, Tumblin’ Dice, Zopp, etc.

Scripts & Scribes - Fantastic!  I’m really impressed by this card game.  I’ve played it four times now and am eager to get a copy when it’s finally reprinted.  I named it my favorite card game of 2008, but it’s more than that, it was a real contender for my favorite game period of 2008.  This game looks unassuming and ordinary.  It wasn’t on my radar whatsoever until a friend got a copy and suggested playing.  It’s now one of my favorite card games ever.  I’ve always liked, but not loved, card games like Lost Cities, Odin’s Ravens, and Balloon Cup. They’re a good idea, but not quite satisfying. The idea of a unique and novel card game with staying power to play in 20 minutes with your significant other has proven elusive. I’ve ended up turning to small board games in order to get enough decision-making to be satisfying in that time frame, such as Aton, Hey That’s My Fish, and Fjords, but Scripts & Scribes is a card game with decision-making and tension galore.  I won’t go into great detail, but essentially you’re trying to get the majority of cards in various colors, and each turn you draw three cards, allocating one to yourself, one to your opponent, and one to a common pool that will be auctioned off at the end of the game. You draw the three cards one at a time, making the decision of where to allocate before seeing the rest of the three, which makes it a tense and agonizing decision.  I highly recommend this card game for anyone who has enjoyed the Kosmos line, but hasn’t found them to pack quite enough of a punch.

Small World - Unlike most games which go down hill for me after a few plays, Small World has been growing on me with each successive play.  I started off not being particularly impressed, but then played it again and liked it a bit more, and then a little more after the third play, etc.  Now I’ve played it 5 times and just purchased a copy.  Strangely enough, it was the announcement of the fan-designed expansion contest that ultimately prompted me to buy the game.  I found that the fan-designed expansion contest worked very well for the Mr. Jack Extension, so was hopeful that it would be just as successful for Small World.  The greatest appeal of Small World comes with the many possible combinations of races and special powers, so the addition of even more races and special powers to increase the number of combinations significantly is a very welcome addition for me.  I’m particularly happy with the fact that Days of Wonder included four different boards to accommodate two, three, four, and five players.  Being someone who is picky about the number of players in a game, it’s very nice for a publisher to acknowledge that different player counts require different boards, rather than just turning a blind eye to that reality and slapping as broad a player range on the box as remotely feasible.  The heavily saturated colors of the board and units do make it somewhat difficult to step back and get an overview of the board position, but I enjoy the game as a light and fast romp, rather than a slow and tactical game, so this isn’t much of a problem with the right opponents.  Lastly, I’ll say that the decision of when to send your civilizations into decline is wonderfully tense.  I’m often so hesitant to pull the trigger on a decline or over eager to do so, and often regret my decision after the fact, but that just gives me more impetus to continue revisiting the game and tailoring my approach.

Tiki Topple -This was a random and senseless exercise.  I cannot fathom how games like this manage to win the Mensa Select award (except for the fact that their selection process is fairly ridiculous).  It’s a game where everyone is trying to rearrange nine colored blocks to match their secret and randomly drawn card.  Players take turns playing cards that allow them to modify the arrangement of the blocks in some way.  It takes too long, builds in artificial length by requiring multiple unrelated rounds (see, e.g., Rum & Pirates), and is boring within two minutes of starting.

WeyKick on Ice - This, on the other hand, is a blast.  I’m a huge fan of WeyKick, and while I don’t enjoy WeyKick on Ice quite as much, any form of WeyKick is far better than no WeyKick.  This game is somewhat like air hockey, in that two players face off in an attempt to knock a marble into their opponent’s goal by using a round paddle of sorts.  The trick in WeyKick is that you can’t directly touch the thing being used to knock the marble, but rather can only influence it by moving magnets around underneath the board.  It’s tricky to get the hang of at first and feels somewhat counter-intuitive, but is a joy to play.  WeyKick on Ice simply substitutes the little wooden men from WeyKick with little wooden men that have hockey sticks, making the game a bit more difficult.  I’ll stick with WeyKick personally, but highly recommend giving this game a try.

