Parallelism, also known as parallel construction, is the practice of words, clauses and phrases agreeing with one another when they are used in series in a sentence, e.g. “I came, I saw, I conquered.” The verb in each clause is in the simple past, which allows a reader or listener to process the meaning of the sentence more easily than she would with something like “I came, I saw, I was conquering.” (Let’s ignore for the moment that the two sentences don’t mean the same thing – I’m considering structure for now.)

We tend to overlook non-parallelism in casual speech – “I’m going shopping, taking in a movie, and will see you tonight” – but such mismatches strike the ear abruptly when encountered in more formal situations. Take this example from Macao‘s back cover: “Who will have the best plan and can acquire the most prestige by the end of the game?” While not incorrect, the “will have” and “can acquire” are jarring. Far better would be this sentence: “Who will have the best plan and acquire the most prestige by the end of the game?”

• Take 1 black AC.
• Return 1 blue AC to take 1 GC.
• Pay 1 GC to move your ship up to 4 spaces.

• You take 2 GC.
• You take 1 GC for each ware tile you deliver.
• You need not return the AC to activate one card, but you must have the necessary AC in your action cube supply.
• For each 3 of any AC you return to the general supply, take 1 GC.

In some cases, non-parallelism is not jarring or confusing. “Take 1 black AC” and “You take 2 GC” will be clear to anyone who speaks Eurogame – but why are they different? “Take 1 black AC” and “Take 2 GC” would be even better. The advantage of parallel construction is that once readers start to read and interpret text, they can use the same “mental framework” for everything else that fits the same pattern. Adopting the imperative for every building and office card would fit the way that the cards are meant to be used during the game: I use the card and am then directed to do something, whether that something is taking action cubes, scoring points, earning extra money, or moving my ship more spaces. (Note the parallel construction – taking, scoring, earning, moving.) With a parallel construction, you don’t have to pause to reinterpret a sentence that doesn’t fit the expectations already presented to you by other materials within the game.

In some cases adopting the imperative would require slight changes in the card text. The second card, for example, might read, “Take 1 GC for each ware tile you delivered this turn.” The third card is trickier, but could read, “Take back the AC for one card that you activated this turn.” Or perhaps “Activate one card for which you have the necessary AC in your action cube supply, but keep the AC instead of discarding them.”

The main problem with the non-parallelism in Macao is that players can misinterpret how cards are meant to be used, despite the note on the back page of the rulebook “that the rules are intended to be read and followed with reason and normalcy.” Take the last non-imperative card described above, the Prospector: “For each 3 of any AC you return to the general supply, take 1 GC.” The format of this card matches that of the second one – “You take 1 GC for each ware tile you deliver.” As written, this latter card sets up a condition that can be fulfilled multiple times for the remainder of the round – deliver a ware, take 1 GC. The former card has a similar structure – return 3 AC to the general supply, take 1 GC – but the two are not meant to be equivalent.

We realized our error only two-thirds of the way through the game when the Noble came up. (The Noble’s power: “For each 2 GC you give to the bank, take any 1 AC.") “A-ha!” we said at the same time. “The Noble clearly isn’t meant to give you AC when you pay GC for prestige as that would be far too powerful, so the Prospector must work the same way – which means Joey has been inadvertently cheating since turn three. Asterisk game!” (For the record, I caught up to Joey despite his cheaty, invalid lead and won by a few points. No asterisk needed!)

How should the Prospector be written? “Return any number of AC to the general supply. For each 3 AC that you return, take 1 GC.” This direction matches our expectations: Choose this card, then do this. You have one chance to take the action, with nothing spilling over into the remainder of your turn.

Rules writing is difficult – I know as I’ve edited rules for a number of companies – but the goal of rules writing isn’t: You want the rules to be invisible to players. The players should not have to interpret what a rule means or decide which interpretation is correct. Yes, this goal is tough to achieve, but by doing the hard work up front, you can make everything easier for those who want to play your game.

“GameTable isn’t a typical video game,” explains Jeff Juliard, Label Interactive founder and president. “There is no ‘logic’ built in. GameTable simply provides gorgeous, photo-realistic tables, boards and game pieces along with an extremely intuitive and fun way for users to interact with them. It basically saves you from having to find a deck of cards or dig out your old board games – you can play your favorite classic games anywhere and anytime you want.”

Logic, after all, takes time and costs money. Imitation wood look and public domain game designs, on the other hand, are muy barato…

Quetzalcóatl: A game with the fascinating history of the Aztecs, the legend of Quetzalcóatl and of course Cacao: the fruit of the gods! Your goal: Make the greatest offerings to the gods – harvest the best Cacao, build onto the pyramids and earn points at six locations on the map. The player who brings the most valuable offerings to Quetzalcóatl (=Chocolatl) ends the game and is the winner!

Chocolatl will be released in Q2 2010 as both a standalone game and as the sixth title in Quined’s Master Print Series, the cover of which is shown above. The Master Print Series edition of 500 copies will be released by Quined in Benelux with rules in English, Dutch, French and German; this edition will also be available for order directly from Quined. German publisher HUCH! & friends is releasing the other edition of the game outside of Benelux, with rules in the same four languages. Pics of the game can be seen on the Chocolatl page of the Quined website. (3-5 players, ages 8+, 45 minutes, €30)

• Truffle Scuffle, by Micah Fuller – Two players each have a team of four hogs that they send scooting around the game board to collect truffles, but each player has only one hog to start with. On a turn, you move each of your hogs on the board to an adjacent tile and claim one truffle on each space, if any. Before moving, you can discard four truffles of the same color to add another of your hogs to the board. Collect a majority of three of the five types of truffles – or all nine truffles of a single color – and you win. (2 players, 20 minutes, €22)

• Shave a Sheep – This awesomely-titled game lets players do exactly what the title says, but you’re relying on the roll of the die to let you shear without fear as a wolf awaits for a taste of lamb chops. (2-4 players, ages 5+, 10-15 minutes, €10)

• Hogwart’s Challenge – Also scheduled for August 2010 and retailing for €25 is this Harry Potter tie-in.

• Two other titles not yet revealed.

In other LEGO news, the company increased sales in Germany by 14% in 2009 to 210 million Euros and is developing a massively multiplayer online game in which participants can (duh!) build things. Another article claims that in its introductory year LEGO claimed a 10% market share with its game line, placing it third among the German game industry.

Given this unfortunate state of affairs it’s hardly surprising that the board gaming community should react adversely to the labels slapped upon them. The trouble is that that reaction takes two particularly pernicious forms which are not merely unlikely to advance the situation in any way but are ultimately very destructive to the hobby itself. Indeed they could be seen as so ill-advised as to perhaps warrant the “immaturity” label after all.

