Gaming Ground

Borderlinx Package

2011-01-03T15:23:00.004+08:00

As mentioned in a previous post, I made an order from CSI and delivered it back to Singapore using Borderlinx. What impressed me was that I received the package in about a week from the time I made the order - that's fast considering I opted for standard shipping.

On the downside, the charges from Borderlinx were far more expensive than I expected. Despite

1. Free US domestic shipping from CSI (on orders > US$100),

2. a 10% discount off the games thanks to CSI's year-end sale and

3. a 15% discount off shipping charges from Borderlinx,

I ended up saving about $10 as compared to purchasing the entire package from local online retailers coupled with customer privileges. This was somewhat disappointing and the unanticipated cost largely boiled down to Borderlinx's volumetric charges. The actual weight of the package was about 5kg but the volumetric weight (the higher being charged) came up to just over 9kg . The calculation for volumetric weight seems to vary across the net and it was my oversight not to have double checked against Borderlinx's formula.

I did instruct CSI to pack the games in the smallest box possible and while there was excess space in the box, it was impossible to know if that was due to the lack of smaller boxes that were suitable or simply added caution to avoid damaged games.

While I did obtain the games much faster than if I had enlisted my local online retailer to procure them for me, I'm not sure whether the added hassle and risk borne was worth it, especially when void of the discounts I chanced upon this time round.

Oh well, it will all be forgotten when I get to table Navegador, Power Struggle and Vikings for my gaming session this week!

2010 In Review

2011-01-01T20:41:00.009+08:00

With the turn of the year, I was keen to find out what my gaming patterns for 2010 would reveal through the annual nickels and dimes exercise. I was divided as to whether to include online plays because coupled with my iPhone and OCTGN, I clocked a sizable number of games against others over the net. In the end, I decided to be a purist and only record F2F games, as I do on BGG.

My most played game in 2010 was...

A Game of Thrones LCG - 23 plays

No surprise here since I had a regular group with Ivan, Ben and Jo going early in the year where AGoT LCG was a weekly affair for us. While the weekly sessions dried up due to our various commitments over the course of the year, it remains one of my favs. I never had a chance to try a CCG in my youth despite my interest and AGoT LCG most definitely scratches that itch. Most of our F2F sessions were multiplayer in nature where the different titles add a different dimension to the game. In addition, I clocked 100+ 1v1 games over OCTGN with some of the best American and European players in the game. That has not only fueled my interest in the game but the privilege to play against opponents of such stature has also been a valuable learning experience.

Only other dime was...

Glory to Rome - 10 plays

Not a surprise - it is after all one of the few games that I rate a 10. Furthermore, it's a perennial favourite with Van and she still requests it from time to time despite her diminishing interest in games.

While AGoT LCG and GtR were my only dimes, I had a few near misses...

Hansa Teutonica - 9 plays

One of my new favs and my appreciation for it grows with each play. If I had to pick my fav euro for 2010, this would be it. I adore the depth that comes in the reasonably short playtime, the multiple paths to victory and the tense interaction between players. Looking forward to even more plays in 2011.

Dominion:Intrigue - 9 plays

I really wanted to like the game but eventually sold it after lacklustre interest from my gaming group. In all honesty, I too realized that its multi-solitaire nature was getting to be despite opting for the most 'interactive' expansion of the series. Nonetheless, thanks to its relatively short playtime, I did clock quite a number of plays while I owned it.

Monopoly Deal Card Game - 9 plays

A surprise here, but I suppose there were sufficient occasions that we needed a real filler or had non-gamers around to bring it to the table.

The rest of the nickels...

Dixit 2 (8 plays) - Wonderful filler that my non-gamer friends enjoy.

The Resistance (8 plays) - A newly acquired game but I can already see its potential in being my go-to game for larger groups, especially since it's relatively non-gamer friendly.

Yspahan (7 plays) - A fast-playing, medium-light game. It seems to fit the mold of the kind of game that sees play often but I have recently put it on my trade list. The different paths to victory are limited and the Caravan is overpowered when it sees little competition, which is often the case with new players.

Jungle Speed (6 plays) - Party game that saw more plays in the early half of the year.

Macao (6 plays) - I really like the wind-rose mechanic and the potential card combos, but the rest of the game seems 'meh'. I don't know whether it's a keeper yet but definitely one of the better games I was introduced to in 2010.

Ra (6 plays) - Another one of Van's favs so she does request it occasionally.

Die Kutschfahrt zur Teufelsburg (5 plays) - A fantastic game once players get a hang of the strategy involved. I much prefer this for large groups than The Resistance but it is a tad less unapproachable unfortunately. A blast with the right group.

Santiago (5 plays) - Another of the discoveries of the year. Unfortunately it plays best with 5 which means it faces tough competition from the Princes of Florence and El Grande when I have a gaming group of that size. What it has going for it is that it does play in half the time.

Summoner Wars (5 plays) - Another newly acquired game and a keeper already. I'm unlikely to find a ready opponent in Van but it is an ideal 2-player filler. The simple rules and use of dice keep it accessible too.

Final stats: 171 plays, 38 games (of which 19 were new)

In comparison, here are the 2009 numbers: 167 plays, 44 games (of which 29 were new)

Bottom Line:

While the number of plays rose, this was likely due to increased number of plays of shorter, filler/party-like games. What's telling is that I played much fewer new games, which suggests my gaming experience was more focused this year. While I always enjoy 'discovering' new games, it meant that I was also able to play the games I like more frequently and get a better handle on the their strategies and subtleties. All in all, a year I'm contented with on the gaming front despite the drop-off in activity.

Finally, while the figures didn't factor in this yearly review, boardgaming on iOS appear to be an increasing staple. I clocked in 70+ online games of Samurai, coupled with multiple Carcassonne and Tichu games. If I do acquire an iPad in 2011 as planned, F2F gaming on the iPad may be an added dimension of my future gaming experiences.

Last Game Order For 2010

2010-12-25T00:31:00.006+08:00

I had planned for one last game order for the year - Power Struggle, but thanks to the year end sale at CSI, I ended up putting in a full-blown order to qualify for free shipping. Was hoping to keep my games collection around the 30 mark but it seems that this order coupled with my recent acquisitions will be blowing that number out of the water.

Since I didn't have anyone to help carry the games back for me this time round, I had to decide between Vpost and Borderlinx as an alternative. Went with Borderlinx in the end due to the 15% shipping discount currently on as well as the convenience of being a Citibank cardholder. This is the first time I'm opting for a commercial delivery so we'll see how it goes. I have heard horror stories of shocking shipping charges. I suppose it's tough to get a good estimate since you can never be sure of the volumetric box size that the games will be packed in. I requested for the smallest possible box from CSI but it really boils down to the fit. Will update on the experience after I receive the games.

Besides Power Struggle, I added Navegador and Vikings to the order. Navegador has been notching great reviews over the past few weeks on BGG. The game from this year's Essen crop that initially caught my eye was Troyes but after ploughing through the reviews that emerged after Essen, it seemed that Navegador would be a better fit for my gaming palate. Looking forward to my first rondel game!

Happy gaming over the holiday weekend and Blessed Christmas!!!

Checklist For iDevices Boardgames

2010-11-04T09:51:00.006+08:00

With the slew of euros coming out for the iPhone/iPad, I decided to see if I could come out with a list of some sorts to keep my wallet in check:

1. Universal App or iPad version? Since the main attraction for me is really playing the game on-the-go with friends round the table on an iPad.

2. Game I haven't tried or one I don't like enough to own? At the price of a Starbucks Frappe, a mighty attractive option for sure.

3. Online implementation of some sorts? Samurai has been highly addictive in its asynchronous online mode, 'nuff said.

4. Round-the-table/Hot-seat multiplayer format? The pass-and-play format doesn't appeal to me since I find it easier to get others to sit around and stare at a 10" screen then to pass a device around. Boo for the games with hidden info though...

5. Plays more than 2? Smallworld would be a straight purchase if not for the developers nerfing it to only 2 player multi.

6. Price. My current inclination is to pay US$4.99 for a game with online capabilities like Samurai and Carc and US$2.99 for a game without, like NS Hex and Tichu.

Not all my purchases so far meet all the criteria but check out mostly:

Tichu - Misses on 2 & 4. 3 on the way.
Samurai - Misses only on 4 due to hidden info.
Carc - All hits baby!
Roll Through The Ages - Misses only on 3. Unlikely but at least AI on the way.
NS Hex - Misses on 4 due to hidden info. 3 on the way.

I hate gushing but Carc and Samurai are superbly done. All future releases should hopefully seek to emulate what they offer.

Samurai and Neuroshima Hex! On The iPhone

2010-10-22T12:57:00.002+08:00

Some comments on previous boardgame apps I bought:

Samurai: Tad more expensive but definitely a very polished product. Online implementation is fantastic. If I use Word with Friends as a benchmark for asynchronous play, this beats it for the ability to set a time limit for each move and online leader boards. I purchased it primarily for future iPad play (but got it now in case of price increase), but I've to say, I'm enjoying the AI/online play tremendously at the moment. I've never played Samurai before I purchased the app. It's probably not a game I need to own a physical copy of as it can be somewhat abstract, but at US$4.99, it's a steal as a substitute.

Neuroshima Hex!: Also a game I've never tried before I bought the app and I must say I rather enjoy it. Playing it even more than Samurai even though it's just against the AI. It is priced more attractively due to lack of online implementation at the moment but developers say it's 'akan datang' (on the way). Suspect price will go up then, so I decided to grab it first. Also another game I don't need a physical copy of, but I can see myself playing it with others over an iPad.

Roll Through The Ages On The iPhone

2010-10-22T12:54:00.002+08:00

Bought it. The solo achievements were fun while they lasted (1.5 days), but in all honesty not too hard to accomplish. Little incentive to play it anymore till AI is implemented.

Pros:
1. Beautiful graphics and interface
2. Be upgraded as universal app soon
3. While multiplayer is in 'hot-seat' format, I see F2F viable on an iPad since there's no hidden info
4. Upcoming AI which should breathe some life into the game after accomplishing the solo achievements

Cons:
1. No online implementation of any form and none promised.
2. Info divided in separate menus where it would be nice to have it all on one screen. With no separate app for the iPad, I seriously doubt this will change with the universal app.
3. Limited number of solo achievements and current ones aren't too challenging
4. Optimal play seems to always begin with building cities to max out the number of dice available

I suppose the last point is sort of unfair since it's an issue with the game more so than the app. I have never played RTtA before and reviews never convinced me the physical game warranted a purchase due to its multi-player solitaire gameplay. The app (especially at a discounted price of US$2.99) gave me adequate impetus to give it a go. It definitely didn't make me feel as good about the money spent as compared to the Samurai, Carcassonne apps, but I suspect the disappointment is more with the game than the app itself.

My First Geeklist!

2010-10-13T00:05:00.002+08:00

Never thought this day would ever come since I've always been more at ease lurking around BGG. But I suppose I was particularly inspired today and started my first ever geeklist.

What's YOUR boardgaming limit?

Musings On Santiago & Havana

2010-09-26T21:35:00.006+08:00

Acquired two new games in the last month - got Santiago in a trade for Tribune which had been on the trade block for awhile and managed to purchase Havana 2nd hand at a reasonable price.

Santiago has been on my radar for some time. The only negatives I garnered from the reviews that concerned me were that it was somewhat abstract and that it really only played well with 5 players. Having played it once, I can see why some may criticize it as abstract but it carries sufficient theme not to put me off. I realized recently that while pure abstract games are a no-no for me, some attempt to infuse theme is usually adequate for my tastes as long as the mechanics are interesting enough. Santiago fits the bill for me and even playing with 4 on my first attempt has proved it to be a real gem. It plays quicks (45-60min) with good depth and has straightforward rules which makes it accessible for the casual or perhaps even non-gamer. It reminds me of Chicago Express (another game I'm fond of) in these aspects. However, the auction mechanics are somewhat different and in my opinion, that is where Santiago's brilliance lies.

There are 2 'auction' phases in each round. In the first, players bid for plantation tiles revealed for the round. Each player has to bid a different sum (with the exception of passing) but need not bid a sum higher than the previous bidder. A higher bid will give one the opportunity to pick a more desirable plantation tile. While the tiles which allow for 2 workers are clearly more popular, the kind of crop desired depends on the plantations which each player is attempting to expand. An early pass empowers the player with the role of the canal overseer which accords him the opportunity to earn from bribes or potentially sabotage the productivity of his opponents' plantations.

The 2nd 'auction' phase isn't a typical auction per se but a clever mechanic in which players attempt to influence the decision of the canal overseer with their 'bribes'. The overseer can either take the bribe and follow the proposed canal placement or he can choose to outbid the highest bid to place the canal wherever he desires. The overseer is free to pick any bribe he desires even if it isn't the highest offer - this places immense power in his hands since any damage made to non-irrigated plantations is irreversible. I love this mechanic! It feels like a negotiation game without...the negotiation! One issue I have with games like Chinatown is that it seems to alienate introverted players who may not be so comfortable 'wheeling and dealing' while giving an edge to more vocal, persuasive players. I suppose that's the point of negotiation games but yet an aspect which probably won't go down well with my gaming group. On the other hand, this Santiago facilitates 'negotiation' through a simple once-round mechanic. Sure, banter may help tilt the overseer's decision but ultimately, it boils down to the bribe offered and the board position.

Overall, Santiago is a definite keeper for me!

Havana on the other hand has some interesting mechanics but the means for VP acquisition is mildly disappointing. I enjoy the role selection mechanic which is reminiscent of Citadels, but is enhanced in that the combination of cards chosen further determines turn order. Each subsequent turn only allows the change of a single role card which makes the decision all the more agonizing. Each player also begins with a fixed hand of role cards which means that a role once discarded cannot be repeated till late in the game (when one is left with 2 cards in hand) or by using a specific role to retrieve a previously discarded card. Unfortunately, the game is let down by an uninteresting VP acquisition mechanic based around purchasing buildings. Buildings vary in terms of resources required and VPs rewarded. This reminds me similar mechanics in Stone Age and Keythedral, which took those games a few notches down for me. Havana could have taken some tips from Citadels in this regard by assigning some buildings with special powers. In the case of Citadels, purple buildings allow certain rules to be broken while others provide income bonuses, which adds a set collection dimension to the game.

All in all, some good ideas packed in a quick, relatively accessible game but comes across unpolished due to a rudimentary VP acquisition mechanic.

The Future Of Boardgaming?

2010-09-26T00:35:00.006+08:00

Recently, I've been increasingly intrigued by the boardgaming apps introduced at the Apple App store for iDevices (iPad/iPhone/iPod Touch). I'm typically cautious about the paid apps I acquire since expenditure while initially small can snowball easily.

I read a couple of reviews of the various game implementations on the Geek and other sites and finally took the plunge on 3: Neuroshima Hex!, Samurai and Carcassonne. What's interesting is that these are not the typical kind of Euros that appeal to me. I've never played NS Hex and Samurai though they were once on my watchlist. I figured they seem too abstract for my tastes after some initial research. I have played Carcassonne previously but didn't care enough for it to desire a physical copy of my own - tad light for my tastes.

So why did I buy them for my iPhone?

1. Comparatively low prices - While the games don't appeal enough to me to own a physical copy of them but their prices as software were highly attractive. I paid US$2.99 for NS Hex, and US$4.99 each for Samurai and Carcassonne. They are priced significantly lower than their physical counterparts and provide you with opponents when your gaming buddies aren't available, either via AI or online play (NS Hex's online implementation is in the works but promised by the developers). At such prices, it gives me an opportunity to try new games (in the case of Samurai and NS Hex) and own others which I only have a moderate interest in (in the case of Carcassonne). And I must say I enjoyed both new games after trying them out, but yet still not enough to care to own physical copies of them. So this works out perfectly for me.

2. Superb implementation - Of the reviews I've read, these are arguably the 3 best implementations of boardgames in the App Store, with perhaps the exception of Tichu. The numbers of boardgames have been growing with developers jumping on the bandwagon but not all are as well implemented as these. In particular, the online component is especially well designed on Samurai and Carcassonne, allowing for asynchronous play like what you enjoy with Words/Chess With Friends. Samurai even allows you to set a time limit for online games so that the AI will take over the move if the time limit is exceeded.