JUNE

Dominion: Intrigue - I think I said just about everything regarding Dominion and its expansions that I have to say above.  I tried Intrigue seven times to make sure it wasn’t going to breath the new life into Dominion that I had been hoping for.  Clearly Intrigue and Seaside have done just that for countless people, but the new cards are just variations on what we’ve already seen, albeit more complex and with more decisions to be made after having purchased them, but still more of the same as far as I can tell.  I’m happy with the almost 150 plays I got out of Dominion and think it’s time for me to hang up my hat and move on.

HeroScape Master Set: Rise of the Valkyrie (with many expansions) - I finally tried HeroScape for the first time this year as a few friends started getting very into the game and buying the game and many expansions.  So my first experience was not only with the base game, but with around 10 expansions thrown into the mix as well.  It’s handy to have friends that are so into the game because they can take care of the laborious setup before you even arrive, since preparing the map for battle sounds like it takes as long as the battle itself (which reminds me of a series of games about tanks, elephants, and goblins).  Unlike that series though, HeroScape was really fun.  Sure it primarily revolved around rolling gobs of dice and sure it was essentially playing with little plastic army men, which may explain the appeal in great part due to the nostalgia factor for a long-gone youth spent in large part making up rules for grand army men warfare.  But despite all that, or more likely because of all that, it’s simply fun.  I was actually struck by how much more complex the game is than I had anticipated.  The base rules themselves are quite simple, but when you throw all of the many units’ special powers into the mix, it becomes a lot to keep track of.  We played four-player games divided into two teams of two players each, which I think was a great way to structure the battle.  Being a long-time fan of team games, from Nexus Ops to Ingenious to Crokinole, I particularly enjoyed the team game elements of HeroScape when played this way.  I found the three-player free-for-all to suffer from the same issue as discussed above regarding End of the Triumvirate and Through the Ages.  HeroScape doesn’t seem like a game I’m going to start purchasing any time soon, given the space it takes to store and the setup time, but it’s one I’ll be happy to play, especially if we play a team game and someone else sets up the map.

TOP 5 FOR Q1 & Q2

Out of those roughly 70 new and new-to-me games that I tried in Q1 and Q2 of 2009, there are five that really stand out as games I purchased (or definitely plan to purchase when reprinted in the case of Scripts & Scribes) and want to play again and again in the years to come.  Those five are:

1. Vikings
2. Scripts & Scribes
3. Wings of War: Famous Aces
4. Roma
5. Igloo Pop

The reasoning behind those five should be apparent above.  Just missing the cut were Lines of Action, Small World, and Age of Steam: Washington DC & Berlin Wall.  What strikes me about these Top 5 is how light they are.  Given that my all-time Top 10 consists of games like Antiquity, Die Macher, and Java, it’s surprising to see such quick and simple games topping my list out of so many possibilities.  I think I’m finding more and more that there’s a place in my collection for games of all lengths to fit any amount of free time, whether that’s 15 minutes or 4 hours.  I’m happy I tried all of the games discussed above, even if there were a few rotten apples in the bunch, because it allowed me to discover a handful of great games that I would not have learned about otherwise.  Finding just one great game is worth trying ten so-so games as far as I’m concerned.  This is why I’m always open to trying any game at least once, and usually twice since that second play helps firm up my opinion much more reliably.

That’s just the first half of 2009.  Check back at the end of Q4 when I’ll discuss the new games and new-to-me games tried during the second half of the year, including Age of Steam: China, Automobile, Clippers, Das Motorsportspiel, Descent: The Road to Legend (and Tomb of Ice and Altar of Despair), Elfengold, Mu & Lots More, War of the Ring: Battles of the Third Age, Winner’s Circle, Atlantic Star, Bombay, HeroScape Marvel, Straw, Container, Dixit, Endeavor, En Garde, Ghost Stories: Chuck No-Rice, Last Train to Wensleydale, Maori, Pack & Stack, Pandemic: On the Brink, Peloponnes, Poison, Ra: The Dice Game, Ricochet Robots, Steam, Treehouse, Alice in Wonderland Parade, BasketBoss, Dungeon Lords, Ghost Stories: White Moon (including Village People & B-Rice Lee), Imperial 2030, Mr. Jack in New York, Tobago, Turandot, and many more to come I’m sure once BGG.CON is over, including hopefully Shipyard, At the Gates of Loyang, Greed Incorporated, Colonia, Stronghold, Vasco de Gama, The BoardGameGeek Game, Opera, Carson City, Middle-Earth Quest, Bunny Bunny Moose Moose, Day & Night, God’s Playground, and Alcazar.  Looks like there’s still plenty more out there to try and wade through so I’ll keep at it and report back on my findings.