The first is that it seems to bring out in some gamers a particularly zealous form of neo-religious conversion fervour which compels them to go out into the world and preach the gospel of board gaming to all who will listen and most who won’t. We’ve all come across gamers like this - the sort of people who will turn up at game club and anxiously state that they’ve been invited to a dinner party with their boss and his family and want to know what gateway games they should take and then, in spite of being told that the obvious answer is “none”, spend the remainder of the week loosing sleep over how they’re going to whittle down their short-list to just a car boot full of games. Indeed I suspect we all have a microcosm of this in us because we’d all like to find it a bit easier to find people to play against. But the social death which an admission of board gaming as a hobby usually seems to bring just flames this tendency to truly messianic levels in some people.

In spite of the fact that I can relate to the kernel of this particular behaviour I totally fail to understand the sorts of people who just keep pushing it. Some people, most people, don’t like and/or aren’t interested in games and that’s fine by me. If, in any given social situation, I get given the green light to wax lyrical about my hobby because the conversation happens to turn that way then great but I’m not going to be the first one to mention it. Why should anyone else take so much time and effort to go out of their way to convince them otherwise? But the religious metaphor that I’m using is actually pretty apt because the board game evangelicals seems unable to accept that what brings them joy won’t necessarily bring joy to others. And this in itself would not be a huge problem was it not for the fact that the behaviour is ultimately counter-productive and usually does nothing but entrench the opinion in targets of the sermon that board gamers are dangerous - and immature - lunatics who should be shunned at all costs, together with the games they’re trying to peddle.

I suspect that for most of you out there I’m not telling you anything you don’t already know. The other problem is something rather more subtle to get to grips with and was, in fact, my original inspiration in writing this article although the introduction seems to have run away with itself somewhat. The issue is that a lot of gamers seem to react to societies charge of “immaturity” by holding up the allegedly intellectual properties of board games like a shield against their scorn, and in doing so not only make themselves look pompous and inflated but within the hobby itself achieve nothing more than cause splits and divisions. Rather more so, I might add, than the sorts of divisions that I and some of my contemporaries have been accused of creating.

The argument is so well rehearsed that it seems almost pointless to re-hash it and it goes something like this: people in the wider world tend to regard people who focus exclusively on “lifestyle” abstracts like Chess and Go as being eccentric but extremely intelligent. Many of “these games of ours” are either just as demanding as said abstracts or, at the very least, are nearly so. Therefore if we focus on the intellectual properties of our favourite games to the exclusion of all else, we’ll feel better about ourselves and maybe, just maybe, people in society at large will start treating us with the same level of respect that the players of said abstracts get. Right?

Wrong.

Before we even come on to the problems this can cause within the hobby itself, it’s worth taking time to recognise that this line of thinking is deluded. For starters it’s never going to work on wider society because most of them don’t even know that hobby board games exist, let alone care, let alone be bothered in taking the time to recognise that it is, in fact, a pretty challenging pursuit. The credibility gap is just too wide to try and bridge with that is effectively only a fraction of an actual bridge: people would have to be more aware of hobby games before they started taking arguments about intellectual exercise at all seriously. The other reason that it’s deluded is because it’s based partly on a false premise: abstracts make good candidates for the intellectual excuse because they look classical rather than geeky. And yet I’ll bet that every single gamer who’s trotted out the “intellectual” argument owns and enjoys at least one fantasy or science fiction game. Which isn’t to say that games with fantasy or science fiction games can’t be intellectual but as soon as a hobbit pops up, no-one outside the inner circles of geekdom is going to accept that these games have a shred of credibility about them.

It also needs to be recognised that it’s deeply hypocritical. One way in which the typical condescending manner of the average non-gamer responding to a revelation of gaming could be described is as a form of snobbery. And of course trying to claim in the face of this attitude that what you’re doing is actually deeply important and rewarding because only those with the intellectual capacity of Bobby Fischer can possibly enjoy it is just fighting fire with fire. Because it is in itself a form of snobbery, just like every other form of snobbery it tends to engender poor reactions in people who encounter it and don’t agree. And the important point here is not just that the people who “don’t agree” will include virtually every non-gamer on the planet (thereby rendering this approach to the problem as self-defeating as the evangelical one), but that it also includes a significant amount of gamers. For those of us, like me, who don’t agree, this attitude is enormously problematic and irritating. Effectively I’m being told that just because most of my favourite games aren’t mathematically rigorous, I’m a second-class citizen in the gaming world. Can you possibly imagine an attitude that’s more potentially divisive than that?

The problem is exacerbated because the guilty parties here are often totally unaware that what they’re doing has the potential to make people damn angry. This isn’t the social blindness exhibited by the evangelicals but a much simpler inability to re-read what they’ve written and see that if you’re on the other side of the fence it sounds tremendously patronising. I’m not going to go on at length about that because that particular inability to appreciate how other people might read your proclamations is something that I’m certainly as guilty of as the next man, even if I do strive not to be a gaming snob.

It’s also, of course, the root cause of fun-murdering, that contemptible attitude which forgets that “fun” is a subjective experience which differs between different people and insists that only games which are intellectually demanding can possibly be worthwhile. This wilfully ignores the fact that most people play games to relax and have a good time. And if you can recognise that recreation is the primary purpose of game playing to the majority of people the world over, you should also be able to see that this leads us directly back to where we came in: wanting to have fun all the time is immature and the perception of immaturity is embarrassing. This is, of course, a square circle: nearly everyone plays games or wants to have fun some of the time, so judging a game player simply because of the manner in which they choose to have fun is hypocritical. Surely this - or a variation on it that doesn’t use the word “hypocritical” - is actually the best way to bridge the credibility gap? Help other people to see that we’re just doing the same as everyone else but in a different way? And in doing so we can, hopefully, not only help improve the image of gaming as a hobby but put down gaming snobbery once and for all: a loop of positive feedback that can do nothing but good for gamers and non-gamers alike.

It sounds a bit unlikely doesn’t it?”

That’s how game designer Danc – yes, that’s the only name given – introduces Ribbon Hero, an application he helped design that can now be downloaded from Microsoft to turn Office into a game. Here’s how Ribbon Hero came about:

Ribbon Hero, in part, was born from a speech I gave back in October 2007 on applying the design lessons of Super Mario Bros. to application design. I made the following bet:

• If an activity can be learned…
• If the player’s performance can be measured…
• If the player can be rewarded or punished in a timely fashion…
• Then any activity that meets these criteria can be turned into a game.

Not only can you make a game out of the activity, but you can turn tasks traditionally seen as a rote or frustrating into compelling experiences that users find delightful.

Of course many game designers and publishers take this same approach for educational subjects like mathematics and spelling, and the games produced tend not to be enjoyable. What’s the secret of designing a successful and fun game that is also educational?

