The Tao of Gaming

Jacqui picked up Fantasy Forest (a TSR's kid game) and it's not bad at all. A quick trip to the geek reveals why, it's by Michael Gray (other credits include Daytona 500, Fortress America, Shogun, as well as other reasonable games for kids). Fantasy Forest is a Candyland derivative, but with real choices. You have a hand of three cards (each with a monster and value) and draw a card, play a card. The card tells you how far you move, but each shortcut also has a monster ... play the right card to get a short cut. The 'spot' spaces make you play a card against the top card of the deck. If your card is higher, you go forward; if your card is lower, you go backward. If you land on an opponent, you get to take their hand and then give them back any three cards.

Rebecca and I also split a pair of games of Can't Stop.

Part of the reason for starting a blog is that I'm moving to Texas this summer (and I may move my ISP). This also gives me a strong reason to trim my game collection. I've updated my sale page. The chess books and RPG stuff will probably go on eBay (for pennies on the dollar, no doubt) unless someone expresses interest.

Anyway, blog readers get dibs. If there are any books (game related, SF, whatever) or other items you are interested, let me know. I could also trade games. And I do have a playstation (+ games) I'm probably going to unload...

Age of Renaissance is long out of print, but GMT games should ship the sequel, Manifest Destiny, in March. What I wrote before:

Age of Renaissance (AoR) came out a few years ago, my introduction came at the Gathering of Friends. Now, the Gathering crowd prefers shorter games (under 2 hours) and here we are playing a game that clocks in at 4-6. Not once, but three times in as many days.

AoR takes 3-6 players through about 1000 years of history. The game has some similarity to Civilization (a game I don't like) and History of the World (another game I don't like), but mainly in theme, not mechanics.

A turn goes as follows:

• You secretly buy your armies, which also determines player order,

• You get some cards, and then play cards,

• You buy advances,

• You spend your armies to make attacks,

• You get your money and check to see if there are shortages and surpluses.

And then repeat.

The game hinges on three things: The cards, the advances, and the map, with money being a common resource. The cards fall into three basic categories: Commodities, Leaders, and Wonky. Commodities are tied to the map: each space produces a commodity. When a commodity card is played, each player gets some amount based on how much of that commodity he/she controls. You get the base value of the commodity times the square of the number of spaces you control, so the difference between 2 spaces and 3 is big. Leaders give you a discount on buying advances. And the other cards just do a variety of things: hurt other players, give you a foothold in the middle east, slow down progress of advances, and the like.

Advances are the 'break or modify the basic rules' sort of things that we've all come to love. They modify your combat, let you manipulate cards, give you immunity to other cards, let you squeeze in on other players leaders, the whole gamut. There are 26 advances, grouped into six categories. Some advances have pre-requisites, but often the real barrier is that the big advances cost a lot of money. Advances tend to give discounts on other advances in their category, but not until you wait a turn.

The map is a map of Europe and the middle east, with boxes representing the far east and new world.

So, going back to a turn. Each player secretly buys armies, but whoever bought fewer armies gets to go first. This is a clever mechanic, especially given how combat is resolved. You then play cards (giving out money, setting up leaders, and whatnot) and then buy advances. Then players put their armies on the map, in order. Armies are squares, and each space takes 2-5 armies to be dominated. Once you dominate an area, you remove the squares and put in a circle. If the space is already occupied, you have to attack. You spend a number of armies equal to double a spaces size (if it's dominated) and roll 3 dice. If the black die is greater than the white die, you win. You also win if the colored die is greater than your position in turn order (for less than six players, some turn order positions are skipped). So during the expansion phase you can take a break when it isn't your turn ... only the active player does anything. Individual player turns take a minute or two (unless you have the dreaded slow player in your group), so it's not a horrible wait.

Then you get money (based on the number of domination markers you have) and repeat.

I've left off details, and the devil is indeed in them. There are shipping constraints, initial setup, all of the advances and cards, and whatnot. But it flows pretty smoothly once you get used to it. The game ends when you've run through the deck a certain number of times (three times is the full game, and some cards get added and removed each time), or on the turn when one player owns all of the advances. You then value up the value of your advances and add your cash and subtract your misery.