3. F2F Gaming Over the iPad - This is arguably the main reason that perked my interest in gaming over iDevices. There are tons of free games on the iPhone to keep me entertained when I need fillers throughout the day and I generally don't see the need to pay for such games (with the exception of the upcoming FF Tactics...woohoo!). However, what intrigued me was the possibility of gaming with my friends over the iPad (I don't one yet, but this is probably enough to tip the scale). The portability factor means that by simply lugging around an iPad, I can potentially have a host of games available to game with others on the go - no more worries about finding a large enough table to set up when you are outdoors. It also means I'm able to expand my game collection in a much more affordable way so that I have more options for my indoor gaming sessions too.

4. Price Increase - The 3 games above will all be released as universal apps in future as a free upgrade, optimized for iPad play. Prices will head north when that happens and in some cases double (Carcassonne). Being an early adopter goes easier on my wallet!

Yspahan Caraven Strategy - What I've Been Getting Wrong!

2010-09-17T12:42:00.004+08:00

In my last post, I described how difficult it was to pull of the Caraven strategy in Yspahan if your opponents aren't contributing to the caraven as well. Well, I realized the problem in my recent play laid with the fact that I've been playing one of the rules wrong. The caraven doesn't score only when it is completely filled. In fact, it scores at the end of each week! It makes it not only a viable strategy to pursue solo but rather, it makes it so powerful that it's impossible for others to ignore it. Well considering how I taught the rule wrongly, it makes it no wonder why everyone has been ignoring the caraven.

Interestingly, in my recent 4-player game in which I discovered my mistake, I scored an obscene number of points by pursuing the strategy alone (since I only realized the mistake halfway, I decided that we should continue with it for consistency). I leveraged on the 2 spots on the supervisor's track which allowed me to send 2 goods to the caraven simultaneously. No one challenged me for the buildings linked to those spots since they were generally unattractive in terms of building points and there was just a general disinterest in the caraven and hence supervisor movement. So despite only scoring the caraven once when it filled, I had all the camels filled with my tokens except for one by the mid of the final week. By the time my opponents were on to my strategy, they were more or less helpless to stop me.

With the proper rule in play however, I except much keener competition for the caraven slots which is a boon since it not only opens another viable path to victory but also an area which requires your attention even if you are not going to major on it. Without enough attention from all players, I can see how a player who pursues the Caraven strategy will simply run away with the whole game, especially when coupled with the building power that allows you to draw a card each time you send a cube of yours to the caraven. If the stars line up and you have control of the buildings which flank the same spot on the supervisor's path, you get to send 2 cubes and draw 2 cards - all in a single turn! Ouch :D

Random Musings On My Recent Gaming Session

2010-08-28T13:30:00.006+08:00

1. It was nice to get Hansa Teutonica, Glory to Rome, Yspahan and Ra to the table in half an afternoon - been awhile since I last had a solid gaming session.

2. My appreciation of Hansa keeps growing. Been waiting for the point when the other shoe drops.........but till now, I'm still waiting :) In a way, it seems to be a really abstract game and I have heard the term "cube-pusher" used to describe it but it keeps me engaged throughout. I can't help but be intrigued by the variety of ways in which I can score points and how each 'path' to victory seems equally viable.

3. Discovered a new 'broken' combo in Glory to Rome. If you've played the game before, you'll know that almost every decent combo can be a 'broken' one. It really boils down to who can get theirs up and running quickly enough. In my 30+ games of GtR, I've NEVER built the Academy before. After all, its power seems rather 'ordinary' at first glance, especially when considered beside its more awe-inducing counterparts. The Academy allows you one Thinker action after each round in which you performed a Craftsman action.

I guess with my recent dabbling in A Game of Thrones LCG, I've learnt how crucial draw can be in determining a win. In this case, I sort of stumbled upon it having taking a couple of Craftsman clients in a 3 player game. What the Academy allows me to do therefore is to exhaust my hand using multiple Craftsman actions and then replenish it fully to 5. It not only enabled me to build speedily but helped me in my push to victory. It's one of the easier combos to pull off since you do not require other buildings in tandem but rather just a couple of Craftsman clients. Sure, your opponents can slow you down by refusing to craft but in a game with few players, it will not be long before you can select the Craftsman action yourself. In this game, I didn't get to build the Shrine or Temple to increase my hand size but I can imagine how it'll make the combo even more efficient.

4. The caravan strategy in Yspahan has been touted as especially powerful and different ones have even gone to the extent to deem it broken. In my 3-player game, I found it incredibly difficult to pull off successfully if your opponents totally ignore the caravan. It is simply impossible to fill quickly enough and the game ended without me succeeding in scoring the caravan once (it only scores when it fills completely). I however only realized midway through that there is a single spot on the supervisor track which allows 2 cubes to be sent to the caravan simultaneously. Perhaps that will be sufficient to pursue the strategy - I'll have to try it out again. Even if your opponents try to block you, at least you will still be able to fill the caravan more quickly even if it means sending their cubes together with yours.

Macao: First Impressions

2010-08-05T21:06:00.004+08:00

Macao was a game that wasn't really on my radar after I read couple of reviews on the Geek. The thing that turned me off was complains regarding the lack of interaction in the game. If you have been reading my blog, you'll know that multiplayer solitaire games generally do not appeal to me. Nonetheless, I acquired it as it was available at a good price, figuring that I could always trade or sell it if it disappointed.

The rules were well-written and rather straight-forward. I had no problems teaching the rules to Van despite being just as green as her to the game. This is in contrast with some fiddly games where it's often hard to pin down all the rules on the first play. Our first play was a 2-player game and it went extremely smoothly - we felt as if we were seasoned players practically. One of my concerns was that Macao wouldn't scale well as a 2-player game since most multiplayer games seem to disappoint when scaled down to 2. However my worries were unfounded as the game played out rather well with 2. Sure, there would likely be more competition for spots in the city quarters and at the ports but the reduced downtime made up for it.

Another reason why Macao didn't immediately grab my attention was that it generally plays between 90-120min. While I'm hardly alien to games that length (a reasonable length I must say), my recent gaming patterns as well as gaming groups have led me to acquire more games of the 60min length. Yet, Van and I managed to complete the game in just over an hour including the rules explanation and that was a pleasant surprise indeed. I suppose the potential for downtime will be magnified with 3 or 4 players but 90min seems a good estimate for the game.

I must say I did enjoy the game and particularly the unique (at least for the moment) wind rose mechanic. It was almost 'fun' loading up a sector with action cubes and figuring how to spend them all when that turn hits. The intellectual stimulation laid in balancing the short term goal of ensuring there were action cubes available each round and the long term goal of activating all the cards on your tableau, failing which will result in penalty points. While challenging, it didn't give me the headache I received the first few times I played Agricola. However, it was one thing to simply avoid penalty points, it was another all together to further balance those goals with scoring points via shipping goods, occupying the city quarters and trading gold for prestige points. Hopefully with a couple of plays in the pocket, I'll progress from avoiding penalties and scoring points incidentally to a more deliberate approach in racking up the prestige points. The game is definitely more tactical in nature as the randomness of the dice and building cards makes it difficult to plan too far ahead.

What about the criticisms of the game? The most common one I read on the net is that it's plays just like another run-of-the-mill eurogame. I'm not sure it's fair to fault a game for that especially when its designer has made an effort to introduce a mechanic that while not earth-shattering is nonetheless rather fresh and interesting. My own personal criticism lies more with Macao's anti-climatic ending. The game ramps you up in terms of action cubes. Early in the game, you start with few cubes and thus turns pass quickly. Midway through the game, assuming you have sufficiently 'invested' in those rounds, you should be flushed with cubes to utilize, especially when coupled with your newly activated building powers. However due to the fixed number of rounds in the game, the latter rounds results in mostly singular cubes to be taken, resulting once again in short, quick and rather uneventful rounds. While this does wonders in reducing the downtime typically painful in quite a number of endgames, it comes across somewhat anti-climatic here as it makes it very difficult for straddlers to catch up due to the limited actions available. I suppose this could be due to my failure to load cubes in those sectors earlier but considering that that is not always the optimum move, I remain unconvinced that my view isn't valid.

Van seemed to enjoy it at least moderately which was a surprise since she usually shuns games with little interaction. This is a valid criticism of the game but it wasn't as bad as expected. It is true that there is little you can interfere with your opponents' acquisition of action cubes since the choice of dice is non-rival in nature. However, interaction comes in competition for spots on the board in terms of scoring prestige points. You compete to trade particular goods first at ports for higher points, as well as compete on the city quarters front for desired goods and to block each others' longest connection. While this seems largely idealistic in that most of your attention seems to be focused on avoiding penalty points, there seems to be sufficient potential for 'competition' in the game mechanics to be realized by experienced players.

All in all, a keeper...at least for now. I don't see it exactly as a gateway game but neither is it intimidating and I can see myself easily introducing to casuals.

Long Lay-off

2010-07-23T00:08:00.002+08:00

Haven't seen much gaming these past 2 months, largely due to travel and work. Brought a couple games back from Europe: Yspahan (which was a steal at 12 Euro), Chinatown, Dixit 2 and Die Kutschfahrt zur Teufelsburg.

It was a tough call, but I decided to sell Chinatown even before I unwrapped it. It seems to play best with 5, which was a number I seldom get to play with. Furthermore, for those rare occasions with 5, I would much prefer to bring El Grande or PoF to the table. I was also hesitant about the negotiation mechanic which was largely what the game was about. It seems to require a certain group for the game to truly take-off.

Hopefully, I will get a session going next week. Still waiting to try Yspahan. Tried Dixit 2 about 4 times with my non-gamer friends and they generally enjoyed it. I can see how repeated plays will lead to diminishing utility but I can see the appeal with the masses. My only attempt to teach Die Kutschfahrt zur Teufelsburg was miserable as I struggled with the rules explanation, having not played the game before. The game ended on a false declaration (due to an unclear communication of the victory conditions by me) but the run-through gave me a better idea of the game flow and left me a little more confident to explain the rules in future. The game did intrigue me nonetheless and I look forward to bring it to the table soon.

Gaming For The Week 22nd - 29th May 2010

2010-05-31T02:19:00.004+08:00

Marcus came over early in the week with 2 new games - Innovation and American Rails. I've been dying to try Innovation as I'm a huge fan of Glory to Rome. Verdict? I like it and will be looking to acquire it. It does come across more abstract than Glory to Rome with a definite weaker theme. On the other hand, it feels more accessible than GtR despite its 100+ unique card powers. Perhaps it is due to the fact that only 5 card powers are in play for each player at any one time. Just like GtR, the strength is in the interaction which is a key element I look for in games. I enjoy the fact that not only are many of the card powers interactive in nature but you have to constantly 'compete' with other players to be ahead in card symbols to avoid sharing your powers with others. Van wasn't impressed even though she too is a fan of GtR. I suppose it's down to the theme or in this case, the lack of...

American Rails plays similar to Chicago Express which I own. And I have to admit, it's probably the better game. You get to start anywhere on the board unlike CE's fixed positions, which enhances replayability and offers more strategic options. Secondly, the action mechanism reminiscent of Steam also puts it above CE. I like the fact that each action can only be selected by one player each time round, and your choice of action will determine your turn order subsequently. It definitely adds more depth to the game. The game felt a lot more open, less predictable and many more options available with what you can and want to do with the different companies.

The sole advantage CE has over AR is perhaps its gateway potential. I like the fact that you reduce each player turn effectively down to only 3 options: Auction, Develop, or Expand. However, I find the whole Wabash addition once a company hits Chicago fiddly. Sure it adds an extra layer to the decision-making but new players tend to struggle wrapping their head around that part of the game. Nonetheless, the components of CE are far more attractive and I suppose that always serves as an important hook for casual/non-gamers.

Mid-week, the usual gang came over for our weekly fix of A Game of Thrones LCG. Can't remember much except that Jo (Greyjoy) and I (Lanni) took a close one from Ben (Bara) and Ivan (Martell). We ended off with Ra and Ivan took his first win in that, completely demolishing the rest of us. After Ben left, we managed to squeeze in a game of Dominion:Intrigue and a game of Citadels before calling it a day.

Gaming For The Week 9th-15th May 2010

2010-05-14T16:09:00.003+08:00

The usual crowd at the mid-week session where we duked it out with AGoT. Two games were played. I paired with Ivan who played Greyjoy for the first and Ben the next who was playing Baratheon. Jo played Martell and Stark respectively for both games.

Ivan and my strategy was to ignore Jo and concentrate on Ben to garner power in lieu of Martell's characters with the Vengful mechanic (stand vengful characters when you lose as in defence) as well as triggered effects in the same vein. Ben was thumbed down most of the game with minimal characters and Ivan and I took advantage of that to make unopposed challenges.

Jo got off to a fast start in the second game with his Stark deck. My Lannister deck had limited attachments and he killed off my best characters each turn with Bear Island. Ben wasn't faring much better with good income but limited characters to play after being an Intrigue target of Ivan's.

Ivan had to leave after and the 3 of us ended off with Glory to Rome. Ben and Jo have not played the game much as compared to some of my other gaming partners, and seemed generally lukewarm towards it. I had a couple of good draws and managed to get an obscene combo going with Circus Maximus, Bridge, Collosseum and the Wall. Subsequently, I completed the Temple and Shrine and got my max hand size up to 11. I ended the game by using the remaining in-town sites.

With 3, the optimal strategy seems to be getting as many Craftsmen into your client as quickly as possible. Even if your opponents try to starve you of that action, each time you Craft can be a devastating turn, especially with good buildings available.

OCTGN2: A Game of Thrones LCG

2010-05-05T22:42:00.002+08:00

It ought to be rather apparent from my blog posts that I'm rather enamoured with A Game of Thrones LCG. So it was a real godsend when I discovered some enthusiast on the Fantasy Flight forums did some work for it to be played virtually over OCTGN2 (for free!).

I have clocked 5 plays so far and it worked better than expected. In fact it recreates the F2F experience satisfyingly , just without the actual F2F part. There is an in-client chat but I suppose Skype or Ventrilo could help further enhance the experience.

But the real kicker is that you get to build a tournament worthy deck and run it out against opponents from all over the world. The former is a boon since finances may hinder one from obtaining sufficient copies of each card while the latter is a boon since AGoT LCG players are far and few where I live.

I have so far only tried it with Ivan and Jo but hopefully I'll soon be able to play against enthusiasts from other parts. Leave a note if you are keen for a game.

Gaming For the Week 18th-24th April 2010

2010-05-05T22:32:00.002+08:00

Had two new guests this week joining us at our mid-week session. Jo, JoGi, Ian, Ivan and myself started with a game of Battlestar Galactica. JoGi and I were Cylons from the start. In a bid to speed up the game, I probably made it easy on the Humans by selecting a 3 distance destination as Admiral. I figured the heavier penalty on resources was worth the risk but in the end the humans managed to eek out the victory. I noticed that on this shorter variant of BSG, there is a tendency for Cylons to reveal too late. JoGi and I made that mistake and weren't able to severely deter the Humans as revealed Cylons, especially when he was forced to reveal from the Brig. I suppose revealing too early does spoil the game for the Cylons somewhat since your options are limited, but revealing too late on the hand limits your opportunities to throw those nasty Super Crisis cards in the way of the Humans. Well, I was just happy to clock another play of the game. My fears that it would simply end up a white elephant due to its niche theme has proved somewhat premature so far but we'll see...

Due to the limited time remaining, we opted for Tribune. Can't believe I'm playing this game back-to-back weeks when it's on my WTS list. But I suppose the one thing going for it is that it packs decent game in a short time. Unfortunately, it just isn't the sort of 'game' I fancy. Predictably, Jo took us to the showers in the game (I called it at the start!), proving once again that he's the master of Tribune. My brain simply cannot wrap around the steps I need to take to obtain the objectives in as minimal steps as possible. Well clearly, Jo manages that. Ivan, Jo and I completed our objectives the same round but once we counted points, it was no contest.

Gaming For The Week 11th-17th April 2010

2010-04-19T22:27:00.002+08:00

It was another AGoT heavy week with the usual 4. I had time to tweak my Lannister deck while Ben customized a Baratheon deck for his use. I attempted to lower the average cost of my characters and at the same time, include a couple of sorely needed claim soaks. As it turned out the deck worked relatively well though I was pretty much pinned back in the 2 games played.