I’m still poring over all the suggestions and criticisms offered, with the three main requests from readers being (1) more reviews, (2) more pictures and (3) more columnists who cover what I, the respondent, likes which is not necessarily what anyone else likes. Admittedly this last request will be tougher to fulfill than the first two, but I’ll do what I can. I can’t specifically address each respondent’s concerns and requests, but looking over all the responses has given me a better idea of what to focus on in the months and years ahead. My goal is to roll out some of the changes by March 1, with others to follow. The first step, of course, is deciding exactly what those changes will be…

In a BoardGameGeek thread, Dominion designer Donald X. Vaccarino confirmed the info posted by Filosofia, noting that the smaller set came at the request of several non-U.S. publishers of the game. Says Vaccarino, “We are still doing 300-card sets as well. The expansion after Alchemy is the normal, larger size. If I had to guess I would say we’ll alternate sizes for a few years, but nothing is set in stone past the expansion after Alchemy. I think that expansion may be announced at Nuremberg, so we’ll leave that one alone for now.”

Speaking of which, French site TricTrac.net has posted an image of the fourth Dominion expansion, to be titled Prosperity and released at Spiel in October 2010. Note that the box cover on display at Nuremberg is likely a draft and not the final cover. [Disclosure: I was a playtester on Prosperity and can’t wait for this one to be released.]

While writing that post I wasn’t clear on which platforms the digital Bang! might appear, but thankfully Ryan Seney went searching for more details and ran across the Bang! section of Palzoun’s blog. In that section, reps from Palzoun answer questions from readers and note that the game will be available on the PC and for Linux, while also showing a mock-up of the game on the iPhone, as shown below.

The master of Ravenloft is having guests for dinner – and you are invited!

Evil lurks in the towers and dungeons of Castle Ravenloft, and only heroes of exceptional bravery can survive the horrors within. This boardgame features multiple scenarios, challenging quests, and cooperative game play.

Design credit for Castle Ravenloft goes to Mike Mearls – lead developer for Wizards’ Dungeon & Dragons: 4th Edition – and Bill Slavicsek, who has designed a handful of other games for WotC. The game will include forty plastic miniatures of heroes and monsters for use on the included dungeon tiles.

Castle Ravenloft is for 1-5 players with a retail price of $65 and a release date of August 17, 2010. This game has been added to Gone Cardboard.

In Queen’s Ransom, three suspects and three locations are presented to the players, with pairs of evidence cards (of value -3 to 3) placed face-down next to each suspect and location. Whichever suspect card has the highest sum of evidence cards next to it is the target the players must identify; the same goes for the location card.

Players start with a hand of money cards and special action cards, and on a turn, a player can (1) pay the jester’s current asking price to peek at one evidence card, (2) use a special action, such as the one shown below, or (3) pass. At the end of a turn, the player draws a card, and after each player has had a turn, the jester’s asking price for info changes. Any player can make an accusation at the end of her turn, checking the evidence cards secretly to verify whether she’s uncovered the queen or botched the investigation.

Designers: Carl de Visser & Jarratt Gray
Publisher: Z-Man Games / Lookout Games / Ystari Games

Players: 3-5
Ages: 12+
Playing Time: 90 minutes
Rules Language: English / German / French
Price: $50
Links:

I first played this Carl de Visser and Jarratt Gray design a few years ago at Spiel in Essen. The game had not yet been published, and I recall having a few issues with the game that prevented me from enjoying it. However, due to the passage of time, I cannot recall what those issues were. The passage of time since I played had a bright side – I forgot what I didn’t care for about the game and desired to play it again. Much to my pleasure, I enjoyed the published version considerably more and am happy to continue playing it.

While Endeavor has the theme of nations expanding their empires across the globe, in reality the game is quite abstract. The rules attempt to set the atmosphere by spinning tales of advancing one’s civilization in the areas of culture, finance, industry and politics, while controlling vital trade routes between worldwide cities. In reality, however, the flavor is mostly absent, as players are simply placing tokens and collecting cardboard chits, tracking their collection on their player boards. The buildings that players purchase simply enhance this collection process or allow a player to be more aggressive militarily. Sadly, while the game paints an intriguing thematic picture, in reality the theme is little more than a ghostly presence. That being said, the game itself is quite engaging and challenging. There are numerous options and decisions to be made each turn, and a wary eye must be kept on one’s opponents.

Players each receive a player board upon which they will track the progress they are making in the four advances. Each time a player collects a trade token, he advances the marker on the corresponding track. The further along a player advances, the more benefits he will receive. For example, increasing one’s industry allows the player to construct more valuable buildings, while advancing in politics allows the player to collect more asset cards. Player boards also provide space for these asset cards, as well as the buildings a player constructs.

The game is played over the course of seven turns, with four phases per turn. They are:

• Build Phase: Each player MUST construct a building from the available supply. Each building requires the player to have reached a specific industry level in order to be constructed. The more advanced buildings provide greater benefits. Buildings generally provide the player with advancements, actions, victory points or military capabilities. The idea is to construct a variety of buildings to help pursue your strategy and achieve your goals. Players advance in industry by collecting industry tokens, so there is a strong incentive to collect these tokens in order to construct buildings a player desires.

• Growth Phase: Players gain new population markers from their supply. The number gained is dependent upon how far along the culture track a player has advanced. For example, if a player has advanced only one space, he collects two new population markers. If, however, he has advanced ten or more spaces, he gains six new markers. The more population markers a player has in his possession, the more options he will have at his disposal.

• Salary Phase: Players return population markers from their buildings (which would have been placed during the action phase, explained next) to their harbor. A building’s power can be used only when a marker is placed upon it, so a player should try to remove the markers so the buildings can be used again on the next turn. The number of markers that can be removed is based on the player’s advancement on the finance track. In addition, a player receives income based on his progress on the same track.

• Action Phase: Here is where most of the actions occur – and the most time elapses. Most actions are performed by activating a building by placing an available population marker on it. The actions granted by the building can then be performed. Thus, the actions a player can perform are limited by the buildings he has constructed. These actions are specific to the building, and include:

• Ship: The player places a marker on one of the shipping routes, collecting the trade token located on the space. If a route becomes filled, that region becomes open for settlement, and the player who has the most population markers on the ship route receives the governor card for that region. Governor cards generally grant the owner advancements and/or victory points. They are quite valuable, so there is usually keen competition to have the most markers on a sea route.

• Occupy: The player may place a population marker onto a land space in a region that has been opened, taking the trade marker located on that space. However, in order to move into a region, the player must have at least one marker on the shipping route to that region. So it is wise for players to place at least one population marker on each shipping track, unless they plan to completely ignore a region.