Misery is a measure of, well, how miserable your peasants are. It is possible for your players to get so miserable that they revolt (or revert back to barbarism), but that takes some negligence on your part. You get misery chiefly by a few cards (representing famine, class struggle, and superstition). You also get misery if you can't (or won't) pay the cost associated with holding your cards. You lose misery by buying advances, but religious advances, which lead towards increased militarism for the most part, actually increase misery.

I haven't really done a good job of describing the game, but it's a start. So, how is it?

Well, the production value is middle of the road to poor. The map and counters overuse too many shades of brown. Things that are better represented by cards use tables and chits (check out the link below for useful player aids). The game is also expensive and now that AH is no more, don't expect to find many copies just lying around. [Incidentally, some copies have a problem with the deck collation, but AH/Hasbro will fix that if you call them.]

I've said that the game isn't elegant, and skipped details. But the basic systems are. The idea of giving people who buy less armies better combat odds puts a tension in the game, and the interactions of the basic systems are well done. The advances aren't balanced perfectly, but there are multiple strategies for how you go. Also, you have to vary your strategy based on which starting power you get (Genoa, Venice, Paris, London, Barcelona or Hamburg) and what cards you draw. You have to pay attention to what other people are doing, but your abilities to gang up are limited, so this isn't just a game of Diplomacy.

That being said, the game does have problems. Downtime (especially if you are in a slow group) during the expansion phase. Each player has a sheet to keep track of advances, and there is a bit of counting and deciding what to buy each turn. The rules are written poorly. Really poorly. Ask someone to explain them to you. Finally, the game does have a problem where some players can fall out of contention or another player can take a huge lead. Huge leads can be whittled down, but when a player falls out of contention it can be boring. I'd like to say that with competent players, it isn't really an issue; but it is. Eventually something happens that gives a few players a big lead over others. Usually this happens in the mid to late game, but it can happen early, especially if it is your first game of AoR.

But the good outweighs the bad. I've probably played this game 15+ times, at 4-5 hours a pop. That says a lot. It's tough to make the time to play this, but I try... Update Jan 10th, 2001.

Because of it's length (~4-5 hours), we don't play this that often, but I still like it. You really should print out a copy of the commodity cards and use them (instead of the tables). You can find them at Web Grognards.

My thoughts today? I sold my copy a few years ago. There are a few cards that matter more than the board. While in some games they serve as a nice balancing mechanism, in some games the leader runs away (because he gets the good cards). And why play a long board game dominated by a few cards?

I playtested Manifest Destiny a few times, which helped me decide to sell Age of Renaissance. Manifest Destiny's improvements make it faster and smoother. But I realized while playing it that I didn't really want to play it often, so why keep Age of Renaissance, which was worse longer?

If you do want to play, I suggest using some variants listed on my old page.

Update: I should make clear that the two games have different designers, as Larry indicates in the comment below. I do feel that the games 'play alike' much more closely than AoR does with Civ. I should also clarify that I played Manifest Destiny several years ago. It may have changed since then.

Author	Bill Crenshaw (MD)
Players	3-6 (AoR)/3-5(MD)
Company	Avalon Hill(AOR)/GMT(MD)
Time	4-6 hours(AOR)/3-4(MD)
Cost	Out of print(AOR)/$55(MD)

In which I continue updating my old reviews.

Sept 28th, 2003

After hating War: Age of Imperialism, I thought I would never buy another game by Eagle. In fact, I've bought two more. Attack! micro-evolves the Axis & Allies style of light wargame and does a reasonable job. It's the same genus, different species. [I'm not a rabid A&A junkie; I liked it when I was younger, but it's too long and needs tweaks]. I'll play Attack! when the mood strikes, but don't expect it to strike often.

Then I heard comparisons between Age of Mythology and Puerto Rico, a game I spend too much time thinking about. I read the online rules (after War:Age of Imperialism, I read the rules first). Unlike Eagle's prior games, the rules were complete and indicated that the game ended at a specific point, not when you want to finish. And there were a few little "Aha" moments. So, I bought it.