In the first, I teamed up with Jo and his Targaryen deck while Ben teamed up with Ivan who played Greyjoy. In the second, I paired with Ben against Jo and Ivan.

Ivan introduced a new card Wharf Rats which was a real pest. Basically you play the character under the control of your opponent and gift your opponent with a 2M character which cannot be killed. Sounds like a boon so far? Here's the kicker - as long as Wharf Rats remain under your control, you discard a card each time you win a challenge, be it in attack or defence. I ended up discarding a third of my deck. While I suppose it isn't a deathblow by any means considering its 3 gold cost and the additional character granted to your opponent. Nonetheless, being on the receiving end of it, I can attest it was a real annoyance. It also effectively nullified the ability of my Lion Heralds to search the deck for desired cards. In fact, since Wharf Rats is a non-unique card, Ivan could foreseeably play 3 of them on me. Yikes!

Ivan left after the AGoT LCG games while the remaining 3 continued with Tribune. Jo continued his amazing streak at the game, acheiving the 5 victory conditions at the end of the 3rd round. We wanted to try the victory point varient for a change but feared there was inadequate time. Nonetheless I doubt it will change my impressions significantly about the game.

- Posted using BlogPress from my iPhone

Gaming For The Week 4th - 10th April 2010

2010-04-13T09:39:00.001+08:00

Ben was available this week so it left Ivan, Jo and I to trade blows over AGoT LCG. While waiting for Jo, I had an opportunity to customize a Lannistar deck for play but as it turned out, a 60 card deck with few income producing locations and high cost characters was a rather bad combo.

Jo played Targayen while Ivan opted for Greyjoy which seems to have usurped Stark as his fav house. The game started with us closely matched but Ivan blew it open in the 7th and 8th rounds, playing the Rise of the Kraken plot card consecutively. That is a claim 2 card with an extra power token for each unopposed challenge. Yup, it plays as strong as it sounds. He was basically unstoppable especially with the ridiculous inititive of 8 on that plot card too. He picked us apart and romper to victory with Jo and I still at single digit power tokens.

Is Rise of the Kraken overpowered? Probably but perhaps not extremely so that it warrents a ban. Nonetheless, I do wish that the initiative wasn't so ridiculously high that the Greyjoy player not only gets free pick of the titles but also starts the attack. I figure that the other players need to pin down the Greyjoy player early in the game in preparation for the big swing when that plot card comes into play, possibly in 2 consecutive rounds.

The Lannistar deck I played with still needs tweaking. Hopefully I'll have a chance to do so next week.

We ended off with Hansa Teutonica which Van joined us for. This game just continues to shine. I went hard for actions from the get-go, being first to 5. Racked up a nice number of bonus markers too as the flips were attractive, contributing to my score.

I really have no major complains about the game. It IS abstract but doesn't feel that way like true abstract games in the vein of Ingenious and Blokus. The abstractness of Taj Mahal got to me but this one hardly bothers me one bit. I'm seriously thinking of taking my rating up to a 10 on this one.

- Posted using BlogPress from my iPhone

Gaming For The Week 28th March - 3rd April 2010

2010-04-05T19:27:00.003+08:00

My cell had a connect gathering over the weekend. Most were non-gamers but they had a good time with Jungle Speed and Liar's Dice. Both games play nicely in the 6-8 range. With Jungle Speed, more players ramp up the difficulty since you have more cards to pay attention too but with too many, decks tend to rather thin and the endings of such games feel somewhat premature. I suppose getting the expansion solves this problem to some extent although I'm not sure if I would prefer to put the dough to a different party game altogether. I would say that Jungle Speed needs to be played quickly for maximum excitement. Over-deliberate flipping can slow the game down to a crawl and make it a far less enticing experience.

I organized a usual games session midweek and there was a nice turnout this time round with 6. The early ones started with a game of Dominion:Intrigue which I won with a low score. Once everyone arrived, we split into 2 tables, with a group of us playing Le Havre while the others took on Confucius. I broke my previous high with a 257 score for Le Havre but it was largely due to the fact that Ivan and Ben failed to challenge me for the use of crucial buildings since they were new to the game. Le Havre, like games such as Puerto Rico, is one that rewards repeated plays. Nonetheless, Ivan did well for his first game.

Both tables ended around the same time. Ivan, Ben and Jo proceeded with a game of A Game of Thrones LCG while the rest of us had a run at Nexus Ops. I heard the AGoT LCG game was a close one with Ivan taking the win by a point. They however couldn't play till 15 power tokens and decided to end the game on a pre-decided round. Marcus was first to 12 points in Nexus Ops. Nexus Ops is a nice alternative to Risk especially with its euro-elements. I like the fact that the objective of the game isn't to wipe out your opponents, but picking battles wisely in order to nab victory points. Nonetheless, the game can be prone to downtime and I can't imagine playing a game with 4. Perhaps playing in teams may help somewhat...

On Good Friday, the cell came over and before we began our themed dinner, we manage to squeeze in two games of Monopoly Deal which Van dominated and a game of Ra.

Gaming For the Week 14th - 20th March 2010

2010-03-23T18:12:00.003+08:00

Had a good turn-out this week with 6. Jon and Jo were early so we managed to squeeze in a game of Ra and Dominion:Intrigue too. I took the win in Ra while Jo won comfortably in Dominion with his barrage of Harems.

When the full group arrived, we started with Battlestar Galactica. I wanted to use the no-Sympathizer variant but wasn't sure how to further tweak the resources in view that the shortened game variant was a staple. We decided to stick with the Sympathizer in the end. Jo was toaster from the start but sort of gave himself away when he opted not to allow his loyalty card to be checked as offered by one of the Crisis deck cards. We promptly brigged him and he chose to remain brigged in an effort to waste our skills cards instead of revealing. We soon caught on and refrained from throwing in additional skills cards. Furthermore Ben who was playing as Tom Zarek used his special ability to increase the difficulty of the skill check by 2 each time, and successfully halted any attempt to escape by Jo.

Jo lost his Admiral powers, but having already slowed us in our first FTL jump by choosing a destination of distance one. Wei Ning ended up with both the Admiral and President powers somewhere along the line, which spelt doom for us if he too was Cylon. Thankfully for the human race, he proved reliable and Ivan turned out to be the 2nd Cylon after receiving a dubious loyalty card at the Sleeper phase. We had multiple resources in the red by then, which meant it was 4-2 in favour of the humans. We managed to pull out a victory with the Cylons making their move perhaps a little too late.

Jon had to leave after, so the remaining 5 of us proceeded with a game of Chicago Express. The 5 player dynamics proved rather different from the 3-player game which is what I'm more familiar with. You have much less control in the 5-player game and it is far harder to claw back ground after a bad move. As it turned out, I overpaid for the 2nd red share and failed to acquire a monopoly over any of the train companies. It was a close game with the top 3 separated by a single dollar. Wei Ning took the win on his first play - great job!

Wei Ning left soon after and then there were 4, which meant it was time for A Game of Thrones LCG with the usual gang. We had limited time so we paired up and agreed to play till 20 power tokens as a team. I took Lannister as usual and paired with Jo who played as Greyjoy. Ivan and Ben took Targaryen and Baratheon respectively. It was a close one with Jo's combo of the 'Rise of the Kraken' plot card and the 'Assault of the Kraken' event card clinching the win. The plot card gave him an additional power token for each unopposed challenge with a claim of 2. The event card allowed him an additional power challenge that turn provided both were unopposed. This is an awesome clincher combo for Greyjoy and reaped us the 6 power tokens needed for the win.

Gaming For The Week 7th - 13th March 2010

2010-03-12T09:10:00.002+08:00

Ivan was back from reservist and raring to game this week. He wasn't disappointed as he, Jo and I managed two games of A Game of Thrones LCG midweek. He has invested substantially in sprucing up his set and this time round he revealed a new deck - that of House Greyjoy. He began with that while Jo and I took Martell and Lannistar respectively.

I had an amazing opening hand, filled with gold producing locations AND characters. Before long, I was running up an income of around 8 each round and was unstoppable as I increased my characters in play. Valar nor Bear Island was in play thankfully and I rushed to 15 power tokens rather comfortably. In a melee game, I made it a point to target Greyjoy rather than Martell for fear of the latter's backlash effects. Ivan struggled with the lack of income locations in his deck - definitely an area he intends to tweak for our next session.

The second game was a much closer affair. I opted for Martell this time round, with Jo trying Greyjoy and Ivan going his new fav - Stark. While he opted not to carry Valar as a plot choice, his Bear Island was nonetheless devastating, having a free kill during dominance of any character without an attachment. It not only depletes your opponents' stock of powerful characters (particularly those with he 'no attachments' trait) but puts him in good stead to win dominance each round. However I played it right this time recognizing Bear Island gives one kill and not one from each opponent which would make it absolutely ridiculous in melee.

Jo also struggled with income, noting he had powerful cards yet was unable to play them. I had no idea how I inched ahead them to win especially when I started unimpressively. But what wa probably integral was Arianne Martell who allows an extra claim for each winning battle she participates in. Considering she had a power icon coupled with a few turns where I had non-kneeling effects, I racked up the power tokens in a jiffy. I suppose it was fortunately I was able to keep her safe from the Bear Island effects by giving her an attachment at the point I marshalled her.

I was keen to play Hansa after but Ivan suggested Chicago Express, not having tried it before. I was surprised to have pulled this game in 2 consecutive seasions. I still have high regard for the game as my pas posts on it indicate but I have to admit the game does feel a little samey with the same player count (which has been 3 for my group). In most cases, Red is the one reaching Chicago first. However, this time round, we split the Red shares evenly so it was Jo and I pushing Blue towards Chicago and reaping the attractive payout afterwards. Jo had an early lead when I foolishly overbid for the 2nd Red share only for him to swoop in for the 3rd share at a cut price the next turn. I managed to claw back the lead with a few well timed auctions and eventually took the win with $90+. Jo and Ivan were both close with $70+ each.

By then we had only time for a filler. We ended up trying the 3-player variant of Battle Line. It was functional but no where as impressive as it's 2-player counterpart.

- Posted using BlogPress from my iPhone

Two Out Of Three?

2010-03-08T15:12:00.004+08:00

Interesting read I came across today via Boardgame News. The original post can be viewed at Pulsipher's blog.

Basic premise is that in general production, you are forced to settle for 2 out of 3 of the following:
1. Fast
2. Cheap
3. Good

Likewise for boardgames, one needs to choose 2 out of 3 between the game being:
1. Short
2. Simple to play
3. Richly detailed

"Richly detailed" seems vague and seemingly pointing to aesthetics but Pulsipher clarifies in a comment to the Boardgame News' post:

"Richly detailed” is intended to refer to the play, not the appearance, though appearance can contribute. It is what I call “atmosphere”, which is different from the way I use theme. Theme should make a difference in the gameplay; atmosphere alone doesn’t affect gameplay.

So nicely manufactured pieces are not in themselves rich detail.

I'm not sure that's the maxim I struggle with since while I don't appreciate abstract games much, a game's atmosphere plays second fiddle to the following:

1. Simple-to-explain rules (gateway potential?)
2. Depth of play (ideally possessing multiple routes to victory)
3. Reasonable game time (under 90min or even better, 60min)

But I suppose this set of criteria differs from the original in that such games are far easier to come by. Here's looking at you Hansa Teutonica and Chicago Express...

Gaming For The Week 28th Feb - 6th March 2010

2010-03-08T13:25:00.004+08:00

This week's gaming bunch was made up of Jo, Marcus, Van and myself. Van had been on a semi-hiatus from gaming but was surprisingly open to play provided we kept games with space-related theme or CCG-typed gameplay off the table. I was happy to oblige since we didn't have the right crowd for either BSG or AGoT LCG.

We started with Hansa Teutonica. I had an opportunity to tear off the shrink wrap on my personal copy since Marcus didn't bring his. It was a close game with me nabbing victory from Marcus by a single point.

My admiration for the game grows with each play. If this keeps up, I'll have to raise my geek rating for the game from a 9 to a 10. The multiple routes to victory coupled with the reasonable game time makes this a winner in every regard. It has been awhile since a game kept me thinking about possibilities for improved play after the session, especially when I won the game! I have explored a few alternate strategies in my few plays so far, but there seems so many others out there which I'm looking forward to have a hand at. For example, the max I have upgraded my chain multiplier so far is 2 but I can't help but wonder if a strategy largely focused on building a network of offices while maximizing the chain multiplier is viable.

Next up was Vasco Da Gama, another recent Essen release. It was between this or a first attempt at La Citta. I'm always game to try something new but Van needed a break, which she managed to get while Marcus explained the rules to Jo. I was absolutely demolished on my first play of this game but did much better this time round, ceding the game to Marcus by 3 VPs.

The turn order mechanic is undeniably an interesting one. It allows you to jostle for position with your opponents depending on your risk appetite and your wealth. Being overly optimistic, I paid the price on my very first turn, having to forgo an action due to the lack of money to pay for its use. However, I noticed that apart from the first few placements where this happens, the remaining placements simply follow turn order which takes the fizz out of this mechanic in some way. Still a game that I don't mind playing but see no need to own.

We ended the session off with Glory to Rome (what else?). Nice to know that I've gotten over 30 plays off this baby, and especially sweeter that it's current OOP (sorry to rub it in for those of you still awaiting your copy). There have been comments that the luck of the draw plays a significant role in determining the winner. I still beg to differ although this was game where I really didn't have much to work with while Marcus and Van built a slew of powerful buildings. Marcus had the Wall, Bridge and Colosseum. I built the Palisade early but didn't get a sniff of the other Wall so it was painful as you might imagine. My only hope was a Forum victory with both the Bar and the Aqueduct but unfortunately, the rapid pace at which the deck thinned and having my clients fed to the lions turn after turn meant that I was powerless to nab a surprise victory. Nonetheless, it's always cool to see a combo of effects from supposedly "broken" cards and definitely part of the charm of the game. Jo still surprisingly didn't take to the game after his second game. I say "surprisingly" because he's one of the few that has really taken to AGoT and both games seem to share this trait of combo-ing card effects. Then again, he wasn't all that enthralled by Dominion either. Marcus took the win over Van thanks to his bulging stockpile nicely scored by his Wall.

Gaming For The Week 21st - 27th Feb 2010

2010-03-01T21:39:00.003+08:00

Jo and Jon came over towards the end of the week. Jo was early and we started off with 2 games of Dominion: Intrigue. Jo commented afterward that he wasn't much of a fan of the game. I have to admit there was minimal interaction in the 2 sets we played. There were attack cards available but it didn't seem our while to invest heavily in them.

The game at the moment is sort of 'hit and miss' for me. I enjoy the game when there's a good bout of interaction but those occasions are rare since even with the Intrigue cards, Dominion isn't high on interaction. In many ways, it is similar to RftG in its multiplayer tendencies except that it is easier to pick up. Chunks of words can be intimidating on a first play but symbols are much worse.

I have noticed nonetheless that the Intrigue cards seem to play better with more than 2 players. For example, one Torturer does little to damage your opponent's hand and it's rare that you get to play more than one Torturer a turn. However, with more players, it's a higher probability for multiple Torturers to be played before your turn, thus accentuating the ill-effects.

Dominion: Intrigue still holds curiosity for me and I'm looking forward to more plays to figure out how I truly feel about the game. Hopefully, I will find willing opponents.

After Jon arrived, we played a game each of Chicago Express and Puerto Rico. The two games are similar in that the mechanics aren't difficult to pick (well, CE more so than PR) but it takes experience to figure out how to play the games well. I suppose these are games that benefit from having a regular group. Nonetheless, Jo's strategy to go for shipping early kept him competitive, with me pipping him by only 2 VPs.

Gaming For The Week 14th - 20th Feb 2010

2010-02-23T13:41:00.003+08:00

I was hoping to bring a couple of games to the table over the Chinese New Year holidays but as it turned out, it was tougher than expected. I thought it was interesting that Chris highlighted in a recent blog post his challenges in "converting" non-gamers. I share the same sentiments and over time, I realize that not everyone is necessarily a gamer-in-the-making, despite my earnest hopes.