• Due to the unexpected closure of a production facility, among other things, Bucephalus Games has pushed back the release date of several titles and removed a baker’s half-dozen more from its schedule. Save Santa will now be targeted for a Q4 2010 release date instead of appearing in 2009. Hope Santa can hold out until then.

• Bucephalus has licensed Reiner Knizia’s Merchants (aka Handelsfürsten) to Catalyst Game Labs, but that company hasn’t announced a release date for the title. Catalyst has said, however, that it will release Ergo and Poo: The Card Game by the end of December 2009. In Ergo you use the rules of logic to prove that you exist while trying to deny the existence of other players. (Wouldn’t Solipsism have been a better title?) In Poo, you’re a monkey flinging poo. Been there, done that.

• As noted in a recent news item, Wiz-War is back on the production schedule for a 2011 release, but the publisher has asked Jolly not to reveal its identity, so you’re left to speculate which company might want exclusive computer rights while also needing two years to bring the game to market.

  

• Steve Jackson Games will add a zombie game to its line-up in 2010, Zombie Dice. Here’s a brief description from the publisher: ”Zombie Dice is fast and easy for any zombie fan to learn, even non-gamers. The 13 custom dice are your victims. Push your luck to eat their brains, but stop rolling before the shotgun blasts end your turn!” Zombie Dice, for 3-8 players with a playing time of 10-20 minutes and a price of $13.13, is scheduled for March 2010, with Cthulhu Dice being released at the same time. In that title, which features a dozen tentacle-laden dice and a $5 pricetag, players try to swipe sanity from everyone else.

• FRED Distribution is distributing a handful of Spiel 09 releases in North America, with Tuonela’s Modern Society available now. Titles due to be available in December 2009 are Carson City (QWG), Day & Night (Mystics.nl), Luna Llena (Gen X Games), Opera (The Game Master) and Power $truggle (eggertspiele). (Note that Modern Society and Carson City are actually co-productions with FRED Distribution, as noted by the Gryphon/Eagle logo on the boxes.)

Apparently it took a long time to find a pen as Jolly didn’t sign the contract until mid-2009, and the clock for Wiz-War‘s release didn’t start until the ink dried. Here’s his update on the situation from WizWar.com:

Well, the contract with The Company Who Shall Not Be Named is all signed as of a few months ago (I’m slow in the “delivering news” department). So now it’s just “wait for publication” in 2011. As for expansions, I have no idea how much of anything they’re going to incorporate from the basic game and the 3 expansion sets (one never published). They’ve got an awful lot of material to choose from, but publication is far enough off that they haven’t started pinging me yet for comments and suggestions.

I expect they will either 1. Make the expansions or 2. Make it CCG based. They haven’t suggested #2 to me, it just seems like a natural possibility.

Our sense of fiero or accomplishment at winning a game depends on the feeling that we have, in some sense, mastered it, and either that we out-played our opponents, or at least, in a soloplay game, overcame the challenges it posed by dint of hard work and skill. If, instead, we feel that we just got lucky—or, worse, that someone else won even though we were obviously the smarter player, because they just got lucky—we’re likely to think less of the game.

But clearly many, many games have some random elements, and some are highly luck-dependent, and yet people continue to play them. What really is the role of randomness in games, and how can designers work to harness it to beneficial effect?

Follow to link to read his presentation. The summarized version: It depends.

As far as I can see this has always been the reason why games such as Talisman attract such a sizable amount of hate. I’m not a massive fan of the game. It irks me that however good a story the game can weave together I have pretty minimal control over what’s happening to my on-board proxy. I don’t hate the game myself - I’ll play it for the fun narrative - but I can understand exactly where the haters are coming from. Stick in some meaningful choice into the game - as designers have done in titles like Return of the Heroes and Prophecy and you’ll get a better game, right? Well, funnily enough I’ve played a number of those ”Talisman but with added meaningful choice” games and for the most part they’re fun but no, they’re not particularly better than the venerable old classic which clearly inspired them. There are lots of reasons why you might prefer one game over another - theme, length, mechanics - but in this case these are all pretty comparable to Talisman and I do like the idea of a fantasy adventure game. So why didn’t the addition of meaningful choice make it better?

