Showing posts with label Rules. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Rules. Show all posts

Friday, August 22, 2014

First Play: Caverna (or Agricola: The Dwarf Edition)....

Agricola is definitely an obsession forming game, deep, complex, but utterly thematic with tons of variety.  It was sort of the start of Uwe Rosenberg's nose dive into complexity.  I mean, to think this guy designed great the great card games Bohnanza and Bargain Hunter and now he churns out crazily involved titles like Le Havre and At The Gates of Loyang!  Caverna definitely feels most similar to Agricola and much of the game is nearly the same.  But after muddling through one game, this definitely feels like a tribute to the Uwe fans - tons of rules exceptions, a million things to have to read at all times, and way, way too many choices.  In fact, I think teaching this to someone who hasn't played Agricola probably isn't the best idea.

So.  Many.  Action spaces!
Having said that, I enjoyed my first play but did terribly in the final scoring, despite thinking I was handling my own.  Turns out the "fingers in every pie" strategy that Agricola is known for doesn't actually work that well in Caverna.  This game actually favours some specialization.  And there are some interesting new elements - dwarf characters who go on expeditions and return with tons of loot.  But even there, near the end of the game with a high valued dwarf it's possible to have to pick 4 different rewards (resources, land, animals, etc.) from a possible 16.  And then if you pick a room for your home, you are looking at 40+ choices depending on what you have.

So.  Many.  Rewards and ruby uses!
 Honestly, I found myself just building things I could afford because the choices were too numerous.  Instead of planning ahead, I'd instead take actions and build rooms with the mindset that things fit with the direction I was going.  I find the same issue arises in Glass Road, another recent and very enjoyable Uwe game.  There are just too many options in one turn that you just end up doing what's easiest.  It seems to foster less strategy.  At least with Agricola you have one hand of cards.  That's it.  Deal with those.  Imagine having the whole deck face up and at your disposal every turn....

So.  Many.  ROOMS!!!!!
Despite the criticisms, I'd like to play it again.  The game feels more like a sandbox than any of his other games, building and playing in any direction your heart desires.  Choices piled upon choices.

But after a 2-hour game with 3 people, I will never, ever play with the maximum of 7.  Ridiculous.

Home Sweet Home.

Tuesday, December 4, 2012

Problems at the Panic Station...

As one can tell from the complete and utter lack of posts the last few weeks, I've been busy.  In fact, so busy I've barely been playing games.  So it with some unadulterated joy that I made to games night last night - only to have that joy killed by a particularly mean-spirited game of the unforgiving Nordic edition of Ticket To Ride.  I was about skulk off early to lick my wounds when I was begged me to join a game of Panic Station which needed one more player.  I had heard about PS before and it's "problematic" winning conditions but they convinced me it was short so I agreed.  Perhaps a little cooperation would cheer me up.

If you haven't heard of Panic Station, it's kind of a semi-cooperative game with one player secretly designated the evil alien host whose only goal is to infect the other players or, if necessary, kill them.  Meanwhile, the humans, while they remain uninfected, are trying to locate the Hive card and bring three gas tanks there to blow it up.  Players can't show others their cards (unless a certain special card forces them to) so noone is entirely sure who is who and everything is delightfully paranoid.

My post-game realization last night, having never played Battlestar Galactica before, is that the rules need to be explained VERY CLEARLY.  Otherwise the game goes sideways.  Quick.  And players need to understand them CLEARLY.  Otherwise any question asked could reveal your identity and make a you a target.  Suffice to say this game was really explained and we just "got into it" causing a few situations to arise:

SITUATION #1:  I rush to the hive with my 3 gas cans only to be reminded that only the human you control can kill the hive.  The android can only shoot a gun, not firebomb a hive (go figure.)

Me:  "But now everyone knows I'm still human!  Crap!"

SITUATION #2:  Another infected player then shoots my player repeatedly with a gun.  I have not been informed I can be shot and/or shoot others.

Me:  "You can shoot each other?!?!?!  But I've had bullets this whole time?!?!?!?"

SITUATION #3:  I am forced to trade with a player who I know is the alien host.  But then she stops and says she's not sure she can trade her last blood card.

Me:  "Um, you just told everyone you're an alien."

SITUATION #4:  In my stupidity, I slip her the wrong card forgetting that she infects me if I don't pass a gas can.

Me:  "Uh, I forgot that rule.  Again.  Oh well.  Does this mean it's over?"

SITUATION #5:  I'm the last person turned into an alien so suddenly we all win the game.

Me:  "We all just won?  But I just lost....  Huh?"

So the first 4 situations could have been avoided with a crisp, clear explanation of all the details of the game and perhaps a single playthrough.  But the fact that suddenly we all won the moment I feel like I've lost, is, as I said, "problematic".  It's definitely been discussed thoroughly on BGG since the game came out.  It's a conundrum because I think there is a really tense interesting little game here, albeit filled with a few too many little details (cards and rooms and monsters and stuff).  But I'm not sure I can get around the winning conditions.... 