Age of Mythology (based on a computer game I've never played) is a resource management game with fighting. You get three actions a turn, but you don't have complete control over your choices. Each player has seven "permanent actions" they can take, and a deck of random actions. You pick and choose from the permanent deck, but get the luck of the draw from random deck (and you have to pick your permanent items first).

The actions are fairly standard: Explore (each player can pick a resource producing piece of land, almost exactly like PR's settler), Gather (produce a limited set of resources), buy stuff (buildings or combat units), trade resources with the bank, advance to the next age or attack. Unlike Puerto Rico, when you pick a role, other players aren't always involved. Gather and the world gathers with you; build and you build alone.

Advancing to the next age costs a hefty chunk of resources, but increases your hand size and allows you to build better combat units (heroes). Also, to build the game-ending wonder you must have advanced to the final age. The final action is to attack an adjacent opponent. You can pick one of three goals when attacking:

• destroy a building
• seize land
• raid stockpiles

Both players simultaneously pick an army from available units (the attack card dictates the size of the army). After revealing armies each player sends forward a champion, again simultaneously. Each creature gets some dice, and gets bonuses against certain creature types. The combat has been described as Rock-Paper-Scissors, which is fair enough; but Rock Paper Scissors can be interesting if the payoffs are unequal. Suppose that you are playing for $1, but if you lost while throwing scissors, you paid double. Now all of the elements aren't equal, and while an optimal strategy involves randomness, picking items according to the correct odds is hard. For battles where each side has 4 different choices, I doubt many people could determine an optimal strategy in their head or even on paper.

Of course, Age of Myth has dice. The combat system is: most sixes wins, re-roll ties. Hardly elegant. Some have proposed changes (like most 5s and 6s), but I wonder about balance. In any case, having a bunch of dice helps, and printing out player aids from boardgamegeek helps immensely. The combat system mixes RPS and a dice fest, so there's a lot of luck and some psychology. However, either player can retreat after each round of combat, so it's not mandatory.

In my mind, the real innovation of Age of Mythology works with the victory points. At the beginning of the turn, three players get to place victory points for achieving certain tasks:

• Building the (game ending) wonder,
• Having the largest army at the end of the game,
• Having the most buildings at the end of the game,
• Winning the next battle

So the points for the game's objectives vary from game to game, under direct control of the players, while some VPs get doled out during the game (for next battle, and also for a building that allows players to purchase VPs).

Do I think AoM is the next Puerto Rico? No. It's longer, with more luck (a bad combination). For me, the game doesn't go over the edge. You need to have some luck to allow trailing players to catch up, and the games takes a touch longer than I'd like, but I'm not a purist who demands all games resolve in 90 minutes or less. Still, a long game where a string of bad rolls destroy your chances of winning leaves a bad taste. My second game saw an unbelievable string of luck dominate the game.

Given that caveat, I consider Age of Mythology a reasonable entry in the 'empire' system (Produce:Buy:Attack:Research). The game is not incredibly long: our first game (which has players scrambling to see which units do what, as well as rules questions) clocked in at three hours for a four player game. Since the fourth player adds to the time, it's reasonable to expect three experienced players to finish in two hours (or less). Our second game had three players, one new, and took about 2.5 hours. Another table probably finished in about the same play time, but took longer to explain the rules. Like Titan, however, game length varies based on how many battles there are, which is up to the players. Thankfully (unlike most other Eagle Games), Age of Mythology has a definite ending. The game ends the turn: when the bank runs out of VPs. So a game goes 10 turns maximum. A game also ends when a player builds "The wonder," but that seems difficult.

The game adds tension with another interesting rule: VPs are not split in ties, but are just discarded. That allows trailing players to make attacks to force a tie between the leaders, effectively removing VPs from the game. I suspect that Age of Mythology may have a player effectively knocked out, but that's not surprising: If you fight a hopeless battle rather than retreating when outclassed (or after the dice have spoken), winding up with no army is the logical result, and that's devastating in a wargame.