• Attack: The player replaces an opponent’s population marker in one of the cities with one of his own. He must also discard a population marker, so this actually costs three markers: one to activate the building, one to replace an opponent’s marker, and one to discard. A few buildings allow this militaristic action, and usually as soon as an opponent acquires one, all players will attempt to also construct one.

• Payment: The player removes a marker from one of his buildings and returns it to his harbor. The building and marker are now available for use.

• Draw: The player may draw the top asset card from a region where he has a presence. Cards are numbered 1–5, and in order to take the top card, the player must have at least the same number of population markers present in that region. Cards generally grant players advancements and/or victory points, so collecting them is certainly advantageous. However, each player may possess only a certain number of cards, the amount being determined by the player’s advancement on the political track.

Players tally their glory (victory) points, earning points in the following manners:

• One point for each city and route they control. (A few cities earn two points.) Tokens located on sea routes do not earn victory points.

• Points based on the player’s advancement on each of the four tracks. This can vary from 1–15 points.

• Some asset cards earn the owner victory points.

As mentioned, players are faced with numerous choices throughout the game, and there are multiple strategies to pursue. Players should target specific buildings that will assist in their overall strategy and should also concentrate on certain trade tokens. Trying to collect an even amount of types may seem wise, but it is difficult to accomplish. However, concentrating on just one or two types of trade tokens will leave a person sorely deficient in other areas. Plus, sometimes the desired goods are simply not available, so while concentrating on certain areas can be beneficial, a player cannot completely ignore the other areas.

Territorial gains can be tentative, however, as players possessing the barracks or fortress can displace opponents’ tokens and gain control of cities. This can cause a sudden shift in glory points, so it is wise to prepare an adequate counterstrike threat by also acquiring these buildings. The cost of pursuing a military strategy is steep, however, as it costs several tokens to launch a successful attack.

Asset cards also cannot be overlooked. These cards provide important benefits, and have spelled the difference between victory and defeat in several games I’ve played. The wise player will try to secure at least one or two governorships and several asset cards.

As mentioned, I cannot recall the exact reasons why my initial playing of Endeavor wasn’t favorable. I can say that all subsequent playings have been tense, challenging and fun. The game is quite fluid, giving players numerous options and strategies to pursue. The game’s biggest drawback for me is its abstract feel, but fortunately the tense game play overcomes the lack of a tight theme. While I don’t think the game will set the gaming world afire, it still offers an engaging time for the contestants vying for the most advanced civilization.

Ideally in the long run, the change in location will help the show, which has been shrinking for the last couple of years. The show had about 50 booths but since most of these distribute or manufacture toys rather than board games, hunting for games was much easier than at larger shows. Buried among the dolls, plastic models (flying helicopters seem to be all the rage right now) and plush toys this year, I found seven games which might be of interest to gamers. Please note some of these games might have already been released, but they are new to me and are most probably being distributed for the first time in Canada. The games are:

1. The Lazy Bowler, from Dory Dan

This was a beautifully crafted prototype for a five-pin, mechanical miniature bowling game, complete with pin setting and ball return. The Lazy Bowler was built by Dory Dan, a rather nice gentleman from Gander, Newfoundland, who has a successful business making musical spoons (over 100,000 sold). Whether this coffee table-sized design is viable as a commercial game is up to you dear reader to decide, but it is sure pretty to look at. If anybody is interested in producing or developing the game, please contact the game developer.

Arlekino is an abstract checkers-like game by Bernard Tavitian of Blokus fame. In this game the goal is to have the most of your color on the board by the end of the game.  Each turn you can jump one tile over another tile or tiles using checker moves. Each tile you jump is eliminated from the game board. Since most tiles have more than one color on them, you have to balance eliminating some of your color in order to eliminate more of your opponents’ colors. The game seemed to play okay and it is due out in May 2010.

The most innovative game I saw at the show was Matocto, a cross between Scrabble and dominoes in which you are trying to get rid of your tiles before your opponent does in order to win. Each tile has a number, the four basic math operators, and an equal sign. To play your tiles, you must create valid math operations using one or more tiles already in the playing area, so you can get rid of multiple tiles in one turn if you do your math right. I would definitely look up this game if you are a fan of abstract games or are looking for a game to teach your kids math. Matocto is being produced by Marek Czekanski, a local, first-time game designer, and the game comes in a two-player introductory version and four-player standard version. The game should retail for $25-$40; Czekanski did not provide any firm release date for the game.

The best way to sum up this game is a PitchCar variant. Instead of flicking wooden disks with a car-racing theme, you are flicking a patented “Zball” around the track with a bicycle-racing theme.  The ZBall is a plastic ball with microballs in it which make it move more like a disk than a ball. As described on the Bisikle website, “[The Zball] is a sonic-welded plastic marble filled up with about 10 iron micro-beads.... It can stop in hills and keeps a very stable trajectory. Shots can be extremely precise. The hardcore gamers will tame the effects of the marble. It can even turn by itself!”

Each player flicks the ball from the current position of his bicycle rider, then puts the rider at the new position where the ball stops. You then pass the ball to the next rider behind you on the track. The components are really well done, and the track could quite easily be use for PitchCar. The game currently comes in a thirty-piece, two-player set and a 57-piece, four-player set. The game has a number of expansion tracks allowing you buy extra balls, riders and tracks. It should retail in the $30-$50 range and looks like a nice complement to PitchCar.

A collectible soccer trick-taking game. You need two decks to play, and each nationality has a different mix of cards. The basic idea is to score the most goals with efficient use of your cards before your deck runs out. On your turn, you play an attack (goal attempt) card or special card and your opponent attempts to play a higher value defense card to block it. If he cannot, you score a goal.  It looks to be a decent, though light 15-30 minute filler and the differing nationalities allow some variability in play. You might look into it if you are a soccer fan or in the market for a quick filler.

Kewbz, another title from this prolific producer of large wooden games and puzzles, is similar in play to Pueblo but without the Tetris-like pieces. You are trying to gain control of area by placing more blocks than your opponent. Each time you gain control, you get to put a block of your colour over an opponent’s block, creating towers of various sizes (up to five blocks high). When all blocks have been placed, whoever has the most pieces visible by looking down at the board wins. An okay abstract, but produced with the usual high quality from this company.

This oddly-named light kid/family filler uses the rock/paper/scissor game. At the start of the game, you get a puzzle centre and a set of puzzle pieces of which you draw three to form a hand; each piece shows a hockey sweater and a rock, paper or scissors symbol. You then duel against your opponent, and whoever wins gets to add both pieces to his central puzzle piece, if he can. The first person to surround the central piece and “complete” his puzzle wins. You can also play for rounds or for points if you wish.