Anyone else have this experience? 

Thursday, April 7, 2011

Hive mind....

So the partner and I played tons of Hive last week on vacation.  It's portable and can be set up anywhere so it was perfect for the beach, the cafe, the bar, whatever.  But near the end of the week, Vince decided to ruin the game for me.  He observed that whoever places their queen bee first always seems to win as they can move their pieces first.  Sigh.  A few more rounds and we had confirmed that he was pretty much right.  At least for two fairly evenly balanced players (us) it was true.

After scouring the Geek, I found one variant suggested which balances out the players a little better.  The suggestion, which has been approved by the designer John Yianni, is to not allow either player to place the queen bee on their first move.  We'll have to try this as I'd hate to see this lovely game become a relic...

Friday, March 11, 2011

A rather positive review of Black Friday...

Black Friday, the new game from Friedemann Friese, has been getting some real flack in gaming circles.  And rightly so.  The rulebook is one the worst I have ever read or seen.  Horribly organized, full of useless examples, and missing tons of information that is required to fully finish a complete game.  And yet for this game, I've ended up going to the trouble of typesetting my own FAQ with information gleaned from the net and BGG.  This is something I have never bothered doing for any other game.  And there's a reason - it really is worth the effort.  Where Friese's classic Power Grid is a brilliantly stark and analytical economic/auction game, Black Friday is what I would call the stock market equivalent.  And although it's lighter and shorter than PG, or maybe even because it is, I think it may be an even better game.

So what do you do in Black Friday that makes the game so interesting?  Well, you basically have 4 simple options each round - buy stock, sell stock, buy silver, or pass.  The prices of stock and silver are evident on the board so these actions resolve very quickly.  In addition, you can take government subsidies up to the current limit, which you'll have to do as all players start with zero cash.  Purchases and sales of stock move directly to and from the market ("pile of briefcases beside the board") so certain colours of stock will be more or less available at various times during the game.


What drives the brilliant market engine is what you do after you pick one the four actions.  It's a bit hard to describe here but in play it's quite simple and quickly makes sense.  There are essentially three tables active at any time - the stock purchase table, the silver purchase table, and the current sales table.  When stock is purchased from the market, a corresponding briefcase, usually of one of the colours purchased, is placed FROM the market on to the stock purchase table.  When stock is sold, the price in that colour is moved lower and a briefcase is taken from the sales table and added TO the market, thereby flooding the market with more of that stock.  Get it?  When silver is purchased, the player can pick any coloured briefcase they want and add it to the silver purchase table.  In addition, when any colour is completely removed from the market or 3 of that colour show up in a sales table, the value of that stock increases.  So the choice of what briefcase to move after your action is an important, albeit relatively simple, decision. 

Eventually one of these tables grows to 5 briefcases or drops down to 5 which causes a price adjustment.  This is the fun part.  Players must pay interest on their subsidies and then the active player draws a certain number of briefcases from the bag.  Depending on how many of each colour get drawn, prices can increase or decrease.  These price changes can also cause the game to reach new levels which allow players to purchase and sell more, take more subsidies, and draw more briefcases out during the next price adjustment (which, of course, causes the market prices to swing more wildly for good or bad).  The pulled briefcases then go into the market and the briefcases from the table which caused the change are thrown into the bag.  In addition, a few black briefcases may be tossed in as well.  These are always bad.  They cause the price of silver to increase as well as possibly lowering the prices of stock when they are pulled.

Okay, so what's the point?  The point is to buy as much silver as possible because in the end that is all that counts.  Unfortunately as the game progresses, the price of silver only increases.  Ideally, you've invested early in cheap stock, sold the stock while the price is high right before the market crashes, and then grabbed as much silver as possible.  The one who's manipulated the system the best wins.  It's all rather cynical, I must say, especially since you don't have to pay back any subsidies at the end of the game. 

In terms of mechanics, the game is very different than Power Grid.  But the comparison is interesting, I think, not only due them both being designed by Friese, but also since they are both very number-crunchy and timing plays such an essential role in strategy.  Like PG, in Black Friday you really need to wait it out for the exact right moment to attack.  Sell stock too early and you get cheap silver but you've permanently invested your funds and they'll never grow.  Sell too late and the price of silver may have skyrocketed.  Just waiting the one extra price adjustment and watching the price of all your stocks bottom out is heartbreaking.  And hilarious.  And often foreseeable.  Although the choices are simple, one can really pay attention and make the right purchases and sales at the right time.  There is some randomness to the price adjustments but you know exactly how many coloured briefcases are in the market, on the tables, or behind your screen.  The rest have to be owned by other players or are in the bag.  And you can always count exactly how many of each black briefcase is in the bag so it really is possible to make informed, interesting decisions.