My collection is rather limited in terms of fillers and party games so when I reach for a gateway game, I reach straight for something like Settlers or even the Princes of Florence with the right numbers. I put it down to impatience in desiring to suss out the potential gamers from the non-gamers from the get-go. Perhaps it's a resignation that non-gamers can never be fully "converted". These are likely the ones who find a game of Setters more stressful than intriguing, and are often overwhelmed by the rules early in the explanation process. The potential gamers on the other hand are not necessarily ones who embrace the game immediately but will nonetheless express some enjoyment of the game, coupled with an openness to try it or other similar games some time down the road.

I decided that this CNY I would pull out my sparkling new Dominion:Intrigue at any gaming opportunities. This was probably unwise, taking into consideration the wordy nature of the Intrigue cards but I was eager to experiment nonetheless. The results were mixed. The first 4-player game I attempted it was made up of half non-gamers. We successfully completed the game but it dragged due to AP by the non-gamers. I guess it's understandable as the buy phase can be particularly challenging with 10 actions cards staring you face-to-face, each with their own set of instructions. They did enjoy it however and seemed open to try it again in future.

The second attempt with a different group wasn't as positive. I opted for set with limited interaction and the multiplayer solitaire was apparent. This group was made up of one casual gamer and two non-gamers and they seemed clearly bored midway through. I suppose the appeal of building the most efficient deck in absence of interaction simply didn't cut it for them. I made a mental note then that interaction would be a key element of my choice of gateway games in future. The game was abandoned halfway due to new guests arriving and they seemed happy to try their hand instead at Band Hero rather than continuing with the game. Time's Up: Title Recall turned out to be far more successful with my friends and their significant others after dinner.

I wised up the next day when my cell group mates came over and opted for lighter fair such as Monopoly Deal Card Game and Tichu. They seemed to enjoy the former more than the latter, reaffirming yet again its charm with non-gamers.

Thankfully, I still managed to get an afternoon of heavier gaming in later in the week. Ivan, Jo and Ben came over and we started with 2 games of Dominion:Intrigue. Their familiarity with LCG play meant that they caught onto the game quickly and we were flying through our hands. In addition, we were able to pick up on the card combinations faster and the games proved to be highly enjoyable. I realized that having interactive cards in play was crucial to my own enjoyment of the game too. Jo won the first game which was set up using the recommended "Secret Schemes" set in the rulebook. I randomized for the 2nd game and it turned out arguably even more exciting, thanks to the interaction of the Torturer and Masquerade action cards. I have listed the set for those who may be interested to give it a go (using only Intrigue cards):

Bridge, Coppersmith, Courtyard, Duke, Masquerade, Mining Village, Minion, Nobles, Secret Chamber, and Torturer.

I took that game with 31 VPs, with Ben close behind at 29.

We then proceeded to the main course which was our customary A Game of Thrones LCG game. In fact we managed 2 games this time round, opting to pair up to earn 30 power tokens. I (Lanni) paired with Ivan (Stark) the first game against Ben (Bara) and Jo (Targ). Stark was weak on Intrigue and Ben and Jo duly took advantage racing to victory. We switched partners and I paired with Ben this time round. The game was closer but we were pipped to victory ultimately. In particular, Stark was devastating with Bear Island out early which enabled targeted kills of opponent characters without attachment(s). However, I got a rule wrong and assumed that Bear Island allowed an execution per opponent. As it turned out, it was only a character per turn. Perhaps the outcome would have been different if I was able to keep more of my characters on the table. Nonetheless, that location card is definitely one to be feared.

With 4 players, this is probably our favoured format as it clearly speeds things up. It's nice having to pay attention to only 2 opponents' armies rather than 3. While the titles do add an additional political element to the game, I am satisfied to leave it for the times when we play with 3. In fact with 3, more of the titles are rotated since they are only refreshed every 2 rounds.

Finally! My First F2F Game Of Dominion

2010-02-13T17:51:00.003+08:00

If you have read my previous posts on Dominion, you would have discovered both my disdain and yet strange fascination for it. I have only played the original game over BSW and while I applaud its unique mechanic, I can't help but feel in my gut that this wouldn't be a game I pay to own.

Just like my recent comments on Tribune and Race for the Galaxy, one of my concerns about Dominion was its multiplayer solitaire tendencies. Particularly in the original, the game is very much of a race in building a deck engine capable of purchasing Provinces (6VPs) on a consistent basis. Chris aptly described this in his response to my views on Tribune as a "heads down" approach, where you tend to focus on your goals rather than worrying about the actions of your opponents and actively thwarting them to your betterment.

My second concern was that after playing quite a number of games on BSW, I found that most hands tended to play themselves. Its fans argue that the heart of the game lies in its deck-building mechanic. I however couldn't help but be put off by the 'auto-pilot' nature of the game.

Where the game fascinated me was in the ease of its rules and the depth offered by a game of its length. In the latter, it arguably surpasses Tribune since it plays in about half the time. It offers a gateway sort of game which I as a gamer wouldn't be bored to play myself as I intro it to my non-gamer friends.

The first expansion to Dominion, Intrigue was touted as one improving player interaction. The supposedly increased choices available on action cards suggest less of an 'auto-pilot' syndrome. Unfortunately, this is both a boon and a bane since it raises the bar for non-gamers.

I couldn't resist the temptation and eventually took the plunge. I managed to persuade Van to have a go today, curious at her reaction to the game. Van has always enjoyed highly interactive games and games like RftG have left her cold in the past.

What surprised me was the ease of explaining the rules. I mean I have heard of compliments in this area before but going at it for the first time, it went even smoother than I could ever imagine. I really need to applaud the designer Donald for coming up with such an excellent framework (ABC) to capture the gameplay succinctly.

Van and I were off and running and despite initial fears that the complexity of the Intrigue cards would put her off, they turned out largely unfounded. I suppose despite Van's fluctuating interest in gaming, she nonetheless is mostly a gamer, and thus the action cards were largely a cinch for her.

While the rules didn't pose a problem for us, formulating a strategy in terms of action cards to purchase was. I reverted to my past Dominion patterns and mostly purchased treasure cards in view of a subsequent rush for the Provinces. However, I couldn't help myself but join Van in a couple of random action card purchases to gain a sense of how they would play out. The game ended 36-33 in my favour which was a surprise as I had the impression halfway through that I might run away with it, purchasing the majority of the Province cards. Van to her credit did well to stay close in her first game.

Verdict? Van didn't hate the game, which I suppose was already a big plus. I think the tide turned when she realized that the game wasn't as complicated as the mass of cards made out, having commented at the start that it reminded her for A Game of Thrones LCG, which is likely never going to play again despite my absolute love for the game. Coupled with the short playtime especially with two, I can see her being open to repeat plays till she forms a firmer opinion of it. My concern though was that the limited interactivity might still put her off eventually.

We played with the "Well Wishes" set suggested in the rule book with only a single attack card - "Torturer". While I saw the possibilities with the other attack cards in the expansion, I couldn't help but wonder whether that level of interaction would be enough for me. Sure, you get to disrupt and hurt your opponents' next turn but cutting down their hand for example, but it doesn't seem as meaningful since that action doesn't really benefit you directly. It's a far more limited attack mechanism than say interaction in El Grande where messing with my opponents usually accord me a direct advantage in area majority. I need to mull over this further.

But I must say my first impression despite the above concerns was favourable. I was especially impressed at the ease of introducing the game and that the Intrigue cards weren't as complex as I initially feared. Looking forward to try it with some non-gamers over the CNY hols.

Gaming For The Week 7th - 13th Feb 2010

2010-02-11T21:31:00.002+08:00

Jo, Ben and John came over earlier in the week. It has been awhile since my first play of Tribune which left me with certain doubts and I was eager to try it again to ascertain if it warrented a place in my collection.

Verdict? As much as I want to like the game especially since it falls into my preferred category of short but relatively deep games, it simply doesn't strike a chord with me. I don't think the issue is with the perceived abstractness of the game as criticized by some but more that at the heart of Tribune, it is ultimately a 'race' game. Players aim to be the fastest in achieving a set of goals. The option of selecting which goals to pursue is a nice touch but it doesn't change the fact that through most of the game, you are preoccupied with your own moves and plans than that of others. In some way, it reminds me of Race for the Galaxy and its subtle interaction which leaves me dissatisfied. It is ironic that I am complaining of a lack of interaction in a worker placement game but that's how I feel playing it despite it also possessing elements of faction
control. I can see how Tribune appeals to some but clearly for me, it's a case of so close yet so far.

We decided to give Battlestar Galactica a go next and this was another new game I was also deliberating over. The uniqueness of the game experience is certainly commendable but I fear the difficulty of bringing it to the table. Its theme appeals more to guys who do not follow series than their female counterparts. In addition it plays best with 5, thus facing extremely stiff competition from El Grande and the Princes of Florence, which are amongst my favourite games.

We played with 4 and with the sympathizer since I had no idea how to adjust for a shortened game without the sympathizer. I took Baltar, Ben Tigh, Jo Boomer and Jon, s. It turned out that there weren't Cylons before the sleeper phase but we struggled with the crisis cards leading to multiple resources in the red. Ben discovered he was a Cylon all along at the sleeper phase and proceeded to scheme against the humans. He didn't to do much as Galactica was hit by waves upon waves of raiders and despite being a jump away from Earth, the humans met with destruction as multiple civilian ships were lost taking the population indicator down to zero.

I don't know. It is an interesting game for sure and probably the best available on the market but something about co-op games leave me ambivalent, even with the traitor mechanism. It also feels a little too random and my decisions don't seem significant enough in determining my fate in-game. Coupled with the difficulty of tabling it, I suppose this is yet another expendable game. Won't mind playing it, just don't like it enough to keep a copy of my own.

The guys came over again later in the week with the addition of Ivan. They were invaluable in helping me sleeve my new copy of Dominion: Intrigue but we couldn't try it with 5. Instead we went with Age of Empires III since Ben and Ivan in particular were keen. I warned them that the 5 player game was prone to AP, having so far only played with 3-4.

In the end, it took over 2 hours together with rules but just as my previous plays, it didn't 'feel' long. Perhaps I do have other preferred games to play with that sort of time frame available but I must admit that AOEIII has seldom disappointed, keeping me engaged throughout. The rest seemed to enjoy it and there were generally favourable comments all round.

We needed a short game to round off the session only Ra and China seemed to scale well with 5 in about half an hour. We went with Ra in the end and just like with AOEIII, I ran away with the victory largely due to my familiarity with the games.

- Posted using BlogPress from my iPhone

Gaming For The Week 31st Jan - 6th Feb 2010

2010-02-06T23:07:00.002+08:00

Quiet week in terms of gaming apart for Jo coming by towards the end of the week.

We tried drafting for AGoT LCG. I took Lannister and he Stark before drafting for neutral and plot cards. None of us chose Valar or Wildfire for our plot decks leading to a game where the characters continued building up. It was a close affair ending 15-14 in my favour despite Jo winning initiative to go first in the final round.

We played Puerto Rico next which Jo was keen to try. I always shun away from introducing PR for fear of the different building functions overwhelming but surprisingly the rules explanation went smoothly and Jo caught it easily. In fact, I think I find it easier to explain the PR rules than those for Settlers.

Jo played well for his first attempt, racking up shipping points thanks to his 4 corn plantations and Wharf. However, I had a better understanding of the importance of the big buildings and made timely grabs for the Guild and Custom House, resulting in a win, 56-44.

- Posted using BlogPress from my iPhone

Gaming For The Week 24th Jan - 30th Jan 2010

2010-01-27T15:40:00.005+08:00

Ivan and Ben came over for some mid-week gaming of what else...A Game of Thrones LCG. It really is a brilliant game and I'm glad to have found common enthusiasts for a game with such niche appeal.

Ben and I opted for familiarity and played with Ivan's Baratheon and Lannister decks, while Ivan unleashed on us his new Martell deck from the recent Princes of the Sun expansion. House Martell has a couple of interesting effects triggered after challenges are lost. It is somewhat unintuitive as you are in a situation where you take one step back to gain two steps forward. It requires far more thoughtful play and bodes well for the strategic depth of the game. I enjoy the peculiar strengths and weaknesses of the various Houses and how a different play strategy is required to utilize each of them successfully.

I struggled with income early on, which is highly ironic for a Lannister deck. I played Wildfire Assault in the early rounds in a bid to rein back my opponents. I leveraged on my draw effects to gain further ground. My advantage in Intrigue reaped me a couple of power tokens through the Lannisport location card which allowed me to pay 1 gold for a power token after each Intrigue challenge I win. This added up quickly and by keeping my power tokens on my House card as opposed to my characters, my progress was undeterred by Ben's Melinsandre, which negates power tokens on opposing characters. In contrast, Ivan struggled as he had a number of card effects which gained him power tokens on his characters. I finally clinched victory with an unopposed power challenge by stealthing Ivan's only unkneeled character with the power symbol.

I played a game of Joust with Ben after Ivan left. I was flooded with income this game but fell prey to Ben's Baratheon power rush. He searched out Stannis Baratheon and racked up power tokens through unopposed challenges as I was unable to defend without a Lord character in play. By the time I managed one, his lead was large unassailable. I played an event card to take out his Robert Baratheon and his mountain of power tokens from Renown but that only delayed the inevitable as he romped to victory shortly after.

In between, we played a 4 player game of Ra with Van joining in. The Ra tiles came fast and furious and my greed got the better of me on the last epoch, opting to hold on to my 13 tile instead of swapping it for a full row. The epoch ended sooner than I expected, and Ben who swooped in on that row with his last tile took the win, with Van a close second.

On Friday, our cell and a couple of friends joined us at our Conrad suite for some games. They were mostly tired after a long day at work but still managed a game of Settlers of Catan.

It occurred to me that despite having explained the game multiple times, I don't seem to have grasped the best formula for it. It is especially ironic considering 1. I'm almost always the 'rules' guy when it comes to new games, and 2. Settlers is like the first Euro I ever played! Somehow, it's difficult to present the rules neatly in a logical flow when there are so many tinny bits here and there to explain e.g. trading, rules governing development cards, etc. I don't think I necessarily do a bad job but I always have a nagging feeling after that my explanation could be better. I probably find it easier to explain more complex games such as Agricola or Puerto Rico as compared to Settlers. Either that or it could simply be the audience I usually pitch Settlers to - opting for it as my go-to "gateway" game and thus facing crowds that may not immediately tune in to such rules and mechanics of Eurogames.

Colin and Kaelyn dropped by halfway through and I was able to introduce them to Monopoly Deal and Citadels. Kaelyn commented Citadels felt very much like a "guys' game". I suppose there's some truth to it considering its medieval theme. For female non-gamers, the theme of the game is probably far more crucial as a 'hook' than its mechanics. Even Van who I consider a gamer of sorts gets turned off by space (read Race for the Galaxy) and medieval (read A Game of Thrones LCG) themes. She may be willing to give them a try but rarely will desire to play them again. Abstracts don't sit well with her either. My most thematic game is arguably Battlestar Galactica but unfortunately, that's the wrong sort of theme for her, especially when she has never watched a single episode of BSG and is unlikely to.

Perhaps Against My Better Judgement...

2010-01-19T22:55:00.003+08:00

My local online retailer, Boardgamelifestyle is having a sale. The discount isn't much more than what I usually receive but I couldn't help myself but to browse through the discounted games. In the end, 3 games caught my eye - King of Siam, Traders of Carthage and Dominion:Intrigue.

After reading through some reviews on BGG, I decided that King of Siam probably wasn't probably my cup of tea as well as taking into account its price. Traders of Carthage on the other hand was at a very attractive price point and a game that I have had my eye on for some time. However, concerns about its abstract nature held me from taking the plunge. Furthermore, with the time it takes, I can't help but feel that there are many more "developed" games in my collection that I rather be playing.

Finally there's Dominion:Intrigue. I have had sort of a love-hate relationship with Dominion. When it was introduced on BSW, I sort of burned myself out on the original. I decided it wasn't a game I needed to purchase especially since after some plays, I realized it was uninteresting in that most hands played themselves (or what I would call the auto-pilot syndrome) and it lacked interaction between players. Nonetheless, I couldn't help getting caught up in the hype monster that is Dominion. I do like the simplicity of the A (action), B (buy), C (cleanup) mechanics of Dominion and its speedy gameplay. It seems to me that it would be a game of sufficient depth that I would be keen to intro and play with non-gamer friends that I'm trying to lure into the hobby.