Outside, winter continued its dreary thudding across the landscape. Inside, a handful of Monitor staffers enjoyed card and board games.

No question: Inside was the place to be.

W. Eric Martin, editor of BoardgameNews.com, dropped by this week to offer a sampling of quick pick-me-ups…

Yes, I played the role of game fairy, toting a sack of games to the Monitor’s office and giving people a more enjoyable lunch break than usual. I did this in February 2009 as well, at the request of my friend Clay Wirestone, and based on that experience this time I brought games that (1) have rules that are easy to explain, (2) have short playing times or are played in rounds and (3) emphasize fun over strategy.

Transamerica was the clear winner of the afternoon, with Swat! being second favorite. Best line from the write-up: ”Beer & Pretzels would come alive with a crowd of people and actual intoxicants.”

Aztlan is a new Euro-style game that will charm both experienced players and beginners with its bluffing and challenging mechanics and high quality components. In the mythical Aztlan, ancestral home of the Nahuatl people, rival god-kings engaged in a struggle to rule the mightiest empire and the highest civilization. The game develops during five different epochs, where each player tries to conquer the largest realm, using an intriguing highly interactive mechanic based on majorities and card playing.

Games in the Nexus Designer Series include extended biographies of the designers and descriptions of previous games of note. Aztlan follows on the heels of Ad Astra, the Bruno Faidutti/Serge Laget design that debuted from Nexus in 2009 and was subsequently released in the U.S. by Fantasy Flight Games.

For 2010, Schacht has created a half-dozen special commission cards for the 2009 release Valdora that allow players to choose which client will receive the gem being delivered. You can view all of Schacht’s Abacus catalog expansions – each of which can be downloaded and printed – on his website or download the Valdora freebies immediately (PDF).

This week I have an interview with Thomas Hudson, designer of 18io, a game about railroading in Ohio in the years before the Civil War.

Kris: Why design 18io? What will be special or distinctive about this 18XX game?

Finally, the small town in Ohio where I live now is known for its Lake Erie beaches and its heavily trafficked railroad tracks. Given how small the town is, it’s amazing how many traffic jams are created by the trains.

As it turns out, Ohio was in the middle of the rail frenzy that occurred during the early industrial era. Hundreds of companies were chartered in the state before the Civil War--the period covered by the game. The twenty-five companies in the game represent those that actually operated. The huge majority of chartered companies failed or closed before operating.

The distinctive features of 18io include:

25 major companies (no minors)

Focus on a narrow period (from the dawn of the Rail Age to the American Civil War)

Company charters claimed through charter auctions

Ability to reserve charters

Companies can be foreclosed

Kris: Do you think of 18io as more of a railroad construction game, or of a financial manipulation game like 1830?

Tom: That’s a good question! My favorite 18xx game is 1825. I love the focus on rail-building provided its large map. But I also like the stock manipulation found in my other favorites—1830 and 1856. So 18io is a combination of both styles. Its connection and route bonuses reward fast expansion, but the number of companies and ease of which they can be opened provides amble opportunity for stock jobbery.

Kris: How many players can play 18io? How long will it take to play?

Tom: 18io can be played by 2-8 players. At the beginning of the game, players decide if they want a Standard or Short game, which is based on the amount of money put into the bank. So, 18io can play fast relative to other 18xx games, or be about par.

Kris: How much playtesting has the game received?

Tom: We timed the announcement of 18io to coincide with the second phase of testing—remote, or blind testing. 18io has been in heavy testing since the late summer. While local testing is essential, of course, blind testing is also crucial. The remote testers don’t have the developer or designer hovering around to coach them and explain away problems. Also, the remote testers’ experience is closer to the typical end-user’s as they struggle with the components and rules. Blind testing is underway and going well.

Kris: I see that there 25 major railroads in 18io. Am I correct in assuming there will be a lot of merger activity in the game?

Tom: Even though 18io has a very large number of companies, the actual number of companies opened during a given game is the same or only slightly larger than other 18xx games. This is regulated by various mechanisms: certificate limit, available cash, and availability of trains. There are no mergers.

Kris: Do you think that 18io deviates or innovates away from the standard 18XX model in any significant way?

Tom: We think 18xx players will find a lot of 18xx-goodness combined with enough new and fresh things to make 18io a compelling title.  Unique to 18io are charter auctions. Charter auctions enable players to gain control of a company charter. Once a charter is controlled, the company can be opened or reserved, another unique feature of 18io.

The twenty-five major companies is--I think--the most of any 18xx game.

Kris: What caused you the most trouble in the design? What are you most proud of?

Tom: The biggest challenge, by far, was finding a way to integrate such a large number of companies into a playable game. Hopefully, with charter auctions and the other mechanisms mentioned above, we’ve found a solution that ensures high replayability without too much chrome or too many unwieldy rules.

With 18io, I wanted a gamer’s game: a game in which players were given large quivers with plenty of arrows to aim true, but also plenty of chances to shot yourself in the foot. There’s a lot of tension from the outset and we see many smashups, but plenty of comebacks too.

Kris: After reading the rules, I can say that 18io has a relatively large gameboard, there are lots of route bonuses for railroads to claim, there is an unusually large number of railroads in the game for players to run, and railroads can begin operations once the president’s certificate has been bought. This sounds to me like a recipe for an 18XX game that emphasizes route building, and that gives players little reason to invest in each other’s railroads. Why would I buy a share of someone else’s railroad when I could probably use the cash to start a new railroad of my own? In playtesting, have you seen many players invest in each other’s roads?

Tom: While 18io has a large number of companies, our emphasis from the beginning has been or variety and replayability. The number of companies opened in a typical game is not too different from other 18xx titles. As challenging as the number of companies has been, the size of the map has proved equally as challenging. In early testing, players tended to start in areas remote from each other and we felt there wasn’t enough player interaction. The problem was exacerbated by the lack of minor companies. Route bonuses, along with other changes, have fixed that problem. We see track built rapidly in all corners of the map, and tension over getting the right tile.

18io certainly rewards route building, but the stock market is always active. Money is tight and the profit from flipping opponents’ stock is very attractive. So in our testing we see a red-hot stock market combined with frantic route building--pretty much what we hoped to see.

Kris: I’ve read that 18io will be published by Grace Games. I can’t seem to find any information about Grace Games--who are they?

Tom: Grace Games is a new company and 18io will be its first game. You could describe Grace Games as a mom and pop shop. The company is run by wife Kathleen who, before becoming a stay-at-home-mom, worked at the World Trade Center. The birth of our last son caused her to leave her employer and the WTC--thank God!--just before 9/11.

I am chief game developer and bottle washer. When I was in college I worked for the game company SPI as a developer and designer. SPI had a great development system which we are following at Grace Games (local and remote game testing, for example).