On the flipside we have almost entirely non-random games like Dune in which virtually every decision smacks of meaningful choice. When I first read about Dune it seemed I had found gaming nirvana: here was a title that allowed me to do all my favourite things like plot, backstab and sweep across the board with huge armies of ululating warriors and yet had done away with such frivolities as dice and packed the often unreliable “dudes on a map” genre with a gargantuan helping of meaningful choice. It took me a long time between reading about the game and getting to play it, and when I finally did so I got a nasty shock. It’s a very good game indeed, but I found the sheer amount of hidden information in the game frustrating. There was no randomness in the mechanics but the paranoia-inducing manner in which the game feeds different tidbits of information about the game-state to individual players but allows no-one to know the whole story meant that none of the decisions I was making weren’t as meaningful as I’d hoped. I was guessing, operating in the dark. Here was a game in which the supposed panacea of adding more meaningful choice hadn’t actually managed to automatically elevate the game above its peers at the top of the diplomatic wargame genre.

These sorts of ideas had been slouching around in my head as they tend to do until one weekend when I played some games against my daughter. First of all we played a game called Crazy Chefs which is about her favourite game in the world. It’s a simple memory/set collection affair where you lay a bunch of ingredient tiles face down, mix them up and then select them one by one trying to collect the ingredients you need to make a dish. She loves the surprise of turning the tiles over. Then we played The Very Hungry Caterpillar Game which is one of the most lamentable games it has ever been my misfortune to encounter. You spin a spinner and move and that’s pretty much it only it managed to be worse than all the other childrens’ roll-and-move games you know because the presentation is shoddy, the rules unclear and there’s a nasty gotcha space at the end which will either traumatize your child or make the game pointless depending on how you interpret the rules. She played half a game of that and then got up and did something else instead. Even she thought it was boring.

And that’s when it hit me. We both like Crazy Chefs and I had a fun time playing it against her even though its clearly aimed at people one-tenth of my age. We both thought The Very Hungry Caterpillar Game was dull even though it too is clearly marketed at young children. What’s the difference? Choice. Not choice which is meaningful in any way, shape or form but simply choice. In Crazy Chefs we get a choice: we get to choose which tile to flip and even though the game is entirely random and the choice meaningless the act of making it alone involves us both in the game. We’re there. We’re chefs trying desperately to be the first to gather the food together to feed our hungry customers. In the other game, the name of which I can no longer be bothered even to cut and paste, there is no choice and we are merely observers of the course the arbitrary nature of the game forces us to take. This is boring, even for a three year old.

So the answer to the conundrum over meaningful choice is that it’s overrated. Choice alone is enough, just, to make a satisfying game so long as it’s combined with other ingredients such as variety, or a good story, or the simple pleasure of enjoying a game with your offspring. When viewed in this way a lot of seemingly mysterious opinions about games become clear. Why is it, for example, that gamers are generally very tolerant indeed of high randomness and lack of “meaningful choice” when it comes to short games but still find something like LCR appallingly dull, even though it offers no more strategy and takes no longer to play than any number of quick push-your-luck type games? Because it offers no choice and thus excludes you from the game. Why is it that out of two games which are effectively about telling stories, Tales of the Arabian Nights is adored and The Ungame is reviled? Because the former offers choice and the latter offers none. None of it is that simple of course - in the latter coupling we’re putting up a richly-themed game against a feeble attempt at cashing in on parents worrying about sibling rivalry but nevertheless I don’t doubt that the choice factor partly explains the vast gulf in opinions about these games. And of course it explains why people continue to play and love Talisman over any number of supposedly more modern clones that offer players more strategy: because the act of choice itself is all that really matters.