Having played with 2 players all the way through to 5, I can say this game works for every group although I'd say it's probably best with more than 2 players, 4 seeming to be ideal. And it's fun, a lot of fun, partially because it plays pretty quickly.  But it's even more fascinating as the market is so responsive to the player's actions.  It's enthralling to watch the slow growth of the stock prices when everyone cautiously buys silver or to watch everyone start selling off their stocks out of fear and seeing the prices hit rock-bottom quickly after that.  The more silver that gets the sold, the quicker the silver price goes up.  The more red stock is purchased, the more red briefcases end up in the bag for later price adjustments.  It's simple and elegant and way too brilliant.

And it's this simplicity of play that leads us to the major complaint leveled at this game.  The rules as explained in the rulesbook suck.  They're awful.  They take a fairly simple game and make it seem convoluted and overly complex.  As well, there many situations not covered in the rules that have shown up in play.  The worst thing for a game is to have it stall as no one knows how to deal with a rule.  The players then argue about what should be done as we did or, in some cases, give up.  Take a look at the BGG threads, if you don't believe me.  It doesn't help the situation when the inventor and publisher suggest online to the players that they really should have figured it out.  In Friese's defense, he seems to have changed his tone and is a lot more helpful now that he's realized that no one can play the game with the useless rule-set provided.  This is the only game where I've had to read online references after browsing the rules the first time and saying, "What the....?"  And I have three university Mathematics degrees (you think I'd win games more often...)

So where does that leave Black Friday?  Well, it's a great game, brilliant even, and one of the most cunning market simulations I've ever seen.  And it's surprisingly simple to learn once someone knows how to play and has covered their bases by reading the errata online.  It's sad, really, because this game deserves a much wider audience and would be a great contender for the Spiel des Jahres (strategic but not too heavy, simple gameplay, plays in under an hour) but I think the shoddily written rules may disqualify it.  If you like market simulations and extremely clean and elegant game designs, or if you just feeling like reliving the highs and lows of the recent economic crash on a smaller scale, pick this one up.  It's worth it.  Just make sure you do your homework before you dive into your first game so you've got your bases covered.  Or email me your questions as I'd be happy to clarify, too.

We've played this 8 times now in the last month and will again tomorrow.  Excuse the pun - but it's definitely worth the investment.

Saturday, February 12, 2011

Wow, what an awful rule-set...

...for the game Black Friday (Schwarzer Freitag) by the inventor of Power Grid, Friedemann Friese.  Just sat down to try and make sense of how to play the game and I must admit that I'm quite confused.  It doesn't even seem like it should be that complicated of a game but I have already gone on the Geek to try and answer a few questions I have that are not in the rules.  Ugh.  I also just discovered I'm not the only one having these issues, as is Brian Bankler at Tao of Gaming.

Well, at least I know I'm not crazy.  But seriously, Rio Grande Games, did no one try to learn the game from the rule-set before you published it?

Having said all that, it looks like quite a bit of fun, if we ever get to play it correctly.

Sunday, December 12, 2010

How to remix your Christmas gaming...

One of the many joys of having a semi-regular readership of this here blog is that friends and readers (who really are just friends I haven't met yet) send you anything odd they find on the intertubes that is remotely boardgame-related.


Thanks to Michaela for mentioning this little tidbit!

In my never-ending quest to get people to play something, anything other than Monopoly, I wholly endorse this product without even looking at it.  The Boardgame Remix Kit is a set of 26 different games to play with pieces from Monopoly, Scrabble, Trivial Pursuit, and Clue.  And if you're reading this right now and you own one of these, I expect you probably don't play your old copies anymore as you've realized what else is out there.  Okay, maybe occasionally Scrabble....

The set of remixes is available in PDF form, a set of rules cards, an Iphone app (of course!), and soon a good old-fashioned hardcover book.  Definitely worth a download if you find yourself spending this holiday at your relatives' place with nothing but their standard collection of drek.

(via Boing Boing)

Wednesday, November 10, 2010

How to explain the first game of Agricola to beginners...


Don't tell them how the final scoring works until... well... the final scoring.  Trust me.  I now have a partner willing and interested in playing Agricola a second time.   YES!!!

Oh and don't tell them how each action works either until they ACTUALLY have the option to take the action.  Seriously.

Thursday, July 29, 2010

Back to basics pt. 2: Liar's Poker

I have to be honest and say that I find most styles of Poker, especially Texas Hold 'Em, to be exceedingly tedious.  The big decisions occur at the beginning when one decides to either fold or stay in.  I admit that there is skill there but sitting out more than half the hands bores me to no end.