Currently Grace Games has four games in development. I am the designer of two and the developer of the other two. None of the other games are 18xx games, or trains games for that matter. All are Euros. We will have more to say when the games are further along.

Kris: When do you expect to see 18io in print?

Tom: We plan for a mid-year release. We will roll-out our web site before then.

Kris: What projects would you like to work on in the future?

Tom: My other current design is an economic, Euro-type game with an historical theme. We should be able to make an announcement about this game shortly.

Kris: Thanks for the interview.

Next week I will have another interview with an 18XX designer.

The boxed version of Topas includes 36 domino-style cards, with 1-3 gems on each half of the card in one of four colors. On a turn, a player adds one card to the array of cards on the table and scores points for any colored rows which she extends with the card just played. One catch is that no row can include more than seven gems, so players can’t pile on to the same row again and again.

The Ludicious Games’ adaption of Topas includes three solitaire ways to play:

• Arcade – in which, as in the basic game, the player tries to create rows of gems to score points; when a player creates a row or column of exactly seven gems, those squares disappear, opening up the board for future plays. Additional colors of gems beyond the original four come into play as the player advances.

• Color Mode – in which the player needs to score ten points in each of the four colors before being able to score further in any one color.

• Weakest Link – in which a player completes four quick games of only eight tiles each, with the player’s final score being the second-lowest of the four games.

Callisto is a Blokus-style game in which players want to cover as much area as possible with their jagged pieces and have as few bits left over as possible. Each piece played must touch one of your other pieces on the board or one of the columns that matches your color; only two of your columns are placed at the start of the game, however, giving you an out later in the game when you place the third one in virgin territory. The gameboard is set up differently for each number of players.

Callisto is for 2-4 players, ages 7 and up, with a retail price of $25. This game has been added to Gone Cardboard.

Designer: Urs Hostettler
Publisher: Valley Games

Players: 2-10
Ages: 10+
Playing Time: 30 minutes
Rules Language: English
Price: $20
Links:

I’ve always been a big fan of party games. I’ve spent countless evenings with friends playing untold numbers of party-style games, most of which are designed to elicit laughter and good conversation. While I have the reputation of being a staunch “European-style” gamer, I’m still eager to play a fun party game.

Such A Thing? by designer Urs Hostettler – published in Germany by Abacusspiele as Ein solches Ding – challenges players to think of something that fits a number of different specifications and descriptions. Each player continues to add to the description until one player is challenged to “name such a thing,” at which point they will be put to the test.

If the player successfully names an item that meets all of the specifications, the challenger must draw three cards from the deck. The existing cards are discarded and a new round is conducted. If the player is unsuccessful in naming an item that meets all of the specifications, he must draw three cards, and a new round begins. Play continues until one player successfully depletes his hand of cards, thereby winning the game. Thus, being forced to draw cards is an impediment to this goal.

What I have just described is “The Chain” version. The rules contain a half dozen other variations, each with their own twist. The main mechanism, however, remains the same.

Party games are supposed to be lively. Such a Thing? is no such thing. It is much more contemplative, as players study their cards and the cards that have been played to the table, attempting to think of an item that will meet the specifications. This can take time – a lot of time – and it is time where nothing else happens and no one else is involved. The result is constant periods of dullness. “Dull” and “party” are not a good match.

Another problem is that when a player names an item he feels meets all of the specifications, there is little excitement or incredulity. There is no “Wow!” factor. The game simply continues. Often, there is dissent amongst the players as to whether the item actually does meet the specifications, which requires some discussion and a vote. Again, however, this fails to generate any excitement.

There is a version in the rules known as “Speed” that does somewhat eliminate this downtime. Three cards are revealed, and the first player to successfully name an item that satisfies all of the specifications receives a point. Play continues until one player accumulates seven points. This version is certainly more fast-paced, but it is also frustrating for the folks who aren’t as quick-thinking.

My biggest complaint against the game is that it simply isn’t fun. There is no excitement, no laughter, and very little interaction. It fails as a party game at its very foundation. Party games are supposed to be fun. Such a Thing? is no such thing.

Tasty Minstrel Games launched with the release of two games:

Homesteaders is a resource-management game of auctions and building. It might remind you of Amun-Re, La Havre, or any of a number heavy-to-medium-weight classics in the Euro field. As you can see if you read my review, I think it’s quite a good game.

Terra Prime is a science-fiction game of exploration, technological gain, and resource management. I haven’t had a chance to play it yet, but given that author Seth Jaffee also developed Homesteaders, I’m expecting it’s going to be worth trying out.

The Tasty Minstrel Q&A

This conversation between Shannon Appelcline and Michael Mindes was conducted via email in late January, 2010.

Shannon Appelcline: Tasty Minstrel Games appeared very suddenly on the Euro-scene with the publication of not one, but two games. Who or what is Tasty Minstrel?

Michael Mindes: Tasty Minstrel Games is a board game publishing company that I started in March of 2009.  Although the roots go all the way back to late 2004 as I prepared to graduate from college.  If you are interested in more of the details since then, I have been blogging about my experience as a publisher at michaelmindes.com.  Tasty Minstrel at its most basic level is myself and Seth Jaffee.  Seth has been designing and developing board games for multiple years now, and he had his own design Terra Prime and did some development work on Homesteaders.  He was unsuccessful in his attempts to be picked up by one of the big hobby game publishers.

Since I had been wanting to publish games since 2004, I decided to take another look… I was personally amazed with how good both games were.  As a result, I was a lock and just needed to run it past my wife who has been amazingly supportive.  I decided to publish two games on our initial release for logistical and efficiency reasons.  For example, I can print 2,000 of each game and get pricing similar to a 4,000 copy print run because the games share many components.  A nice side effect that I did not anticipate is that Tasty Minstrel Games would be treated as a “serious” publishing house immediately rather than a “hobby” publishing house.

So, to actually answer your question… Tasty Minstrel Games is Michael Mindes and Seth Jaffee.  Seth finds, develops, and in general decides what games we will publish.  I make everything happen including funding, marketing, and commissioning artwork.  Of course, I hold veto power over publishing games.  We have two very high bars to jump over when it comes to game play for something to get published.

SA: What are your roots in hobby gaming? What got you started and what are some of your favorites (other than your own games, of course!)?

MM: I imagine many of us have a similar story about how we got into hobby gaming.  I was taught Chess by my father when I was younger and thoroughly enjoyed that.  I was decently competitive, being in the top 25 or so in the state of Arizona for my age group.  One day, a friend of mine from the Chess Club taught me another game that took up much of my life…

In my case, this game was Magic: The Gathering.  Eventually I got introduced to the typical hobby board games.  Settlers being the first.  That snowballed with such classics as Puerto Rico and Carcassonne.  I had the bug and I had it bad.