The release of Dominion:Intrigue especially had my hopes raised. It seemed to address my issues with the original, introducing decisions apart from the deck-building and incorporating increased interaction. However, the added complexity hampers what was attractive about the original - its accessibility and speed. The common solution for this dilemma would be to acquire both sets and most seem to do so. However, I am adamant in not acquiring more than one set, thus leaving me a difficult decision of which to purchase if I am to add Dominion to my collection.

As it turned out, the sale was only applicable for Intrigue and not the original though the difference is negligible. What surprised me was the cost to sleeve all 470 cards. Even budget sleeves came up to about 30% of the game price. That makes the game considerably more expensive but I couldn't envision myself playing the game unsleeved. My recent sleeving of Battlestar Galactica wasn't cheap either. It seems card sleeves are doing a roaring trade especially since us "gamers" generally like to keep our games in good condition, whether due to our OCD instincts or to preserve their resale value.

Despite my misgivings, I made the perhaps irrational decision of going ahead with the purchase. This despite the fact that I have a couple of new purchases (BSG, Tribune & Hansa Teutonica) all relatively unplayed. I seem to be edging towards a buyer's syndrome which violates my intention of keeping my collection trim and avoiding 'white' elephants. While I like the idea of having these new additions in my collection, I may eventually have to make a decision with subsequent plays whether they get played sufficiently for them to remain (read: BSG). Or perhaps, I will realize that my preliminary concerns are indeed accurate despite contradicting the favourable opinions of various critics (read: Tribune) and trade or sell them.

With that, here's hoping Dominion:Intrigue surprises me...in a good way.

Gaming For The Week 10th - 16th Jan 2010

2010-01-16T23:36:00.004+08:00

Was a good week for gaming. Started out with the youth camp committee coming over for a thanksgiving lunch. They couldn't stay long but we managed the time for a game of Time's Up: Title Recall. Would have opted for a Euro but with 8 of us, that proved somewhat challenging. Nonetheless, we had a good time despite some unfamiliar titles. I suppose what makes the game easier is when partners discuss 'signs' for certain difficult titles. Not sure whether that's 'legal' but for new players, it sure makes it more accessible. As it turned out, Xinyi/Yingyi and Van/Mish tied for the win.

Ivan and Ben dropped by mid-week to get in two games of A Game of Thrones LCG. We used Ivan's decks as usual since they have been customized with chapter deck additions. He also obtained the new Princes of the Sun expansion so it shouldn't be long before we see him with a Martell deck. He played Targaryen while Ben and I used Baratheon and Lannister decks respectively. I didn't get my income locations out as quickly this time round and Ben took the first game convincingly thanks to his multiple characters with the renown trait. Second game came down to the wire with Ivan intervening in my challenging against Ben to give him the win. I suppose he found himself between a rock and a hard place too since I would have taken the win if I had succeeded in that challenge. Squeezed in a game of Glory to Rome after Ivan left. I had some good buildings but took awhile to get the combo going. Van took the win by about 6 VPs.

Kristy, Joelle and Joseph came over the next day. Apart from Band Hero-ing, we managed to get in a game of Settlers as well as Tribune which was the first play for all of us. Settlers ended with a win for me at 11 points, though Joseph was leading most of the game and ended with 9. The girls did well for their first play and seemed to enjoy the somewhat more 'intellectual' game.

Van joined us for a 5 player game of Tribune. The two main mechanics of the game are worker placement and set collection. The varied combos of victory conditions allow multiple routes to victory and play in a decent time. I completed my 3 necessary victory conditions first, but Joseph similarly accomplished that by the end of the round. He beat me in points though, 26 to 22, taking the tie-breaker. I have mixed feelings towards the game although Van seems to like it, which is BIG. Like I mentioned, I do enjoy most games that possess multiple routes to victory that play in a reasonable time. However, the worker placement options did all seem rather similar. Almost all just give you cards with a minor twist on the cost or the means of obtaining them. It also feels that one is largely focused on achieving his or her own objectives during the game without much attention being paid to the play of others. Perhaps this will improve with more plays. I haven't exactly written the game off at this point but compared to my pre-purchase expectations, it has been mildly disappointing. The jury's still out on this one.

6th Jan 2010 Session Report: First Attempt At Battlestar Galactica

2010-01-10T22:10:00.005+08:00

Battlestar Galactica

Matt brought back Battlestar Galactica for me recently and I had been eager to give it a go. The opportunity finally arrived and the bonus was that I was able to round up a posy of 5 to give it a go. I have read that the game plays arguably best with 5, without the sympathizer. Furthermore, I suppose it's more fun to have 2 on the Cylon side yet avoiding the increased downtime with 6.

The rules overwhelmed me the first time I read through it. Thankfully, there were player aids and summarized rules on BGG which helped organize the material more logically than the FFG rulebook. I did realize however that the way to intro the game was probably not to bog the other players down with the book-keeping details but simply present the pertinent info necessary to play.

Marcus was the only one who had attempted the game before while it was the first play for Van, Ivan, Ben and myself. As it turned out, Ivan and I drew Cylon cards from the go. I chose to play a variant that shortened the game, in hope of not having Van sour on the game because of its length.

The variant dialed down resources to 6 fuel, 6 food, 7 morale and 10 population. In addition, Galactica starts with one less raptor and two less vipers compared to the original set-up. The Sleeper phase is triggered after a jump distance of 3 and the humans win if they jump unscathed after a distance of 6. The only other change is that centurions that board Galactica begin on the 2nd space of the boarding track.

The variant worked reasonably well and we completed the game in about 2 hours, including rules explanation. Fuel, food and morale ended in the red zone although no centurions successfully boarded the ship throughout the game.

I took Roslin and held on to the role of President for majority of the game till Marcus wrested it from me towards the end with strong support of Ben. Unfamiliarity resulted in no Quorum cards being played and player action tended to concentrate on the use of Galactica's guns to take out the Cylon ships. There seems to be many options unexplored and hopefully, there will increased variability with more plays. I mistakenly assumed that it was the President who chose the destination card when it should have been the Admiral. I suppose it did give an added advantage to the Cylons since I ended up choosing instead of Van who was playing as Saul Tigh with William Adama out of the game. Although there was only one choice that made a significant difference where I chose the destination card with a distance 1 instead the other with a distance of 3.

Ivan did not take any risky moves all game due to his unfamiliarity of the game. He didn't reveal even to the end of the game. Van was on to me from the start due to a couple of unnecessary risky discards although the attempt to brig me failed. In order to avoid further suspicion, I played my cards duely but took every opportunity to dump my cards, so that I lacked any to be of help during crisis checks. Apparently, there are many opportunities to 'lose' cards when you are the President. The humans managed a distance of 6 and were heading for their victory jump when I revealed, and my Cylon action allowed me to deal the final blow taking fuel to zero.

I enjoyed the game because it feels remarkably different from my other games. Van wasn't impressed since the theme didn't appeal to her. I also suppose the group playing the game is important since much of the fun hinges on the metagame. Looking forward to more plays most definitely - hopefully it will see play sufficiently to hold a place in my collection.

The Princes of Florence

This was Van's pick and since we had 5, I was all for it. I wasn't sure if it was Marcus' first play but he played extremely well, thanks to him obtaining 3 Jesters. I was feeling good about my chances mid-game through and planned to end the game strongly by producing 2 works in each of the final two rounds. Alas, Marcus managed to do the same, robbing me of the work bonus in the penultimate round and outbidding me for the recruiting card I needed to produce an additional work in the last round. I gambled instead on a second Prestige card and drew a good one but still fell short by a point, 59 to his 60 points. Nonetheless, I enjoyed the game tremendously and the play once again cemented the PoF as one of my favs.

Hansa Teutonica

Marcus taught Ivan and Ben Hansa and before long, we had a go at a 5 player game. I was behind most game but managed to garner enough points for a 2nd place finish. The points were all rather close though Marcus took the game by a significant margin from the rest of us. Van had control of a good number of offices but failed to string them together for valuable network points. I found myself thinking about game strategy after the play, which is always a good sign. 5 player did drag a bit longer especially since we were still new to the game but even so, I wouldn't consider it a long game by any means.

A Quarter, A Dime & Assorted Nickels for 2009

2010-01-07T12:56:00.009+08:00

Wow, time flies... I can't believe that I have actually maintained this blog for over a year. I did wonder when I started it in Dec 2008 whether I could sustain the interest of updating it regularly. I must say that while there were a couple of quieter months especially in the middle of the year, I'm rather satisfied to see an average of 8-10 posts per month. Of course, my frequency of posting usually parallels my gaming life. The barren months suggest in all likelihood that I wasn't seeing much joy at the gaming table either.

Reading the Five and Dime lists on BGG reminded me that it would be a good exercise to undergo myself to learn more about my most played games in 2009. So without further ado, here's my Quarter, Dime and Nickels list...

Sole Quarter - Glory to Rome (25 plays)

No surprise here since GtR IS Van's and my fav game. Many of the games have been with 3 players and thus almost filler-like in its play time as we get more and more experienced with the game. Hoping to play it more with 4 or even 5 as I find that those numbers enhance the interaction viable between players. For example, with 4, the Palisade allows the Legionary action to steal from all 3 players instead of just your neighbours.

Sole Dime - Settlers Card Game (15 plays)

This was Van's and my couple game of choice and we went on a tear when I first acquired the game, clocking over 10 plays in a relatively short period of time. We liked it so much that I went ahead to acquire 2 sets of the game, including expansions so that we could fully appreciate the deck-building element of its tournament format. Ironically, we haven't been able to get it to the table much since then. Here's hoping that 2010 will provide opportunities to bring it to the table despite its slightly longish playtime.

Nickels List

7 plays

Stone Age

There was strong interest in this game when it was first acquired but the spark sort of fizzled over time and I sold it eventually. A good gateway game, accessible and not overly random despite the inclusion of dice. However, limited interaction and rather longish for what it is.

6 plays

A Game of Thrones LCG

The Princes of Florence

Le Havre

Monopoly Deal Card Game

Some of my absolute favs here, which I hope to see more plays of in the new year. Le Havre plays a bit long and the huge variety of building powers makes it slightly difficult to intro to new players although the core mechanics are really quite straightforward. PoF is arguably my 2nd favourite game but unfortunately I will only play it with 5, which probably explains why it doesn't see more plays. As for AGoT LCG, it's a rather new game and I do enjoy playing it very much. Hopefully, I'll be able to find a regular group to play it since it's not really Van's kind of game.

5 plays

Battle Line

Tichu

High Society

China

Liar's Dice

Endeavor

Mostly fillers here. I like China's depth-time ratio which makes it unique in the filler category of my collection. Endeavor suffered somewhat the same fate as Stone Age - entered with a blaze but I ultimately decided it wasn't a game I needed to own especially since I prefer the somewhat similar but deeper Hansa Teutonica. Not a bad game by any means and on any day, I would probably prefer playing it to a game like Stone Age.

Pennies

Have a rather huge list of games under 5 plays. The ones that came close were Settlers, Fairy Tale, Chicago Express and Age of Empires III with 4. Hoping to see more of CE at the table in 2010. Should be a high possibility with its very reasonable playtime. Some of the Euro greats at 3 plays such as El Grande and Puerto Rico.

All in all, 167 plays of 44 games (29 new). Not too shabby I think?

Christmas Season Gaming

2010-01-04T17:49:00.006+08:00

I had a couple of Christmas parties in December and took the opportunity to introduce the guests to some games. Most of my guests were non-gamers so I figured the typical Eurogames were probably not appropriate for the occasion. In the end, I settled on Liar's Dice, Monopoly Deal and a new acquisition, Time's Up: Title Recall.

Liar's Dice

This went over well, and my ex-students enjoyed the game very much. Somehow, the combination of rolling the dice coupled with the bluffing and guessing going on adds a degree of charm to this filler. I can see how this serves as an excellent party game though I will be hesitant to go with this with more than 6-7 players to avoid increased downtime. The weakness of Liar's Dice as a party game lies in its player elimination as it is much less interesting when you get eliminated early and have to watch from the sidelines.

Monopoly Deal Card Game

This seemed to go down well with my guests in general although we did have a game with 5 which seemed to drag on unnecessarily. I suspect the sweet spot for the game is probably 3-4. Nonetheless the simplicity of the rules coupled with the general fast pace and accessible theme makes this one of the revelations of 2009 for me with respect to fillers.

Time's Up: Title Recall

I was surprised I actually bought a party game but I figured it would come in useful during the multiple parties with larger groups. Tom Vasel has nothing but praise for this game and I hoped that it would not disappoint. Verdict? I really enjoyed the game mechanics in that it goes beyond merely charades, to incorporate a memory element. Unfortunately, my groups were largely unfamiliar with the titles on the cards, perhaps due to its largely American context. I suppose experienced players could get round the unfamiliarity but I found myself having to select titles familiar for the group in order not to make it overly frustrating for them in the first round. Nonetheless, this version was probably the correct choice as I can only imagine the greater difficulty posed by the original version with its celebrity names. One final point I noted was that the game is best played in pairs and thus the ideal group size shouldn't exceed 10. Unfortunately, my groups totaled 15-20 mostly and so we had to play in teams of 3 or 4 which was less than ideal. It excels as a party game for medium groups but it makes me wonder whether there are better games out there for larger groups.

14th Dec 2009 Session Report: Fans of AGoT LCG

2009-12-19T00:23:00.003+08:00

One of my favourite new games has to be A Game of Thrones LCG. However, it has been a challenge finding gaming partners for it since its theme and mechanics mean that it has a niche appeal of sorts. So far, Ivan and Jerry seems most keen on it. Today, Jo and Ben were over and it seems I've found 2 new converts.

It was Jo's second go at the game while it was Ben's first. The first game took some time with us recycling our plot cards. I was behind most of the game but managed to catch up towards the end. Jo was leading with over 10 power tokens, held in check only by my Melisandre, who negates power tokens on opponents' character cards. Jo took the win by playing the 'Tourney of the Hand' plot card which renders his knight characters immune to character abilities. As it turned out, power tokens earned via renown were concentrated on his knight characters giving him the win since Melisandre had no hold on them that round.

In our second game, Ben played my haphazardly put together Baratheon deck to good effect. He took the win with a 5 power token round, leveraging on a double claim round coupled with Robert Baratheon's fearsome renown ability which earns him not 1 but 2 power tokens.

Other games played that day included 2 rounds of Glory to Rome. In the first game between, Jo, Ben and myself, I took the win with a Forum victory with the help of a Garden, Aqueduct and Bar combo. Coincidentally, in a later game where Van joined in, she also won through the Forum, aided by the Aqueduct and Gate.

The 4 of us also played China. While abstract, I enjoy its depth for its short playtime. The others seemed more lukewarm towards it. Being their first plays, Jo and Ben took awhile to wrap their heads around the scoring. I experimented and placed emissaries far earlier than I usually do in the game. While I lost ground in terms of house placements, I ended up scoring majority of the emissary points which pushed me over the top for the win.

8th Dec 2009 Session Report: Hansa Teutonica

2009-12-11T22:34:00.006+08:00

Battle Line

The day of gaming began innocuously enough with Van suggesting a rematch at Battle Line despite her winning the last game couple days back. As usual, it was a tight affair with Van emerging victorious 2 games to 1. While abstract (typical Knizia), the tension the game creates is splendid. Some view the tactic cards as overly random but I see it as an opportunity cost mechanic which I enjoy.

Opting to hold tactic cards in hand means the trade-off of greater flexibility by holding more numerical cards. I usually avoid taking tactic cards till my opponent takes his/her first one so as to reserve an option of responding if he/she does play one against me.

Besides the decisions of how early to take a tactic card and how many to take is the decision of when to play a tactic card. My experience is that I will usually initiate the play of tactic cards when I'm falling behind and do so in the hope that my opponent holds inferior tactic card(s) which prevents a timely response. When ahead, there is absolutely no reason to open the can of worms that tactic cards bring and often I'll 'take a blow' without responding so that no further tactic cards can be played against me.

All in all, my opinion is that meaningful decisions are introduced with tactic cards and I always opt to play with them except when teaching new players the game.

Hansa Teutonica

Marcus contacted me last minute that he was available to game. He brought along Hansa Teutonica which I had read so much about from the Essen reports on BGG. It has been touted as comparable to Endeavor but perhaps more gamey. I had my reservations about Endeavor despite owning it and wondered if Hansa Teutonica would be a worthy substitute as a game with somewhat similar mechanics.