Age of Myth certainly has weaknesses: apart from length and luck, the pressure of Puerto Rico is missing. There are enough buildings for all of the players to get their share. However, buildings can be destroyed and 'plantations' are keyed to certain land types. Also, resources can easily run out, hurting players during the gathering phase (similar to craftsman). The roles are similar, but each player has their own deck to limit their options, instead of other players selections. You can see the mechanical similarities in setup, the results differ significantly. Another real issue is that a player can be forced into a kingmaker position with little to no real chance of winning. I believe that is more likely to happen in a four player game, where the player opposite the leader cannot directly attack him but may desperately need to raid another player. In a three player game, players can always attack whomever they want.

I suspect AoM works much better with three than four players. Right now there are three civilizations, so having one of each seems best. Each civilization has its own units and random action deck, leading to a different feel. Because of the Rock Paper Scissors element (and the details on how gathering works), it would be unfair for one civilization to be represented twice in a four player game, so it's Two vs. Two, which is somewhat unsatisfying. One unexpected difference is that resources are much tighter in a 3 player game. That is because when you gather, you pick a type of land ("Forests") or a commodity ("Wood") that produces for everyone. Each civilization has a different mix of spaces: Egypt has lots of desert. In the four player game, though, that means that everyone has a partner with the same mix of spaces, so in addition to there being more gathering (from the extra player), most gather cards will significantly help another player. In the three player game, that is unlikely (the Greeks and Norse don't have many desert spaces). In a four player game, the bank was running out of commodities fairly consistently, but that rarely happened with three. [The bank is adjusted based on number of players].

Overall, I think Age of Myth will probably get played a few times and then pulled out rarely. Not a bad game, but no Puerto Rico. Then again, how many games are?

Variants

The least satisfying rule is that only three players get to place victory points. Why not simply add 10 VP to the mix for each player above four? It will still take 10 turns (max). This could change some strategies in the 5/6 player game, but I'll hopefully always have a better option. [Adding players beyond four would probably add to the game length.]

If you like the psychology of combat and want to lessen the luck just a touch, I'm toying with the following variant. If there are no other effects that deal with Ties (such as Medusa or a Norse Berzerker), then combat is resolved like "High Card" in Poker. Most Sixes wins, then Most Fives (if sixes are tied). This also limits each combat to a single throw of the dice, barring exact ties (with exact number of dice). If the units themselves indicate that ties are won/lost, then only sixes count. [This latter rules is done to avoid tinkering with the special unit balance]. As stated above, some people just change it to be that fives or sixes hit, which decreases luck further.

Update March 3rd, 2004.

The summary above ("played a few times, then pulled out rarely") captures my feelings about Age of Mythology. I'd much rather play Game of Thrones, or Mare Nostrum or new games (or better old ones). Three players is a tough number, but I'm still not likely to suggest this one. A passing fad.

I've sold both games. In fact, my review was way too positive. I won't play either game again, and I wonder if I just mentally said "It's not this bad" to avoid saying "How could I have been suckered again!" In fairness, someone who likes Axis & Allies may like Attack!

Author	Glen Drover
Players	2 - 4
Company	Eagle Games
Time	2 - 3 hours
Cost	$35

Brad Delong posts a seminar notice:

Clock Games: Theory and Experiments

Markus Brunnermeier (Princeton) and John Morgan (Haas)

December 4, 2004

Abstract: Timing is crucial in situations ranging from currency attacks, to product introductions, to starting a revolution. These settings share the feature that payoffs depend critically on the timing of a few other key players--and that their moves are uncertain. To capture this, we introduce the notion of clock games and experimentally test them. Each player's clock starts on receiving a signal about a payoff-relevant state variable. Since the timing of signals is random, clocks are de-synchronized. A player must decide how long, if at all, to delay his move after receiving the signal.

Still, I don't think I'll be travelling to attend. Too bad. Quick! To the Googlemobile!