Having said that, I'll still play Poker if someone asks as I like the act of gaming.  (Although I'd much rather be losing my money in a nasty gambling game like Cheapass Games' brilliant but out-of-print Renfield which is now available for free online here.)  So at the pub two nights ago, when someone said, "let's play Silly Bugger Poker", I agreed.  What followed was a fantastic little card game which played like the Poker equivalent of the classic Liar's Dice.  It scratched that Poker itch without causing any of us to lose any money (although I'm sure we could have gambled on who would buy the next pitcher, if we'd thought of it).  And all with a simple, regular deck of cards.  I forget how useful those are.

Here's the rules, if you're interested.  I think it should be called Liar's Poker, personally, since it is so similar to Liar's Dice, so that's what I'll call it here.  We played with five, although I'm sure you could play with more...

Liar's Poker (for around 5 people)

Deal every player one card face-down which they keep to themselves.  The dealer opens by bidding a specific poker hand that he thinks will be in all the cards amongst the players.  The next player has three options:

1)  Raise the bid with a higher poker hand.  For example, Player 1 opens with "Ace high".  Player 2 calls "a pair of Kings".

2)  Call Bluff on the previous player.  Everyone reveals their cards.  If the last player's bid cannot be made, the that player loses the round.  If the bid can be made from everyone's cards, then the the player who called bluff loses the round.

3)  Call Nuts on the last player (this is a house rule we played).  If you call Nuts, you are claiming that the previous bid can be made with the cards but it is the highest-valued possible bid that can actually be made with all the cards dealt.  This is a great bid when someone calls 4 aces and you think it is actually makeable.  If you are right, the previous bidder loses.  Otherwise, you lose.

Whoever loses the round is dealt another card in the next round.  So as the game progresses, the losing players have more cards to consider when when bidding on the possible hands, which actually balances things out quite nicely.  Once a player has 5 cards and they lose a round, then they are out of the game and not dealt into the rounds anymore.  So the number of cards (and possible value of hands) expands and then decreases in the end rounds.

We played a few extra rules, which you could include or leave out.  We played with 2's wild which makes the hands much more interesting and the bids a little more daring.  We also played that in the case of a flush or straight flush, you had to declare the suit and in all cases you had to name the rank of the cards involved.  For example, valid calls would be things like "straight King high" or "Spade flush Jack high" (which would fail if there were five spades, one being the Ace).

For hand rankings, click on the pic above to embiggen.

Give it a try and let me know how it goes...

Saturday, October 17, 2009

Middle Earth Quest FAIL....

So my brother's in town for a visit and I gave him his birthday gift: Middle Earth Quest from Fantasy Flight Games. Last night we cracked 'er open for a try. The board is so massive that it didn't fit completely on our table but we set it up somehow anyways and my bro started plodding through the 40 pages of rules. About 2 hours into gameplay (plus an hour of setup), I was still only about one space away from my starting space and not even close to finishing my starting quest. I was swearing to him that the game was broken. So we go back to the rulesbook. Oh. Moving from location to location only costs ONE card of that symbol type, NOT the printed number on that symbol. The printed number indicates the number of ANY cards you can play to use that path. Sigh. So we aborted the game 3.5 hours in. Try again tomorrow....

Glad I'm not the only one who messes up explaining fundamental rules (yeah, I'm talking about you, Chicago Express!)

Tuesday, October 6, 2009

Great article on teaching games...

Chris Norwood at GamerChris just posted a great article on how to teach games. Really worth checking out if you're the one who always seems to be doing the rules explanations.

Monday, August 24, 2009

Mississippi confusion...

Just had a game of Mississippi Queen, the Game of the Year from 1997. In the game, turn order is determined by the player "furthest ahead". In most cases this is easy enough to determine. However, there are moments where the river snakes in a semi-circle and then it is really hard to determine. One player can be farther back by a number of spaces but still be ahead according to the rules and vice-versa. The rules translation doesn't help much at all. Anyone have the same problem? Any suggestions?

Sunday, July 19, 2009

This one is for Natalie...

Found this is at BoardGameGeek. Kinda sums up our games group lately...

















(Cartoon by Brian Barling.)

Wednesday, March 4, 2009

Not so ingenious....

(The following post will only make sense if you've played Ingenious/Einfach Genial.)

So I'm kinda ill and avoiding contact with friends. I haven't played games in a few days and I'm suffering from withdrawal so I go on BSW to play a game online. 2-player Ingenious, it is!

We start playing and I can't figure out why my tiles aren't scoring on the online version. Finally, my opponent say you can't have gaps between the played tile symbol and the symbols that score for you. I've been playing this wrong for three years! Not sure what I think of the actual rules as it restricts the worthwhile tile plays greatly. We'll have to see in our next real game....

Moral of the story: Someone else needs to start reading the rules!



Aside: Gotta copy of Age of Steam and plan to play it this weekend, sick or not. Expect a full review in a few days...