We grappled a bit with the rules at the start as it was the first time Marcus was explaining the rules. In retrospect, there is probably a little more to explain for HT since its mechanics are less streamlined than Endeavor and it possesses more numerous ways of scoring points. However, I do appreciate that points scored for your development tracks are less fiddly than those scored in Endeavor. In HT, you simply score 4 points for each track you maximize. With a few plays in the bag, I suspect HT shouldn't be much tougher explaining than Endeavor.

It was a close game with the three of us groping in the dark trying to formulate some kind of strategy. Marcus and I realized early that developing our actions track would be key to our competitiveness and thus there was fierce competition for the relevant route. Van caught on a bit later and was unable to maximize her actions track by the end of the game. My points grew as I controlled a city on that route and I ended the game when I crossed the 20 point threshold by scoring the 7 points given to the first player to connect the 2 red labelled cities from east to west. Marcus almost caught up as we tabulated the scores as he was the only one to advance his network multiplier to 2, which doubled the points he scored for each office he possessed in his longest network of connected cities. The scores ended 42-40-18.

The game played quick - one hour excluding rules and set-up for a first game! It pleased me to see that HT plays likely in the same time as Endeavor despite posts on BGG that suggest that it plays longer. I was a bit perturbed that most parts of the board were left untouched as we focused our actions on the south-east portion where the city to upgrade the actions track laid. I also questioned the game was too predictable as it was apparent that the action track seemed overpowered as suggested by some on BGG. But upon some reflection, I realized the various options to score points in the game was oddly balanced and it was possible to do well even without upgrading to the 5th action. The ability to take an action and move multiple cubes while less apparent can be just as powerful and potentially negate the disadvantage of having less actions. In fact, it's probably wise to opt for another path to victory if other players compete too fiercely to upgrade their actions.

Herein lies the factor in which I rate HS over Endeavor. Endeavor is a great gateway game and probably easier for casual gamers to pick up compared to HT. However, my grouse with Endeavor is that every game doesn't seem to develop differently enough. Diversification is the key to victory and one is unlikely to do well if he or she overly neglects any of the developmental tracks. The charm about HT is that there are viable options where players can specialize, whether in their choice of developmental tracks to upgrade or their means of scoring points. This trait of having multiple paths to victory is one possessed by most of my highly rated games including the Princes of Florence.

One play seemed sufficient for me to make up my mind and at the point of typing this entry, I have already sold away Endeavor and made an order for Hansa Teutonica as its replacement.

Le Havre

We ended the night with Le Havre. Marcus and Van seemed to get their hands on all the key buildings before I could and I struggled to keep up. Van sold off her Sawmill which reaped her enough francs to purchase a wooden ship before the Wharf was available. Coupled with my mistakes in the end game, the final scores were 223-196-167 in the favour of Marcus and Van. I realized that the end game is highly critical and there is a need to plan your final actions taken. The tricky bit is that most players will be aiming for the same buildings in the end game (shipping, clearing loans, building the luxury liner, etc.) and you may very well be shut out of those buildings. This happened to me and I wasn't able to finish shipping the goods I stocked up for most of the game. This is especially so since one cannot repeat his last action as his final, unblockable action at the end of the game. A splendid game no doubt and one I'm looking forward to honing my play in.

3rd Dec 2009 Session Report: Greed, Incorporated

2009-12-03T21:10:00.003+08:00

One of the blessings of having Marcus as a gaming buddy is that I get to try many of the new releases. First was Vasco da Gama and then it was Factory Manager, all recent releases at Essen. Today, he introduced us to Greed, Incorporated which was my second attempt at a Splotter game after Indonesia.

Greed, Incorporated (Me 43, Marcus 40, Van 19)

I've mixed feelings after playing the game despite eking out a surprising victory. On the positive side, it was surprisingly approachable for a Splotter game and the phases were clear and easy to follow. I had little trouble understanding the game and the mechanics did seem a lot more elegant compared to Indonesia. An added plus was that we finished the game in 150min excluding rules explanation. Apparently, it was noted on BGG that the 3 player game takes longer than with 4-5 players due to the increased number of rounds. While Indonesia seemed the deeper game but its also definitely the longer and less accessible game.

However, the way the game panned out seemed to leave me somewhat dissatisfied. While the game seemed to be built for business negotiations and trading, we only traded once in the game where Van bought a raw material she lacked from Marcus so as to produce her secondary good early in the game. As the game progressed and most of the initial blame games had taken place, we opted to fill the CFO and COO positions with our own markers, ensuring that we would maximize the payout from our companies. I had a good hand of asset cards and managed to accomplished that while attaining the assets required to up the value of my goods. With the limit of 4 assets per company, opting to grab an opponent's asset card as a means to block them doesn't seem viable. As such, I spent my final few rounds engineering opportunities to fire myself from 1-2 positions in my companies to increase my personal wealth while restocking the personnel the following round by selecting my own asset cards. While effective, it didn't seem like the game was meant to be played that way. But with each of us pursuing our production trees, there weren't opportunities for us to trade anyway. Marcus remarked that this would probably be different with more players as it would be tougher to be self-independent. Perhaps, but once I got a hold of 2 companies, I could very much have my way manipulating the 'books' to ensure I surpassed the previous year's income when I needed to.

The other part of the game that left me cold was the auction mechanic to convert personal cash to VPs. Victory is determined by VPs with personal cash serving as only the tie-breaker. Each round, there's an opportunity to purchase a gold or silver status symbol which accords VPs to the player. However, each player can only make one purchase per round and the starting bid of each symbol follows the clinched price of the previous symbol. The VPs also differ by 0-1 VPs from its preceding good. It appears to me that it always makes sense to go all out in the auction as there is little chance of getting a better deal in subsequent rounds with the inflation of prices for limited VP gain. While I can see the timing of when to initiate a blame game becomes more significant in view of this in hope of clinching an auction unopposed, I wonder if the auction mechanic is the best option for this cash to VP conversion process. The final round was somewhat anti-climatic as the gold and silver symbols simply went to the richest and second richest players.

Citadels (Marcus 34, Me 22(3), Van(0))

Marcus needed to leave in 30min so we opted for a quick game of Citadels. 3-player plays quickly and best because each player gets to take 2 characters per round. We also opted to play to 7 buildings instead of the usual 8 to shorten the game. I started strongly, getting to 4 buildings first despite Van building the impressive 8-point University early. However, a series of assassinations by Van crippled my progress, leaving the path to victory clear to Marcus. He was not only first to 7, but also managed a 5 point 8th building, nabbing the colour bonus as well. While I managed to get to 7 that final round, my buildings were nothing to shout about. Van built high value buildings but was unable to build quick enough to pose a significant threat to Marcus.

2nd Dec 2009 Session Report: A Close One...

2009-12-03T21:06:00.002+08:00

Van suggested that we play Battle Line out of the blue and it turned out to be a really close affair. I started well, taking the first couple of flags and threatening a breakthrough on the right flank, needing only 1 more flag to win the game. However, Van held out and with the help of her superior Tactic cards, she fended off everything I could throw at her, including the Fog and Mud cards, to take the win 5-4.

27th Nov 2009 Session Report: Public Holiday Gaming Redux

2009-12-03T20:24:00.003+08:00

Had a good turnout this time round, with almost 10 different ones playing over the course of the day. Lost the scores yet again so will just jot down what comes to mind.

Ivan came over with Jerry who is a CCG/LCG enthusiast. Despite never having played A Game of Thrones LCG before, he picked it up fast. The game was played over 2 halves as Marcus came halfway and we decided to opt for a game all 5 of us could play. We also played till only 10 points in order to avoid dragging out the game overly. Ivan played his slightly modified Targaryen deck while Jerry used his Stark deck. I fiddled with my Stark deck somewhat the day before, adding in a couple of Intrigue characters and swapping some of the plot cards so decided to go with that too. As a result, the game was dominated by military and power challenges. The lead switched hands a couple of times but I ultimately took the game with a 5 power gain round. I won an unopposed military challenge against Jerry, before initiating a power challenge against Ivan which he decided not to defend against. My claim that round was 2 which allowed me to rob him of 2 power tokens. I gained an extra power token for the unopposed challenge plus a final power token due to Eddard Stark's Renown ability for the win.

While this was going on, Van introduced Battle Line to Marcus before we took a break from AGoT LCG to table El Grande. I hadn't had a chance to play El Grande for some time with the infrequency of gaming with 5, coupled with the fact that I tended to opt for Princes of Florence even with 5 around. It definitely did not disappoint and I made a mental note to table it more often. Ivan, Jerry and Marcus picked up the game quickly and scores ended up really close at the end with Van edging me and Ivan out by a point. There were a couple of 'wow' moments in the game, especially when the Caballeros (men) were released from the Castillo, which changed the board situation significantly. A worthy 9 in my book.

While Ivan, Jerry and I completed AGoT LCG, Van, FT and Marcus opted to play Glory to Rome. I didn't have much info about the game but apparently Marcus grabbed a speedy win with the help of a Craftsman strategy.

Ivan and Jerry had to make a move and Marcus introduced the rest of us including Lijie to Factory Manager. I had heard good things about the game but figured just like its predecessor Power Grid, it was unlikely to be my cup of tea. My gut feel was proven right as it was rather mathy, with the need to calculate your cost and income constantly to ensure you were eking out maximum profit each round. Power Grid while longer is definitely the superior game. Marcus won with me taking second place.

Marcus and Lijie had to make a move, but with Mun and Weilong joining the fray, I had an opportunity to try a 5-player game of Endeavor. Surprisingly, not all the regions opened up either as we opted to attack rather than merely sticking to peaceful options. Having a couple of 3-player games in the pocket, the game appears to scale rather well. However, while I can see why the game is rated highly, I'm still on the edge regarding it. I like its short play time and accessibility to non-gamers. However, the premise of the game doesn't encourage specialization as you really have to build up all tracks reasonably to do well. The paths to victory do not seem diverse enough for me and I'm waiting to see if Hansa Teutonica would be a better alternative. From what I heard, Marcus should be receiving his copy soon.

After dinner, FT, Joseph, Weilong and I played a game of China. Once again, house placements dominated the first half of the game and only when the majority of spots were filled that we started playing our emissaries. That seems to be the typical pattern of play and I wonder whether there is a place to focus on emissaries earlier in the game. I still enjoy the depth of the game for the time it takes, but offering alternative strategies would definitely take the game up a notch in my book. FT took the win over me by a point.

Tribune On The Way...

2009-11-24T01:12:00.003+08:00

Just put in an order for Tribune: Primus Inter Pares. Was gonna wait till the Black Friday sales in hope of a better deal but went ahead anyway as I doubted the game would be available at a better price anyway.

It seems like the sort of game I'll enjoy - relatively deep with good interaction, short gameplay, easy to teach... My only concern was price (which I finally decided wasn't a concern, thus the rash purchase) and that it was yet another worker placement game. But watching Tom Vasel's video review seemed to convince me that there are sufficient elements which makes it unique despite its worker placement mechanic. Hopefully it scales well, at least from 3-5 if not with 2. Don't really want to add another game in the vein of El Grande and Princes of Florence, which are really only worth playing with 5.

20th Nov 2009 Session Report: An Afternoon of Games...

2009-11-24T00:44:00.003+08:00

Took half day off in the afternoon to game with Jo, Dave and Seth. Jo has been exposed to euros while Dave and Seth were largely new to this world.

I decided to start off with a euro-ameritrash hybrid: Nexus Ops to ease them into the world of euros. The other reason of course is that I seldom get to bring this game to the table due to its theme. Somehow the female species gets turned off whenever they lay their eyes on the alien figurines. I don't blame them but it's such a pity because I have always rated the game highly. Well, it's rare to get 4 guys at the table and they looked thrilled lining up their various figurines while the rules explanation was going on.

The game did get bog down somewhat with 4 (my previous experiences were all with 3 so far) but not overly. I took the win easy due to their 'Risk' tendencies, opting to take the conservative approach and build up their forces. Nexus Ops however rewards aggressiveness as the game is not about survival but rather picking off the opponent at weak spots, and racing them to 12VPs by accomplishing various mission objectives, the most basic of which is simply succeeding in a battle situation.

The other reason for my easy victory was that they underestimated the importance of dominating the monolith, and allowed me several turns on it, thus racking up my stash of energize cards. These allowed me to unload them on the last few turns, acquiring the final VPs needed before they could halt my march to victory. In retrospect, I should have perhaps emphasized the usefulness of energize cards to a greater extent.

After the warm-up, I brought out the main event - A Game of Thrones LCG. Dave took Stark, Jo Lannister, Seth Baratheon and I Targaryen. The game dragged with 4 players as there was greater downtime. This was accentuated by the fact that we were unfamiliar with the card powers and spent quite some time reading them and figuring out what they meant. The game will clearly be more enjoyable with a regular group familiar with the cards. I should probably take my own advice and stick with one deck from now on, so that I can gain some competency with a deck. Between clarifying the rules, explaining the card powers of others, and grasping my own, the game becomes quite a brain-burning experience.

In terms of how the game progressed, we were generally conservative, opting to allow a challenge to go unopposed rather than face potentially heavier casualties by defending. In a sense, this was positive as it sped up the game by allowing more power tokens into the game. On the other hand, we were struggling to come to terms with the card texts that we failed to actively keep an eye on each others' armies and power tokens. In the end, Dave took the win with an unopposed military challenge, aided by Edward Stark's renown ability. Hoping to get more plays with 2 players to gain familiarity with the cards with less downtime even though the game does shine with 3-4 with the addition of the multiplayer titles.

I introduced them finally to Alhambra but we didn't finish as Dave and Seth had to leave halfway.

17th Nov 2009 Session Report: First Attempt at Vasco da Gama

2009-11-20T18:12:00.003+08:00

Marcus' shipment of games from Essen arrived and when he came over, we were able to give Vasco da Gama a go. This was one of the games that intrigued me as I kept up to date with the Essen reports on BGG, and was clearly the game of the show as indicated by the popularity polls.

I however did poorly at the game, unable to grasp the nuances of the mechanics to play efficiently enough. I ended with a miserly 52 points compared to 77 for Van and 83 for Marcus. The game reminded me of Confucius where the board contained different sections for worker placement - one for selecting characters with bonuses, purchasing ships, recruiting crew and finally, one to deploy the manned ships. So while nothing new, the various sections did feel more tightly integrated into the game as a whole.

What has been touted as the refreshing aspect of Vasco however is the way in which selected actions are resolved. Workers are not placed directly on the various sections but rather on a list of numbers determining turn order. Beyond a certain point, actions are free, but above that, ascending payment is required. This point however has a random element as a modifier of +3 to -3 will be applied after numbers have been selected. We played generally conservatively, opting for actions in the free range but once I fell behind, I took greater risks, opting for advance positions despite lacking money for potential payments if the modifier didn't go my way. If payments can't be made, actions are skipped with the consolation of a small income.

The game felt tight throughout as you are constantly jostling for position in the various sections of the board. Going behind means settling for inferior options as the better ones get taken . Another challenge is lining up your positions so that you have the necessary requirements to launch your ship(s) at the right time.

The game didn't overstay its welcome, playing in about 90min excluding rules explanation. While I enjoyed the game and saw the brilliance in its mechanics, it just didn't feel unique enough to warrant a purchase. Nonetheless, I'm looking forward to more plays on Marcus' copy.

Vanessa suggested Tigris and Euphrates next. This was Simon's copy which I borrowed awhile back and hadn't had the opportunity to return. It was Marcus first play and after having not played the game in awhile, I must admit that I appreciate the charm of the game. It is undisputedly one of Knizia's better designs as reflected by its BGG ranking. I enjoy the conflict present and the possibilities available. It is one of those games where you can make a move and your opponents are left both surprised and wowed. I had a couple of bad hands this game, ending up with multiple same coloured tiles which I had strength in. I realized the best thing to do in such situations is to go for a quick external conflict, which enabled a more efficient refreshing of tiles. I also like how there needs to be constant consideration as to how best strengthen your weak colours. I had a few unexpected victories due to my skewed tile hands and ended up with 11 on my weakest colour while Van and Marcus tied on 6.