The reason for this is because “meaningful” can actually apply to a number of different aspects of game play. When the phrase is trotted out it is universally taken as meaning strategic choice, but an in-game choice can be meaningful in other ways. Let’s go back to Talisman again for an example. Imagine that I’m trying to reach the City space but I’m on the other side of the board in a position where one direction is slightly, but not a lot, nearer to the City than the other. When I roll and make a choice about what direction I want to move in, I’ll take the one which is nearer the City every time. In reality of course, given the random nature of movement in Talisman and, perhaps more importantly, the need to roll an exact number to hit the space I need, the choice is strategically empty: the point at which I reach my goal will almost certainly be determined by the dice, not by the direction in which I choose to go. But as a player I feel like I’ve made an important choice because the game is telling a story, and in that story the protagonist wishes to go to the City and so I have made the only choice I can which fits the tale that is emerging from the game. There is another important aspect here which is that the choice also carries the illusion of meaning: the shorter route does in fact increase my chances of reaching the City faster but by such a tiny margin as to be effectively meaningless. But because the focus of the game is on the fun and the narrative rather than the strategy, that choice takes on a greater significance than it actually has. Don’t underestimate this effect: in many multi-player conflict games which are full of apparently strategic choice your actions can be completely torpedoed when another player makes an unexpected decision and this can happen multiple times in a game such as the example I offered earlier of Dune. 

Lest anyone be mistaken, let’s be clear: I’m not suggesting that strategic choice is a bad thing. Merely that it’s overrated and that if other aspects of a game design are good enough a simple act of choice is really quite enough to make a game very good indeed. It seems to me that the constant use of “meaningful choice” has become a tyranny, an unconscious, widely-accepted and rarely questioned driver toward creating ever more “strategic” games when the concept isn’t actually a pre-requisite for making a successful or entertaining game. It’s amazing how just having to make a choice is enough of a starting point to draw players into the game, make them feel like they’re involved in what’s going on rather than mere spectators. I’ve stopped being so bothered about “meaningful” choice and become, simply, pro-choice. Won’t you join me?

Shipyard Regret, regret, regret!  I assumed that since Jay already had this done and available at his booth at the convention that I’d be able to pick this up easily (or ask for it for Christmas from Amazon.com).  I’m hoping that there will still only be a slight delay before I get my hands on this one.  Are there a million bits?  Yes.  Can it be fiddly?  Yes.  Do the mechanisms sometimes feel a little forced?  Yes, there is no reason why walking in circles around a green circle gets you captains and shiphands and propellers, but walking in circles around a brown circle gets you sails, guns, cranes, and steam chimney thingys.  But it works.  It all works. 

I particularly like the mechanism used to determine which of a selection of actions you can choose in a turn.  You can’t choose the action you chose last turn—and in fact that tile moves out from under your pawn to the front of a line of tiles that work their way around a track.  You also can’t choose an action that another player’s pawn is standing on (though you can always spend $6 to take a 2nd action on your turn and there is no restriction on which action you take for the bonus one).  When you choose an action, you gain $1 for every pawn between you and the front of the line and an additional $1 for every 3 empty spaces on the track between that tile and the next one in line.  If you can’t visualize it, just know that you have to carefully time when you try to take different actions and you can be rewarded for choosing actions that are chosen less often. 

In other words, have a strategy, but be flexible.  Another way that the game rewards this mind set is by giving you 6 random goal cards for end game scoring bonuses.  You will only score 2 of them at the end of the game and about halfway through the game you need to discard 4 of them (locking in which 2 you will score).  In the first half of my game, I had my eye on which 2 I would go for and played my game accordingly, but if other players were inadvertently blocking my path, I had other options before I was committed to particular goals.  The game is meaty and thinky and good, good, good.

Atlantis This was another case of wait and buy it in the US, and I don’t regret my decision.  I think I will still pick it up, but this fell into the good but not so awesome that I can’t wait for it category.  I’ll start by saying that I love, love, love Cartagena.  Top 10 games of all time love.  Atlantis was definitely a twist on my old favorite (by the same author).  It felt like Cartagena on steroids, actually.  I think that I prefer the elegance of the original, but I’ll be happy to play Atlantis for a year or two before going back to my standby favorite.