As for my favorites, other than my games… I typically like area control, ridiculous combo card games, and general “screw you” type strategic games.  For example, El Grande, Glory to Rome, and Blokus.  I also like epic games and war games in general, including Twilight Imperium.  My recent favorite game is JAB: Realtime Boxing, but I have cheated and mentioned a game that Tasty Minstrel will be publishing in 2010.

SA: You said earlier that people were treating you more seriously
because you put out two games simultaneously for your launch. I’d
think that’ll hold even more true with the revelation that you’ve got
more scheduled. What can you tell us about upcoming releases?

MM: Yes, it certainly does hold true and people have come to have high expectations that I hope to deliver on.  In 2010, we will be releasing the following games:

• Belfort
• Train of Thought
• JAB: Realtime Boxing
• Possibly 1 additional game depending on sales, cash flows, and other boring stuff

Belfort is an area control game with 5 identical districts that players are trying to control.  Victory points are scored based on control of the districts, most elves, dwarves, and gnomes.  To make things interesting each of the buildings that are built within the districts have special powers which can be activated by gnomes.  It has been very well received in various play testing, and we are very excited about Belfort.  Belfort is for 3-5 players and should take just under 2 hours to play.

Train of Thought is the game that broke my rule of “publishing NO party games”.  It is a light and super fun party/word game.  Players are giving clues for hidden information against the ticking clock.  There will be two words that you need to string together with a Train of Thought.  The trick is that you only get to say 3 words.  One of those words is determined by the previous game play.  Very elegant, very fun.  This game is for 3+ players and takes 5 minutes per player.  I personally feel that this could be a perennial bestseller for us.

JAB: Realtime Boxing is my current favorite game.  In JAB, players are utilizing cars to simulate punching each other.  The catch is that you do not need to wait for your opponent.  Everything happens in real time.  Looking to land Haymakers to take life away from an opponent, landing counter-punches to regain life and get points for winning a round, landing combos… All of this happens at the same time and very quickly.  It is an adrenaline rush and great for those interested in martial combat without wanting to actually get punched in the face (like myself).  It is a 2 player game and last a variable amount of time.  I have played a couple of times where I knocked out Seth in the first round by landing 5 out of 5 haymakers.  That took less than 2 minutes.  Other games have gone the to a final decision, or knockout in the last round lasting about 10-15 minutes.

SA: That sounds like an ambitious portfolio for a first-time
publisher! Where are you finding all of your designers?

MM: Ambitious is where I need to be to accomplish my long-term goals that I set when I started Tasty Minstrel Games a little under a year ago.  Being a somewhat impatient person, I want to accomplish my long-term goals as quickly as possible.  This is why many people may be surprised at how much effort I put into creating exposure for my games.

I get my designers from all over the place.  Anywhere there is a good game, we are looking to improve it, develop it, test it, put some great artwork to go with it, and get it into the hands of the die-hard board game enthusiasts.  Thankfully, Tasty Minstrel Games has the tireless efforts of Seth Jaffee to scour the world for excellent games (THANK YOU INTERNET!).

Seth had worked on Terra Prime consistently for over 4 years and had contributed fairly significantly to the development of Homesteaders, which is designed by Alex Rockwell.  One of the designers of Train of Thought and Belfort, Jay Cormier, met us at the GAMA Trade Show.  He played Homesteaders one night of the trade show, and when the game finished he asked if we wanted to play his game Belfort.  Being gamers, we said yes and that was the beginning of a great relationship.  After about 6 months of intense development work, Belfort is fully polished.  A good example for designers who are looking to get published.

Also at the GAMA Trade Show we met another designer, but we do not remember his name.  He had a game that was a very interesting Pictionary variant.  I suppose this is a good forum to try and get him to contact us.

For our other 2010 release, JAB, Seth already knew Gavan Brown from the Board Game Designers Forum (bgdf.com).  Gavan had recorded some videos of game play which intrigued Seth.  Based on viewing the videos and hearing Seth talk about JAB, I was looking forward to finally giving it a try.  Once I tried it, I fell in love (don’t tell my wife).

SA: What did you mean when you say people would be surprised by how much work you put into creating exposure for your games?

MM: For me it seems very easy to get people to try the games and make purchases.  However, I may have this view because I come from the financial advice industry.  It take significant effort to get somebody to trust you with their money, especially when compared to a $39.95 purchase of a board game.  I take a similar position for support of Tasty Minstrel Games as I have with the marketing.  It starts with a shotgun approach and finished with focusing in on what works.  So, I am doing all of the following and I encourage anybody and everybody to feel free to participate to any extent they feel like.

• I have been blogging about my experiences publishing. 
• People who subscribe to my blog have a chance to win free board games.
• Tasty Minstrel Games has a Facebook Fan Page.  We will be expanding the services and coolness available through Facebook.  This is going to include that capability to help shape the future of Tasty Minstrel Games, influence what we publish, and potentially influence artwork styles.  I have a personal crusade to make this as cool as possible.
• Retailers and Convention Organizers should email me at michael@tastyminstrelgames.com.  I am working on specific support for them.
• Reviewers and Board Game reporter types should subscribe to the Tasty Minstrel Games Reviewer Support.
• We will be looking for people to blind test future releases.  This will probably be announced and decided from the Facebook fan page mentioned above.

I would like to take an opportunity to thank everybody who has been thus involved with Tasty Minstrel Games.  I am especially grateful to every person who has purchased our games and shared them with friends.

SA: Thank you for taking the time to talk about Tasty Minstrel!

Around the Corner

If you enjoyed last week’s discussion of my new iPhone game, Reiner Knizia’s Money, you might want to read about Steve Blanding’s experiences in Bringing Mü to the iPhone (which Steve was kind enough to let me publish at my iPhone in Action blog).

I also wrote a few new reviews over the last couple of weeks, for Grand Dames of Small World, Small World: Cursed!, and the aforementioned Homesteaders.

Meanwhile, if this article gave you the hankering to read some other small press interviews, you can read previous articles on Eye-Level Entertainment and Vainglorious Games. There’s also an interview with Mike Fitzgerald that I conducted back there in the archives.

See you in 14!

The English version of Le Grand Hameau will also be distributed in North America. In February 2010, Alliance Game Distributors started soliciting orders from retailers with a retail price of $8; no release date was given.

Asmodee signed a similar agreement with Swiss publisher GameWorks in 2008 and has since distributed its releases Kimaloé and Jaipur. The Asmodeepress release notes that the first Libellud title handled under the agreement will be “a game based around fairy tales.”

Dear Mr. Pennybags: We applaud your ingenuity.