The paper contains 56 pages. The hoary math starts around page 8. I particularly like the equation on the bottom of page 9, which shrinks the font size (so that it fits on one line), and has taus, several integrals, lots of famous numbers and yes! even a summation. The next line starts "This unwieldy integral expression is greatly simplified using Kummer functions..."

I used to be good at math...

Curt Carpenter had an interseting observation on Spielfrieks:

Comparing that to my experience with [Princes of the Renaissance]...I've only played PotR 3 times. In each game we had someone who had never played before. Each of the games was won by someone who was playing for the first time, who professed to have no clue what they were doing. It's entirely possible that the rest of us still hadn't figured out decent strategies. With SoE being as new as it is, perhaps this is the same Martin Wallace winning-by-accident phenomenon. As a counterpoint, though, a first-timer in AoS is almost guaranteed not to win. Seems like an interesting dichotomy.

No doubt some games have a steep learning curve, and others don't. However, the difference between Princes and Age of Steam stem from the fact that it is difficult to target a player in Age of Steam. [I've played Princes once, and while I don't recall it being easy to pick on a specific player, it seemed possible. My memory is vague, though.]

So, in an experienced AoS group (+ one newbie), the experienced players will maximize their position and snipe at each other, leaving the newbie to flounder (which will happen). In a political game (even a restrained one), the experienced players will serve as a balance against each other via direct attacks and "Take that" mechanisms. The floundering new player benefits by hiding in the shadows.

So, games that focus on optimizations with little direct interaction (and little or no way to gang up on a player) will offer little chance to the new player to win, assuming the other players have learned from previous games.

I enjoy Alex Rockwell's writing, particularly on strategy. So when he recently posted to SpielFrieks calling Fairy Tale the "Best Filler Evar" it put the game on my radar and I hoped to play it. Last night I got the chance.

Fairy Tale has a deck of 100 nicely illustrated cards in four suits. Three of the suits represent the `nice' fairy tale races (Fairies, Dragons and Knights) and are functionally identical. The fourth suit represents chaos or evil. A game has four rounds. The dealer gives each player five cards. You keep one and pass the rest, then keep one of the (four) cards you get passed, and so on. After everyone has drafted five cards, players pick a card and simultaneously reveal them. All played cards are kept, but may be turned face down.

Cards can have three special powers: Hunting, Opening and Closing. If any card "Hunts", all of the affected cards played at the same time are turned face down. For example, each of the three good suits has a card that `hunts' the evil suit (black, of course). There aren't many hunt cards. Cards that open allow the player to turn one or two cards (usually of a specific suit) face up. Cards that close require the player (or all players) to turn a card (again, usually of a specific suit) face down.

So, you draft five cards, then play three (one at a time). Discard the other two. Repeat four times and then score. Only face up cards count for scoring, and the cards have a variety of mechanics to score. Some cards have a flat value (positive or negative). Some sets score based on the number of cards. Others are conditional - to get the points you must have the most of a type. Type could be suit, but cards also have a theme (story, location, character) which may be counted. Lots of ways to score.

Fortunately, the cards' symbols explain the scoring. It took a game or two to figure the symbols out, but a game only lasts 15 minutes. The cards also show their frequency (by saying x/100) and the distribution of any cards that they require, so the conditional `7' that requires a `Green 6' and `Green 1' indicates that there are four of each of those cards. The cards look nice with typical fantasy artwork.

Having played four times, I consider Fairy Tale an enjoyable filler, and there may be depth. For the first game, you try to learn the cards. Then in the second game, you start combining some defensive play ("I want this card a bit, but I cannot let the next player have that card"). Scoring combinations and what they require also starts to inform your analysis. Standard tricks of play get noticed (playing a high value card that forces you to close one of your cards in that suit, then a low value card that opens one card) and countered (with hunts) at the appropriate time.

I'd rate thinking as optional but useful for this game. For a late night `closer' game, that seems right. One interesting note is that with 5 players, the entire deck will be dealt out, but with less that isn't true. And there are several cards that occur exactly once in the deck. The partnership four-player variant supposedly adds to the strategy, but I haven't tried it.