Strada Romana I was on the fence about this one and nearly pulled the trigger several times at Essen.  As I started to run out of suitcase space, this one ended up not making the cut—and I’m glad.  Don’t get me wrong, it was fun to play.  I can honestly say that the entire crop from Essen has been surprisingly good this year with few, if any, real dogs.  But I really only need so many 6 – 7 (out of a 10 scale) rated games in my collection and this is one that I’m perfectly happy to play only when someone else’s copy makes it to the game table.

I’m headed to BGG.con on Wednesday!  I hope to replay many of the new games that I’ve been learning (for example, I’ve taught Colonia five times already and I’ll be looking to teach it some more at the convention) and try a few of the ones that neither Dale nor I felt were worth a buy.  Who knows, maybe I was as wrong about Dungeon Lords as I was about Gonzaga!

I’d rather be gaming,
Valerie Putman

Pop the Pig
I received a press release about this game from the new US distributor of Goliath Games, talking about how it is all the rage in the rest of the world, and is now being brought to the United States.  The game consists of four brightly colored sets of plastic hamburgers (each set numbered 1 to 4) and a large plastic pig dressed as a chef.  On your turn, roll the die to see which color burger to grab.  Take the appropriate burger and flip it over to look at the number underneath.  You then put the burger into the pig’s mouth and press down on it’s head that many times.  Pressing the pig head slowly inflates a balloon in the pig’s stomach which swells up and eventually pops open the pig’s belt.  Whoever pops the pig’s belt open loses.  The used hamburgers can be retrieved out the back of the pig, and the balloon is deflated with a switch in the back (the pig’s tail).  Buckle the belt and you’re good to play again.  I’ve played it about a half-dozen times in the past few weeks (more if you count just messing around with it), and while my oldest really gets into the game, I’ve found that he doesn’t press the pig’s head hard enough to inflate the pig’s belly.  (It can be “pressed” without engaging the inflator apparently…) The game is rated for ages 4+, and that would probably be a good ranking if you want to play the game “correctly”.  Since there isn’t much game there, I don’t expect it to be all that exciting for anyone much older than 4 (maybe 5).  It is unfortunate that pressing the pig head correctly needs such a firm touch, as it would be a great game for the 3 year old crowd (provided they aren’t going to choke on the pretty colored hamburgers.) Aside from the pumping mechanism, the quality of components are very high.  The plastic belt buckle feels a bit flimsy but seems to do the job, but the pig’s belly is made of a very nice rubber/plastic and I don’t have any fear of it breaking without first withstanding some serious abuse…

Litterbug - Travel Edition
Of the three games from Goliath I got to play, this one was the simplest but is also my favorite (and is also probably my son’s favorite.) It would fall into the extremely simple category of “game” where players perform actions but don’t ever get to make any decisions.  This game consists of a plastic trash can (just a bit bigger than a fist).  There are buttons all around the outside of the lid.  Take turns pressing the buttons and sooner or later (randomly determined), a fly will pop-up out of the lid like a jack-in-the-box.  Played as a game, players take turns pressing buttons and you are “out” if you make the fly appear.  Reset the game by pressing the fly back into its spring and continue until only one player is left.  Not really much of a game, but this is a great toy.  It is all one piece, so no little pieces to get lost and pressing the buttons are rather fun, the tension just increases until that fly finally pops up.  The game is rated 4+ I believe but any kid who can be trusted not to break off and eat the fly would have a great time with it.  I now use it as a car-ride toy to help alleviate 3 year-old boredom.  I even brought the game in to the local game club and made everyone use it to determine the first player for our games.  At a little more than $10, it would make a pretty good (if a tad bulky) stocking stuffer…

OK, now I’ve really lost the boardgame vision and will mention a couple things that aren’t even games by any stretch of the imagination.  However, they are both toys and for this age group (toddler+).  At that age, the line between a game and a toy is very small indeed.

As is all the rage nowadays, I thought I’d put in the disclaimer that most of the stuff I mentioned today was provided to me for a review.  If you’re all “kid gamed” out, next time will be a different focus.  In the meantime, I’ll be working on my annual boardgame holiday shopping guide (since 2002!).  I’ll be sure to pass along a link when it is finished.  For those in the US, have a happy Turkey Day and I’ll see you after the sales.