In the classic game of property, you’ve maneuvered your monocle-wearing self to the lucrative Go square. You’ve cashed in on Canadians’ strong side of pride in their home communities by creating an online square-naming contest to brand a new version of your dusty old board game.

Touché, Mr. Pennybags, touché.

3) Asteroyds (Ystari) – Cyril has been nice enough to let me look through the rulebook in advance for this one, and it looks like a game right up my alley… A little bit of puzzling goodness with a little bit of chaos thrown in.  The game might be best described as “Roborally meets Richochet Robots – but with time limits for planning”.  I know that this description might not sound great for everyone, but I’m not-so-patiently anticipating the release of this one so that I can try it!  I also like the fact that this game comes with a number of different ways to play – at least four different game modes so that each group can find different ways to enjoy the game.  When you combine this with the variable setup that is encouraged in the rules, there should be no end of ways to have fun with this!

4) Mystery Express (DoW) – based on the initial art, this appears to be deduction game produced in the sumptuous style that I’ve come to expect from DoW.  I’m often hot-and-cold about deduction games because they can so easily breakdown (see: Black Vienna, Mystery of the Abbey) – but this game doesn’t seem to depend on player questions and answers.  The information that you need appears to be located on the cards alone.  While I’ll admit to having some concerns that this game will have “that certain sense of French random-ness”, my desire for a great deduction game clearly outweighs such fears.  And, it’s not like you’d think there would be any such randomness in a deduction game!  The other part that I’ll be interested to see in action are the special abilities of the five different detectives – if these are well balanced, it will likely make the game more interesting as the players each will have a different chance of learning parts of the crime.  I have high hopes for this game, and I look forward to a chance to play it soon. 

5) Titania (HiG) – It’s a Rudiger Dorn game.  And I don’t really like Rudiger Dorn games.  But I included it here to see if I could goad Larry Levy (BGN’s resident Dorn-a-holic) into commenting about it.  I’m sure he’s got some inside information about it!

6) Snapshot (Kosmos) – OK, I lied. I might actually be looking forward to a Rudiger Dorn game – but this one isn’t like any of his previous efforts.  Snapshot is a dexterity game where it looks like you’re trying to flick your wooden disc around a board to accomplish a series of tasks.  Goa, it ain’t!

7) Letters from Whitechapel (NG) – This game is done by Gabriele Mari & Gianluca Santopietro – and looks to be another entry in the Scotland Yard/Garibaldi theme where a set of detectives are trying to track down the bad guy – which happens to be Jack the Ripper in this case.  I thought that Garibaldi (designed by Mari) was well done, and had enough things different in the setup to separate it from Scotland Yard.  (In Garibaldi, the movement cards also could be used as a special action – which made it a more dynamic game than Scotland Yard) As such, I’m interested to see what other changes have been made to that engine.  I’m generally interested in games like this in part to see how they work with more than 2 players.  Scotland Yard remains one of my favorite 2-player games of all time, and it’s a game that I refuse to play with more than 2 because IMHO the game doesn’t work as well when the detectives don’t all agree of the course of action – and that generally only happens when there is only one player controlling the detectives. 

8) Fresko (Queen) – I was able to play this game in a nearly finished form late in 2009, and this is an intriguing resource management game where you take on the role of a painter.  You have to manage your time well, collect the right color(s) of paint, and combine those paints in order to produce the requested works of art.  In the official description, it is mentioned that the game comes with three (included) expansion modules.  As I’m not sure what version of the game that I played, I will definitely want to check it out to see what has changed since I’ve seen it last. 

9) Samarkand (Queen) - David V. H. Peters & Harry Wu are the designers of this game which was licensed from Winsome Games.  Samarkand is a newer version of a very limited edition Winsome release, Age of Scheme: Routes to Riches.  The original version of the game was a dry, tactical networking game (very typical for the Winsome stuff) – but the new version has taken that game and created a more Euro-friendly version.  In the near-production version of the game that I played in late 2009, the new release has a little bit of luck thrown in with some commodity cards.  Cooperation between players was also incentivized a bit which led to more interactive games.  Of course, I haven’t yet seen the final version, so I don’t know if any of the game has changed since I’ve seen it – but as long as it has the usual great Queen production quality – this is a game that I’ll buy sight unseen – even though I already own the game from which it was developed from.

10) Spiel mit Lukas: Torjager (Queen) – Well, I guess that Queen is proving to be the most intriguing company to me for early 2010.  I don’t know anything about this one, and there isn’t much information that I can glean about it with some basic Google-fu.  The Lukas in question here appears to by Lukas Podolski, a member of the German national football (soccer) team, and the subtitle roughly translates into “Goal Hunter”.  Anyways, it looks like it’s a soccer game, and I’m a sucker for those.  It’s not often that you see a first-class athlete endorse a game, so I’ll be very interested to see whether this is really a good game or just a box with a picture of Lukas on it.

11) FITS Mitbringspiel (Ravensburger) – This doesn’t look to be anything different from the main FITS game other than size.  But that would be a perfect thing for me and my kids.  The boys love playing this game, and it would be SO much easier to have a version that fit in a backpack for the kids to take to Grandma’s house!  If I could get my hands on this one, it would be an insta-buy.  (Note to my brother who is in Nuremburg now – if you’re reading this, pretty please bring me home one of these?)

12) Level X (Schmidt) – a nice take on the press-your-luck dice genre.  Here, similar to Can’t Stop, you need to roll dice to move your pawns up their respective columns.  But, once you’re on the top of the heap, you want to keep rolling those numbers because that’s how you score victory points.  Once someone else joins you at the top of a column, you go back to the bottom to climb up again.  I’ve been a big fan of the Schmidt Easy Play line, and while not every game has been great (i.e. Numeri from Essen 09), in general I’ve found the games to be well produced, easily accessible to newcomers and my kids’ friends, and a great value.

13) OK, this last game isn’t coming out at Nuremburg 2010 – in fact, it was first published in 1720!  But to the best of my knowledge, it is the longest title for a game that I have ever run across…
http://www.boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/66094/neu-erfundene-historisch-chronologische-spiel-tafe

The full title is: Neu-erfundene Historisch-Chronologische Spiel-Tafel zur Erlernung der Teutschen Reichs-Historia nach der Regierungs-Folge der Römisch-Teutschen Kayser.  At 150 characters, included spaces, this game title is living proof that the Germans need more adjectives…

Puzzle for this week:  Taking a break… I thought I had a good one, but my test solver proved in about 30 seconds that the puzzle was broken!  Of course, if you think you’ve got a good idea to share here, email me at BGNAdvisor at gmail dot com…

Puzzle answers from last week –
The correct images are:

Dominion:  A
Tichu:  B
Settlers: A

That’s it for this week!
Until your next appointment,
The Gaming Doctor