Due to the fact that Fairy Tale is imported from Japan, expect mild sticker shock. On the other hand, recent Steve Jackson Games cost more, with worse production values. I want to play this a few more times before deciding if it's a fad or has real staying power. It's too early to proclaim it the best filler, though. I'm not rushing out to buy it, but I'd certainly trade for a copy. When I've played more games I'll chime in, one way or the other. Early impression - favorable.

Marginal Revolution finds a novel proposal for deciding who starts at overtime — a 'split the pie' auction!

At the start of sudden-death overtime, the teams engage in a silent auction to decide possession. Each team writes down the yard line at which it would be willing to start its offense. The numbers are given to the referee in sealed envelopes; the team that picks the lower yard line gets the ball first.

Sports rarely change, and that's radical. I like the idea to just give the home team first possession (Visitors kick). Despite the fact that home teams have a statistical advantage, it would be nice to give them something tangible. Since the overtime rules are is known in advance, a visiting team threatening to tie (by say, kicking the Point After) may take a risk to win (or lose) outright, and it makes home field for the playoffs more important. As for the Superbowl, they should play an entire half until a team wins.

Tuesday night boardgaming saw Struggle of Empires hit the table. Overall quite enjoyable. As I thought, the first war took a while (particularly the first 2-3 rounds). But after that things picked up. Unfortunately, we needed another 30-45 minutes to finish the last war, so we called it at 2 wars. Overall time (including rules) about 2:30-2:45. Call it 3:30 hours for the first game with all new players. The time speed up was dramatic. About 1:15 for the first war, :45 for the second (the rest for the rules).

Now that I've played it, my worries seem overblown. There are plenty of options, but I doubt anyone put themselves out of the running in the first few rounds (while getting a feel for the game). A new player (or two) in a crowd of experienced gamers would be at a disadvantage. I happened to win, but given that we decided at the end of round 4 to just play out the last round of war 2 and call it, that's more luck than anything else (several players had taken turns that aimed at the long term).

Unsurprisingly, I look forward to playing again.

While waiting for everyone to show, some of us played Fairy Tale. After Struggle broke up, we played 3 more quick games. A very good filler, and one that I'll review ... later.

Update: I forgot a quick game of Lord of the Rings, the Confrontation.

In the comments about my last War of the Ring game, Jon mentioned the rules got to him. The WotR rules don't bother me, at least in regards to complexity. The grey areas cover vast swathes of ground. Or, I really am confused on the rules but don't realize it. I've read the FAQ and many of the Boardgame geek archives on WotR and still have a few questions.

Anyway, I walked into the game store on Sunday and Martin Wallace mugged me for a lot of money. Age of Steam expansions don't come cheap, but Struggle of Empires took the bulk of the bill. Boardgamegeek's page on Struggle of Empires]

Struggle's rules are concise (about four pages), but densely packed. They were easy to grasp straight away, with just a few special cases to remember ("When can units move around Europe?").

Just to make sure I understood the rules, I setup a game and tried to go through a round or two and ... stopped. I know the rules (at least, the basics); the options overwhelmed me.

After the (clever) turn order auction, each player takes a turn 5 (or 6) times around the table. A turn has two actions. You have six choices of actions, and can pick the same one twice (with two exceptions) in either order. So, thirty four possible actions (Let's assume you don't need to see the first result to decide the second. If you do, then you branch based on further contingencies!) But each of the actions involves another decision. The move action lets you move two units. The attack let's you start a combat. And then there's the "Take a special tile" action.

There must be 30 different special tiles, all available at the start of the game. The tiles use symbols to indicate costs and maybe a phrase to summarize benefits (the cheat sheet explains in detail).

Now, floundering through a first game is nothing new. For really complicated games, I expect to lose often (to seasonsed opponents). But I had an idea where I'm going. In War of the Ring, you are nicely constrained. Your first turn is draw two cards. Pick a guide (two choices). Sauron picks # of eyes (2-4 reasonable choices). Roll dice. Pause to gauge rough plan. Spend a die and make some number of choices with it. The rules constrain actions.