Next up was Chicago Express which Marcus was keen to have another go at since the last time we played. I won the initial red as usual but made a bad move of auctioning the 2nd red when I didn't need to. I realized that actions are valuable in this game and there is no reason taking an action which would not directly benefit me over my opponents. I could have waited for others to auction the 2nd red as it was advantageous to keep status quo into the first dividend phase. Marcus had a good start and ended up with 114 to Van's 79 and my 73. I was also overly conservative in my shares acquisitions early on, and lost out on overall payouts in the long run.

We ended off with what else but Glory to Rome. I built the Scriptorium proceeded to accumulate influence by mass completion of buildings. I finally ended the game in the nick of time with a Catacomb as Van started stashing extra materials in her vault with her first turn Merchant client. I pipped her by a point, 24 to 23.

11th Nov 2009 Session Report: The One Where I Cement My Appreciation Of Chicago Express

2009-11-11T22:45:00.005+08:00

Had a good gaming turn-out today: Weilong, Mun, Ivan, Van and myself.

Ivan was the earliest so we started out with A Game of Thrones LCG while waiting for the other two to arrive. It was our first go at multiplayer so a little reviewing of the titles mechanic was due. This basically involves a choice of title per round by each player after plot cards are revealed and initiative resolved. Each title accords a benefit for the turn as well as determines potentially another title in which you oppose or support for the entirety of the round. You are restricted from challenging whoever you support and you gain a bonus power if you win a challenge against whoever you oppose. It's a nice added element to the game which helps balance the decks and prevent runaway leaders. Thematically, it fits the politicking of the books. However, it does add considerable time to gameplay since there is a tendency to gang up on the leader to pull him or her back.

As it turned out, we didn't manage to finish the game at the point when Weilong and Mun arrived. Nonetheless, it gave us a feel of the multiplayer mechanic. Van remained unimpressed and it looks like it will be increasingly difficult to get her to play again. Ivan was leading in the power department when we decided to move on to something else.

With 5, we opted for none other than Princes of Florence. Before we started, I also managed to teach Ivan Tichu and while waiting for Mun, the four of us played two hands. It ended 270-20 in Ivan and my advantage. Van and Weilong also had a short game of Battle Line while I was explaining the rules of PoF to Ivan.

Princes of Florence (Me 63, Ivan 51, Van 48, Mun 48, WL 38)

Ivan did surprisingly well considering it was only his first play at the game. I made a big boo-boo with my first prestige card, failing to get the builder I needed to fulfill the requirements. Somehow I assumed that just like Jesters, there would be a builder available for each round and waited till the last round to obtain it, hoping to nab it at a lower price. To my surprise, there were only 7 builders in the game, as opposed to 8 for Jesters. I opted desperately for a second prestige card at that point and managed to get the tied score for most works, but the damage was done. Thankfully, I obtained 2 Jesters in the mid-game at undervalued prices, which enabled me to still nab victory.

Glory to Rome (Van - forum victory, Me, Ivan, Mun)

Weilong had to leave early and Ivan was due to leave in about an hour so we opted for GtR. Ivan picked it up quickly despite the variety of building powers. Clearly, his experience with CCG/LCG typed games helped. I was a turn away from a potential victory but Van pipped me to it with a Forum victory thanks to her Gate which activates the powers of uncompleted Marble buildings.

Chicago Express (Van 83, Me 64, Mun 42)

After Ivan departed, I taught Mun Chicago Express before dinner. She was clearly impressed by the depth of the game despite the simplicity of the mechanics. I again won the first red share at $21. Van wised up to my strategy this time round and promptly auctioned the 2nd red share at a point when my finances paled to hers. She went further to buy up the 3rd share and I was rendered helpless as she clearly had the edge in terms of income and cash early in the game. As a minor shareholder, I diverted red's network away from Chicago and utilized it to block green which Van and Mun owned out of the game. Red was left with insufficient tracks to reach Chicago though it still provided a nice income each dividend phase. But the allowance to pull off such a move just took the game up another notch in my book. Blue managed to reach Chicago and I was the main beneficiary with 2 shares to Van and Mun's one. However, I was unable to claw back on Van's early lead and she promptly ended the game by auctioning off Wabash's 2nd share, leaving shares on red, blue and black all accounted for.

8th Nov 2009: My First Wins At Chicago Express & Endeavor...

2009-11-08T22:08:00.002+08:00

If you had read my last post, you would know that it was mighty fortunate that Van even agreed to game with me again, hah! Anyway, Marcus came over and mentioned he has a shipment from Essen arriving (woohoo!). We initially wanted to give Imperial a go, but Van vetoed the idea in view of its length so Marcus had a chance to try out the new games I acquired.

We started off with Endeavor and while he grasped the rules quickly, he had some difficulty optimizing his choices and ended up with some inefficient scenarios where he was unable to fully utilize his workers. I too had an abundance of workers but used them to good effect by attacking strategically for the connection and added influence. Surprisingly, 3 extra regions opened up, and both Marcus and Van managed a nice collection of cards. I had the most points on the main board which was enough to secure me the victory, despite me not gaining a single Governor card nor acquiring a building beyond an industry level of 3.

Next up was Chicago Express. Marcus had tried it once before so we were equally experienced, or for that matter inexperienced, with 1 game under our belt each. I determined to focus on the red railway company this time round, noting in my last play that it had the fewest shares and thus was least susceptible to dilution. I took its first share for $21 and timed myself subsequently to buy into Marcus' yellow and Van's blue when they were low on cash. I maintained monopoly over the red throughout the game, buying up the 2 remaining shares when auctioned with my early lead in cash. Unsurprisingly, it was the first and only company to reach Chicago, and the special dividend triggered accrued to me alone, thus building me an unassailable lead. The game soon ended with the Wabash being the third company to have its shares fully auctioned. I took the win with $102.

After unsuccessfully trying to persuade Van to give A Game of Thrones LCG a go, we decided go with our trusty Glory to Rome. I was surprised Van even suggested it after what happened the last time round. Marcus and I gained an obscene number of clients. Thanks to my Bar ("in addition: you may add patron from deck), my collection of clients was somewhat more useful. The scores were close, with each of us separated by a point. I took the win with 15, thanks to my solitary marble in the vault while theirs remained empty. Van had a nice stash in her stockpile with nabbed her additional points thanks to her Wall, while Marcus by far had the most influence points. Marcus commented the Bar seemed somewhat overpowered especially at its low cost (1 material). I partially agreed but attributed it to the randomness of the deck draw. But that's the appeal of GtR after all, most cards are overpowered in one way or another and it's all about coming out with your 'broken' combo the fastest. This was also my 30th play of GtR - money well spent indeed!

Finally, Marcus introduced to us a new game - Fzzzt! (how do you even pronounce that??!!). It has a certain deck-building mechanic to it, which Marcus commented reminded him of Dominion. I enjoyed the blind auction mechanic where cards in hand are used to bid for those displayed. Cards won and used remain yours, and 6 are drawn randomly each round to form your new hand. However, you have a larger degree of control as you can use cards to build widgets for more points, and thus leaving yourself with the 6 ideal cards for your next hand. Definitely a nice filler and thanks to the auction mechanic, arguably more interactive than Dominion. Nonetheless, I suppose without special powers and potential combos, the deck-building aspect seems rather thin. Even Dominion falls short for me in that... And now, if only I could get another go at A Game of Thrones LCG ;-)

1st Nov 2009: The One That Got The Wife Upset...

2009-11-08T21:24:00.004+08:00

Unbelievably, we were able to game for a second consecutive day - it had been sometime since that happened. Wai Mun and Weilong joined us for games and it had been sometime since the 4 of us gamed together, despite it being a common occurrence late last year and early this year.

I wanted another go at Chicago Express but Van expressed her preference for Endeavor. It was our third go at the game within a week and I failed to emerge victorious yet again. Nonetheless, it was a good learning experience. Firstly, I realized that I had been undervaluing connections. I also assumed from my previous play that shipping wasn't as important as occupation since it didn't nab you a glory point at the end of the game. My undervaluation led to Van opening up a region singlehandedly (she dominated the entire shipping lane), which game her exclusive access to the cities and the region's cards. Not a smart move at all...

Next, I taught them Ages of Empire III. It was clear that they hadn't been over for some time because I had a bunch of games they had never played before. AOEIII has been a revelation, and despite it taking 2 or more hours at times, it was a game that never 'felt' overly long. This was my first go with 4 players, and while it did stretch the game out more, the added tightness of the game was admittedly appealing. I doubt I would want to try with 5 though - think the added game length would likely lead to diminishing utility at that point.

I went for a military strategy this time round since my first capital building gave me an extra soldier every turn. This gave me an edge in terms of area majority points. Van focused on trade goods and Wai Mun, discovery. I ended up with the capital building which awarded 4 points per merchant ships. That probably gave me the victory as all in all, I accumulated 5 in all. With more players, specialization is unavoidable and probably wise too, though it is probably still necessary to focus on at least 2 areas.

For our last game of the night, Van opted for Glory to Rome. I ended up with an absolutely ridiculous combo. Started out with the Temple (+4 hand), followed with the Scriptorium (complete any building with 1 marble) which allowed me Bridge, Colosseum and Palisade in a blaze. None of them managed to build the Wall which meant that with every play of Legionary, assuming the cards were available, I could take a matching card from:

1. The common pool

2. My opponents' hand

3. Their stockpile (in addition effect of the Bridge)

4. Their client, with the card going straight into my vault (thanks to the Colosseum)

It was simply devastating as my Bridge made my Legionary play applicable to all opponents, not just my neighbours, plus it rendered their Palisades useless. Van cried foul at the brokenness of the combo, but I assured her that it was perfectly legitimate. I probably should have avoided playing Legionary a second time with my victory more or less secured as Van was visibly upset when I did so. This was understandable as between the two of us, I have always been the gamer while Van has always gamed for its social aspect. Our game night ended on a somewhat awkward note but it was a good lesson for me - be conscious of who you are gaming with or else you may not have them as gaming partners much longer!

31st Oct 2009: First Go At Chicago Express...

2009-11-08T21:06:00.003+08:00

This is gonna be a vague session report simply cause the score sheet got thrown away accidentally.

Weilong came over for games and while he hasn't been gaming with us for some time, he came just in time to try my new shipment of games.

I spared no time in whipping out Chicago Express. I had been eyeing this baby for some time as it had all the characteristics I typically like about games. Short game length (about 1 hour), simple mechanics (3 basic decisions per turn) but yet incredible depth in play with high interaction. And the verdict? It sure didn't disappoint. Van took the win, with Weilong second and I, third. I was at a lost at times as to the auction mechanic - unsure when to initiate them and which company's share to put up for bidding. My downfall came with my failure to acquire sufficient share holdings compared to Van and Weilong, and that led to my downfall as dividend after dividend phases were triggered. Nonetheless, I concluded that it was a keeper for sure. I hesitated for sometime regarding the purchase due to the hefty cost and while the over-the-top production wasn't necessary, I'm sure glad I added this game to my collection. Can see many more plays in the future.

Next up was Endeavor. The first play was positive but I was keen to give it another go. I opted to focus on building up my industry this time round and by the end of the game, I was able to attain the best buildings in the game. Unfortunately, the apparent imbalance in my progress tracks meant that I lagged behind. Van took the win again.

We had to make a move by then, and while I was washing up, Van taught Weilong Battle Line without the tactic cards.

29th Oct 2009 Session Report: A New Friend...

2009-10-29T22:43:00.004+08:00

I got to know Ivan over the Singapore Boardgame Meetup forums when he posted a thread looking for A Game of Throne LCG players. I too had ordered the game and was eagerly looking for other "kakis" (gaming pals), recognizing that such games had a niche appeal. We arranged a time and he dropped by this evening for a game.

Van was busy so we started with a game of joust. He took Baratheon while I, Lannister, figuring some familiarity from my last play couldn't do any harm. I found out later that he had started reading the books so looks like he is even more into the Game of Thrones universe than I am. The game was a close affair, ending 15-13 in his favour. I was plotting my victory in the next round when he played an event card to stand Robert Baratheon for a military challenge, nabbing 3 power tokens at a go. 1 for the unopposed challenge and 2 for his Renown key word and special ability.

Despite being his first play, Ivan had familiarized himself well with the rules, and we played more carefully, ensuring we took note of the special text on the various cards. Play flowed relatively smoothly and none of the potential timing difficulties of different effects came up.

Though keen at another go, I requested for a change so that Van would join in. I went with Endeavor after spending time last night to run through the rules. They were relatively easy to explain and we began the game without a hitch. It took a few turns to grasp the nuances of the game but it would definitely qualify as a gateway of sorts in my book. It ended 62 (Van) - 55 (Ivan) - 48 (Me).

I like the simplicity of the rules and relatively short playtime. We probably took about 90 min inclusive of setup and rules. The setup and final scoring were a bit of a hassle but still bearable I suppose. It was clear that the game was one of efficiency and potential poster child of eurogames. It was important to manage your status tracks so as to maximize your glory points and occupy strategic cities in a bid to nab connections, both of which award glory points at the end of the game. I remember 2 point cities in the rules but we seemed to have missed them during the game. Will look out for them next time round. Van commented the game felt rather similar to other games, particularly Age of Empires III which she preferred. I am still on the fence, it seems like it might possibly fill a niche in my collection but I will probably need a few more plays before I'm ready to make a decision.

Ivan had some time left so I looked for a short game to intro him to. I wanted to go for China but Van preferred Ra. Van continuing her dominance took the game with 33 points to my 27 and Ivan's 20. It was a particular quick game with the Ra tiles appearing in a flurry in 2 of the 3 rounds. In fact, in those rounds, none of us managed to utilize our numbered tiles fully. Oh well, at least it kept the game short!

27th Oct 2009 Session Report: First Go At A Game Of Thrones LCG

2009-10-29T21:51:00.002+08:00

Just received my package of games - Endeavor, Chicago Express, A Game of Thrones LCG and Catan Card Game Expansions Set (Thanks FT!). I've been looking towards this order, particularly A Game of Thrones LCG. I have always been intrigued by CCG gameplay but never got into Magic the Gathering due to its theme and cost. When I found out about the Core Set of A Game of Thrones LCG, it seemed exactly what I was looking for - ready to play decks with an appealing theme, plus a fair dose of complexity to keep things interesting.

I wasn't sure whether it would be Van's cup of tea but she obliged me with a game or two. I started with the Lannister deck and Van with Stark. She whitewashed me 15-0 the first game - ouch! Stark is strong military and once Van got a couple of her characters out, she ended up slaughtering whichever characters I succeeded in marshalling each turn. This led to a couple of unopposed challenges per turn and it wasn't long before she started racking up power tokens.

In the second game, I was wary about lagging in terms of military strength. I leveraged on the wealth of the Lannisters to marshall multiple characters each turn. This gave me a significant advantage and despite Van utilizing a particular vicious plot card which wiped out all characters in play, my victory wouldn't be denied. I took the game 15-4.

The joust format (1 vs. 1) didn't seem as interesting as the melee format (multiplayer) as described in the rules. Van seemed bored by it so my hopes of attracting her with the game appeared to be dashed. I personally liked the variety of card effects though we missed quite a few due to our unfamiliarity with them. The timing of card actions, passive effects and responses also seemed a tat complicated despite having gone through the FAQ. Hopefully it will be clearer with further plays. I usually get rid of games that don't even marginally appeal to Van but this might be the exception - for some reason, such gameplay does appeal to me. Perhaps just perhaps, trying the melee format might improve her perception of it somewhat - enough for her to play it once awhile. Oh well, one can always hope (:

20 Oct 2009 Session Report: A New Kind Of Monopoly...

2009-10-20T23:49:00.005+08:00

Mel and Liz came over for dinner tonight. Mel being early took the opportunity to teach us a game he had been gushing about for some time - Monopoly Deal Card Game. Mel has never been much of a gamer outside of sports and computer games so it was a surprise to me that he had taken so much to a card game.

We played 4 games over the course of the night with me taking 2 games, while Van and Mel took the other 2 respectively. I must say I was somewhat impressed by the fun generated. The game is heavily luck-dependent and the winner usually boils down to the one who draws the right (best) cards. But I love the "take-that" feature of the game. We initially played with our individual banked money hidden but subsequently we played with it revealed and my my, what a brutal game (in a good way at least for me!) it evolved into. It allowed us to specifically target opponents low in cash so as to takeover their properties. There were also some of those moments which got the whole table in an uproar. The one which remained in my mind was the one when Van used her 1st action to rob me of my yellow set + house (which I stole from her earlier) with the Deal Breaker and followed it up by calling for rent combined with the Double Rent card. Ouch!