In Struggle, the rules explain outcomes of actions, but they barely constrain them at all. Additionally, the number of decision points varies between the games. In War of the Rings, when you finish and action and then your next choice awaits, the board will be basically the same. Oh, the Nazgul may have moved a bit, or a combat / hunt will resolve. But in Struggle, after your complex decision everyone else will make an equally complex decision before it gets back to you. [Of course, more players impacts this and War of the Ring is a two player game].

Finally, given that there are multiple paths to victory (you have Victory points, but you could colonize, fight wars in Europe, spend a lot, spend little, go for a powerful army or navy or diplomatic corps ... you get the idea). In Age of Steam or Europe Engulfed, there are tons of rules but you can make a rough evaluation (Income good. Crushing Enemy good). Here, I can count the VPs that would accrue if the turn ended now ... but what if the turn ends 3 rounds from now?)

By no means does this reduce my enthusiasm for Struggle. I'm ready to play. But I expect the first game to drag a bit, especially early on. I think Struggle reverses people's typical way of thinking. Consider Ursuppe. The gene cards are your options, but on the first turn you can only buy a fraction of them. By the second turn you can buy most of them (but not all) If you play with the expansion, only three of the additional genes appear each turn. This is similar to the old AH "Structured Learning," but here, the rules don't come in chunks as much as the game expands during play. Struggle starts with every choice available.

If options daunt you, consider yourself warned.

Since I don't have a "Games recently played" list handy, I figured I'd just summarize my month of gaming:

Bridge - 2
Goa - 1
Lawless - 1
Lord of the Rings: The Confrontation - 3
Poker - 1
Power Grid - 2
Runebound - 1
San Juan -1
Shadowfist - 12
Ticket to Ride - 1
War of the Rings - 2
Zertz - 2

Zertz, War of the Rings, and Lord of the Rings: The Confrontation are the new games, unsurprisingly. There's a solid Shadowfist gathering every week now (running at 6-10 players), which is nice. For a while, turnout made committing to attend risky...

Sunday means Shadowfist, but today I Christopher if he wanted to play War of the Ring. After explaining the rules, we were off. No long session report this time, luck was with me. Got an early Gandalf the White, while Sauron got no muster dice early on. I made it to Lorien via Moria quickly, paused a turn (three eyes rolled for a total of five) to crown Aragorn and repel the Witch King at Minas Tirth. (Despite an Onslaught for +2 to all rolls and 4 rerolls, no hits and 4 wounds).

While regrouping, Aragorn and Gandalf recaptured Helm's Deep while the Shadow regrouped. The fellowship made it to Mordor with Gollum and a single corruption. (All of the special tiles were in the bag). Evil had captured Lorien, Pelegrir and Dale, for four points. I felt good. While the Witch King got reinforcements, the men of the North declared war and assembled a large army.

The first turn in morder saw a one die eye reveal, followed by a Morgul wound (to four corruption) before I could hide. The next move saw three corruption to seven. I didn't feel so good. I had captured Dul Goldor (which had mainly vacated to take Lorien) just to keep things honest, but Erebor fell, Dol Amroth was besieged, a large army was near Minas Tirith and the Woodland Realms were threteaned.

I play the event that removes eye tiles from the bag (if any are drawn from three), but no luck. My next move got me hit by an eye-reveal (for 3) to bring me to 10. Thankfully Sauron had no event to add more corruption, and I hid. However, Dol Amruth fell (bringing the total to 8). At this point, I have two dice and need two steps. Sauron has two dice to besiege, but will take a bit of luck. Since I know he doesn't have any corruption events and a bad tile will kill me no matter what ... move forward and "The Ring Iss Mine." Plonk.

The luck balanced, no doubt (amazing early, horrible late). Clocking in at four hours this was the longest entry, so overall this was the least satisfying game I've played ... and I still enjoyed it.

3-5 Players.

December 8th, 1999.

When I first played this game, I thought it was stupid and pointless. Pretty harsh criticism for a Spiel des Jahr (Game of the Year). During my second year at the Gathering, I played in the tournament, having nothing better to do (and desperately wanting to win a tournament). I sat down and got crushed for half the game. But as I got crushed I realized that I could predict what one of the players was going to do. This player (who was running the tournament) seemed to be doing well. He knew something, but I knew he knew. I'm jumping ahead of myself.

Adel Verpflichtet is a damn tough name to spell, and I've probably gotten it wrong. In english, the game is thankfully spellable as 'By Hook or By Crook'. The basic premise is that you, the idle rich, collect stuff in order to show up other lazy bored rich people. The game plays like Rock/Paper /Scissors on steroids.

First, each player simultaneously decides to go to the auction house or the castle. Then everyone at the auction house plays either a check or a thief. The highest check gets to buy one of the two face up items. If exactly one thief is played, that player gets the check, otherwise the auction house makes a bit of scratch. Then everyone at the castle decides what to do: Show an exhibition, send a thief, or send a detective. Everyone who showed an exhibition displays an exhibit. Basically, any 3 or more items that have adjacent (or the same) letters of the alphabet is a valid show. Items have letters (A-G, I think) and a date. Whoever shows the most items wins, with ties being determined by oldest item. The two best exhibits get victory points, the exact amount depending on the leader's location along the points track.

Then, each thief steals one item from each display! Thieves are numbered to show who gets first pick. Finally, if there are any detectives, all of the thieves get sent to jail. [As in real life, stolen goods are never recovered]. The jail holds 5 ne'er-do-wells, and since each player employs two, eventually the jail becomes overcrowded and paroles the thieves back to a life a crime. [Just like real life again]. Apart from the warm glow of putting the perps on ice, detectives get victory points if successful, and get more points if further behind.

Then you do it again.

After someone has gotten enough points, there is a final showing (no cops or robbers) and the best exhibit gets a haul of points, with second getting a respectable amount. Most points wins and is insufferable at the yacht club.

Back to the story: it's Rock Paper Scissors and I hate it and I'm sitting there playing when I realized that there was a bit of strategy and psychology involved. I could guess what the other players would do and I put together an amazing come from behind victory. Then I won in the second round! The I got horribly stomped in the third round! Oh well. We were all drinking though, I blame the beer.

In any case, my feelings had changed. With a clever group there is enough strategy to make Adel a good game, well worthy of the Spiel des Jahr. I play this gem every year at the Gathering, and try to drag it out at odd times. Last year, when playing at the Adel tournament, there were two uninspiring items up for auction. All 5 players went to the castle. Then all 5 players played...thieves. The board hadn't changed, so next turn - 5 Thieves. Next turn - 5 Thieves. Ludicrous. Anyone who played a detective would make out like a bandit. Next turn - 5 thieves. Finally, a few people went to the auction and everyone at the castle played a detective, earning nothing but donuts. Fun stuff. We weren't even drinking then. In any case, this is truly a psychological game, and if you don't get into that, skip it. But if you do, Adel is a great find.

Updated Jan 18th, 2002.

My feelings on Adel haven't changed. I occasionally toss it into my "Bag O' Games", although it keeps getting passed up for the big new thing. (A committed reader of my reviews will know that new games always trump old games).

My thoughts now? About the same. I should clarify that occassionally means "About once a year". I didn't play in '04 (did in '03) and I've considered selling my copy to upgrade to Hoity Toity (which lets in a 6th player), but don't really play enough to justify it.

In general, I like my reviews (I'd like them better if my writing showed signs of improving after all of these years). I tried to update reviews on my old page, with mixed success. I've decided to pull over a review every now and then and then just tack on how my thoughts have changed. I may clean up spelling (or grammer) errors in a bit of orwellian history control, but for the most part they'll be unchanged.

Part of the reason I showed my "games played" list is that it showed the dichotomy between words and actions. Always good to know.

Update: The urge to make significant editorial changes won. I haven't altered any meanings (I hope), but I did clean up what struck me as poor writing.