Some cards like the Deal Breaker are very powerful and may boil down to the luck of the draw. Nonetheless with its short game length and rather addictive nature, it appears to be an excellent filler. In fact, I probably enjoy it more than No Thanks! at the moment...

Other games played were China (Me 61, Van 50, Mel 39) and Liar's Dice (both games won by me).

12th Oct 2009 Session Report: 2-player Le Havre

2009-10-20T23:35:00.002+08:00

Van surprised me by offering to game tonight so I took advantage of her enthusiasm to have a go at the full game of Le Havre. Our only previous attempt at 2-player was the shortened game which felt somewhat abrupt so I was reluctant at attempting it again despite the attractive playtime.

Van took the win 260+ to 230+ and I noted that we took as long (about 2 hours) to finish our 2-player game as our 3-player game with Marcus. My AP (analysis paralysis) contributed somewhat to the time taken as I guess I wasn't used to the short intervals between decisions. With 2 players, you have not just more actions to take over the course of the full game but they also come fast and furious at times since you take every alternate action.

I realized that there's a nice strategic and tactical tension in the game. I aimed for a coke shipping strategy but I discovered that I could blindly pursue that strategy without first evaluating the most profitable action each turn. Le Havre after all is still an efficiency game and a player taking the most tactically superior action each turn will probably do well. This evaluation however isn't easy with the number of buildings which increases over the course of the game. Comparing the piles of resources available may be more straightforward but definitely not when compared to possible returns when taking building actions. One may opt for a coke shipping strategy but the timing as to when to take the necessary steps towards the strategy is highly significant.

I clearly made some sub-optimal moves in the game, pursuing the strategy on turns when superior tactical moves were available. This lead me to be shut out of the solitary Wharf for a significant period which led to my downfall as I accumulated 8 loans and struggled to feed myself subsequently as the requirements rose. I waited for Van to build the Wharf but made a mental mistake when I realized I lacked the necessary resources to build a wooden ship. The rest was history...

8th Oct 2009 Session Report: 2-Player Fairy Tale

2009-10-08T22:21:00.003+08:00

Fairy Tale has been on the trading block for awhile but seeing the lack of interest, I decided to have another go at it with Van. One of the common complains of the 2-player game is that it only cycles through 40% of the cards. As such I opted to play 10 rounds of the draft so that every card would pass through our hands.

First, the good points. The game definitely felt much less random than before when I played with 3. Choices were more tactical in deciding which cards to pick for personal use and which to pick so as to deprive your opponent. There is also a need to prioritize when you obtain a hand with a few attractive cards. You basically aim to leave the card you want which is most unattractive to your opponent, in hope that it will be returned to you. The fact that all cards came into play also meant that combos were more meaningful and we were actively looking out for cards that would complement the cards in our tableau.

On the other hand, the fact that we cycled through all the cards meant those with * and *3 dominated. I took the win with 161 points mainly due to the reason that I paid more attention to those cards than Van. I checked out some other 2-player variants at BGG and suspect I will adopt one which allows about 60-80% of the cards to be cycled through instead. This will hopefully balance out the strength of the * and *3 cards versus the 1 and 6/7/8 pointers.

And while we paid more attention to each other's cards this time round, the natural instinct is still to give more attention to the cards you are pursuing. Perhaps this was down to inexperience because as the cards in our tableau grew, we paid decreased attention to what each other was acquiring.

The level of interaction is still dissatisfactory but the 2-player game is far more interesting than with 3. Not gonna take it off the trading block just yet but I'm definitely keen to try the game with 4 where partnerships can be formed, and is widely regarded as THE way to play the game.

6th Oct 2009 Session Report: Catan Card Game Revisited...

2009-10-08T21:59:00.003+08:00

Van offered to game with me on my off day. I suggested either Catan Card Game or Le Havre since I was in the mood for something heavier. Expectedly, Van picked Catan Card Game which was a game we both enjoyed but haven't played in awhile after our spurt of 10+ tournament styled games. On a side note, I traded for an extra set of the game recently and made an order for the expansions set. Looking forward to deck build with the full array of cards.

Instead of using our previous decks, Van suggested just picking randomly. Not fully understanding what she meant, I proceeded to divide the cards into 2 and getting us to pick 33 from the pile we ended up with. My deck was built around trade ships and resource doublers. It paid off quickly with me successfully rushing to my 5th settlement before Van. I was doing well and had a commerce advantage, which allowed me to rob Van a couple of times.

However, the turning point came when Van built a Marketplace which allowed her to take hold of the Windmill token which was in my control for most of the game. This was coupled with an early Pirate ship attack of one of my trade ships. I was slow to regain the advantage, perhaps somewhat complacent that I was inching towards victory. Alas, I was at 12 VPs ready to claim victory the next round when Van snatched it before my very eyes with another VP build. Despite generating resources at a slower pace, she was successful in running out a couple of red buildings. This together with control of both the Knight and Windmill tokens was sufficient for the win.

I realized while I probably built a stronger deck than her, I was reluctant to spent resources searching out the right cards often enough. As such, most of my action cards failed to see the light, and I ended up building for VPs with the cards in hand rather than sourcing for those with appropriate abilities.

Even with deck building, the game didn't take overtly long which was a plus. Looking forward to the full tournament game where we would no longer need to share cards. A hefty investment purchasing 2 sets of the original and expansions set but I guess it's worth it considering Van likes the game and it scratches the CCG deck-building itch. I also recently ordered A Game of Thrones LCG Core Set which I'm looking forward to, but I suspect that will be more for the CCG play as I'm unlikely to be willing to fork out the extra dough for deck building, which would easily trump that of the Catan Card Game with expansion packs being released monthly.

What Do I Think Of My Games?

2009-10-04T22:53:00.002+08:00

Added comments to all my current and former games at BGG. Got a bit lazy so kept most short and sweet. I'm one who typically view the glass half empty so even for games I rate highly, I seem to have more criticism than praise. I guess I have almost always found criticisms more helpful to me in evaluating potential purchases, so I'm just returning the favour.

The Joy of Discovery...

2009-09-28T19:31:00.002+08:00

This experience sounds oddly familiar to my own...except for me, that watershed moment took place in my mid-twenties with the Settlers of Catan.

Much Ado About Le Havre...

2009-09-28T13:45:00.004+08:00

"I can't believe a game can reach the Top 10 on the Geek (right behind Dominion, and with a higher average rating) if there's only one path to victory."

Interesting discussion going on at Tao's about Le Havre after its IGA win. Does the game have a single path to victory?

22nd Sept 2009 Session Report: Catan Card Game & Le Havre

2009-09-24T23:24:00.002+08:00

Been some time since I got to game on two consecutive days but as fortune would have it, Marcus managed to get half day off to game. Van unfortunately was still stuck in school so I decided to teach him the Settlers of Catan card game which I rate highly.

Catan Card Game

Since it was his first play, I refrained from loading him with the host of expansions and stuck to the original. He caught on quickly despite the number of wordy cards. While it took only about 75 min, it did feel somewhat longer due to the 'struggle' aspect of the game. He upgraded a couple of settlements and despite only managing one myself, I pipped him 12-10, thanks to my 5th settlement, and maintaining control of the Knight and Windmill symbols for most of the game. In particular, Marcus found himself at the shorter end of the Windmill event all game, which allowed me to rob him of multiple resources. It was nice for once to be on the other side as Van typically trumps me on this aspect in most of our games. Nonetheless, Marcus had a positive view of the game. Perhaps we can get some deck-building in once I get my second copy of the expansions set.

Le Havre

Marcus tried to teach us Imperial when Van got back but her mind was clearly not geared towards learning a new game, especially one as complex as Imperial. We aborted halfway through the rules explanation and opted for Le Havre instead. Amazingly, we bettered our last run of about 135 min and finished the game in about 110 min. Marcus ended with 220+ points yet again, while I only managed 190+. I realized I am still not fully familiar with the building powers, especially those in the special buildings deck and ended up taking some suboptimal actions by nabbing resources when a stronger move was available via a building action. Marcus did highlight me towards the end of the game that with the Bank in my tow, I should buy up the neutral buildings available with the relevant symbols. Guess I'm still rather inexperienced in the game despite playing it about 5 times. Nonetheless, with our speedy play, I can see it much more palatable bringing it to the table in future.

21st Sept 2009 Session Report: Public Holiday Gaming

2009-09-24T22:49:00.006+08:00

While Hari Raya was the day before, it being a Sunday meant that Monday was a holiday as well. I invited whoever was available and was glad that there was a nice turnout in the end.

Age of Empires III

I stole victory by a hair's breath from Vanessa. It was the first game for Lijie and he seemed to enjoy himself, despite expressing initial reservations regarding the rules. I was surprised to win with Vanessa gaining the upper hand in colonization. Lijie had a nice collection of trade goods and far surpassed us in terms of merchant ships obtained. It forced me to take the Age III capital building with the Merchant Ship bonus despite only having 2, but a failure to do so would have simply handed him the game. However, his late foray into colonization meant that he failed to score adequate VPs to challenge Van and I. I figured my success boiled down to a well diversified strategy. I wasn't exceptional in any aspect but did well enough not to fall behind. Once again, I enjoyed the game and while it took about 2 hours, none of us felt it took as long - clearly a mark of a good game. While I have only played with 3, it makes me wonder whether I would favour the game with more players since it would surely add to the game length with more workers to place.

China

The next game I brought to the table was China. On this 2nd play, we actually managed to place a lot more emissaries, even maxing out the capacity in some provinces. I put it down to us playing more 2 cards turn rather than using our full hand of 3. As such, the deck was drawn down more slowly, and allowed us to focus on placing emissaries after most of the house vacancies have been filled. The emissary aspect of the game was also rather interesting as the capacity is limited by the majority in each province. This meant that large provinces and those dominated by a single colour became potential for high scoring. I realized this late and Lijie took Van and I to the cleaners, trumping us by 10+ points, despite it being his first play. Nonetheless, my impression of the game has further improved after this play and with its quick play time, I can see myself bringing it to the table on a regular basis. Buying it 2nd hand for S$25 was an absolute steal, thanks Sng!

Liar's Dice

Fang Ting and her friend, Ju Lee joined us at this point and not certain of Ju Li's appetite for heavier games, I decided to start us off with Liar's Dice. It was good fun and I see its potential as a casual game for large groups, in addition to Puno.

We went out in the order: FT, JL, LJ and finally myself. The final match-up was I with a single die against Van with her original 5 - it was clear that I didn't stand a chance.

Princes of Florence

With 5, I turned to my trusty PoF to further cement its status as a gateway gamer's game. While initially perturbed during the rules explanation, it appeared that the 3 guests enjoyed themselves. It was nice to get another go at PoF which is only 1 of 2 games that I rate a 10, yet seldom appears at the table as I'm often unwilling to play it with any less than the optimal 5 players. I beat Van by 2 points, thanks to a base price Jester that I obtained towards the end game, and producing a total of 6 works. I also managed to fulfill my 7 point Prestige card for most forests with only 2.

Fairy Tale

After Fang Ting and Ju Lee left, the 3 of us managed to squeeze in a game of Fairy Tale before leaving for dinner. Despite putting it up for trade, I was keen to give it another go with the correct rules. I had misinterpreted the rules previously that "You Flip One" meant that you got to flip an opponent's card. I then realized after reading up the BGG forum that you had to flip one of your own. While it made sense that high point cards required you to pay the penalty of flipping one of your other cards, it also meant that there was even less interaction in the game than I previously assumed. While the game flowed more smoothly this time round, I still failed to see its appeal on BGG. But Van was showing her talent at the game, winning again - this time with the correct rules.

10th Sept 2009 Session Report: New Games Galore!

2009-09-14T21:53:00.004+08:00

Marcus came over for games and I had an opportunity to get couple of my new games to the table.

First up was Age of Empires III: The Age of Discovery. I was initially concerned that this would be another redundant 'worker-placement' game especially with my acquisition of Le Havre which I rate highly. Verdict? I was pleasantly surprised. While the mechanics aren't exactly elegant, the game isn't like anything I've played. Sure the mechanics are tried and tested such as worker placement, area majority, buildings with special powers, etc. but as a package, it is unique as compared to other worker placement games I've tried such as Agricola, Stone Age and even Le Havre. I especially like its confrontational nature in the jostling for position on the various tracks and how the different specialist roles adds a twist into the various spots on the board where you need to gain majority control. The tension was there even with 3 players, although admittedly more so with the first few placements rather than the final few. I agree with the criticisms that the bonuses of the capital buildings do add a dose of luck and have the potential of swinging the game but I don't think it overly detracts from the enjoyment of the game. I like that its easy to pick up and while the game runs slightly longer than I would prefer, it does sustain interest throughout. Marcus came in first in our inaugural game, benefitting from the massive wealth accumulated with the help of his capital buildings and suitably purchased Age III buildings to score the relevant bonuses. Van took 2nd while I 3rd, as I failed to line up enough of my missionaries on the colonist dock due to fierce competition for spots. While somewhat preliminary, it's definitely a keeper in my book. The big plus is that Van actually had a favourable opinion of the game when asked after our first play. That basically seals the deal...

Van suggested a go at Glory to Rome after dinner. It occurred to me that I hadn't played it for some time when it used to hit the table previously every gaming session. Still a fav in our books nonetheless! Unfortunately, the game didn't allow us to savour it for long as Marcus rushed the end of the game by clearing the remaining sites and pipped us to the win by being the only one who managed a single stash in the vault, which was enough to give him a 6 VP advantage.

Next, I brought out China which I was eager to try after acquiring it recently. Marcus played it sometime ago and promptly sold his set, clearly indicating that he wasn't adequately impressed. The rules were exceptionally easy to pick up (I can see it as a successful gateway game) and the card mechanics were reminiscent of Ticket to Ride. However, the game blew past quickly without allowing me to grasp the full nuances of the scoring. We focused on the placement of houses with the only 4 emissary points scored by me at the end. Marcus took the victory with a 2 point edge over me, having scored nice points for his road, while successfully blocking my attempts at extending mine. While clearly abstract, I thought the game possessed potential especially with its short playtime. Van probably found it too short so much so that there didn't seem much game at all. I learnt that the house scoring meant that all one needed was half of the houses in each district and if you are aiming for 2nd, minimal houses were required as your points increase with a greater majority. Still probably need another game or two to figure out how to best leverage the emissary scoring...

We then tried Fairy Tale. We didn't fully understand the rules and ended up getting a few of them wrong. Nonetheless, Van got the win but my first impression is that there isn't as much interaction in the game as I first assumed.

To end the night we had a quick go at Sorry! Sliders which went to the wire - Marcus clinched it at the death...

All in all, a good day of gaming - been awhile since I got 5 games to the table in one session.

8th Sept 2009 Session Report: Docking At Le Havre

2009-09-08T23:22:00.005+08:00

Planned a game session for 3 but Shiqing couldn't make it last minute so Van and I decided to have a go at our new copy of Le Havre. This game has been on my radar ever since I tried it a couple of times on Marcus' copy. I have only tried it with 3 previously which is supposedly what it plays best. Nonetheless I've heard that it plays well with fewer players so I figured it should offer a decent game with 2 too.

We took quite some time punching out the bits and sleeving the cards so decided to give the shortened version a try. It took us only about an hour to get through the game. But as I suspected, the shortened game doesn't give the full flavour of the game. There were only 8 rounds and despite starting with a load of resources, I felt somewhat lost as to what to do with the actions remaining. I lost the game 107 to Van's 127 after making a couple of mistakes:

1. I spent too much time accumulating resources and was left with inadequate actions to convert them to cash via shipping.

2. I assumed taking loans was similarly advantageous in the shortened game as the standard game but realized that the limited actions coupled with the lack of the Court for free repayment made it more 'costly' to acquire loans. However by the time I realized, I was already saddled with 4 loans.

3. I planned to use my final action to purchase the Bank which would have won me the game. Unfortunately I mistakenly assumed that the building cost was 4 bricks and 1 iron which I prepared but it turned out to be 4 bricks and 1 steel. The resources I had remaining didn't allow me to take an alternative action which proved to be my downfall.

In Puerto Rico, timing is key in determining when to switch from acquiring money to VPs. Likewise, I'm starting to see that timing is similarly key in Le Havre where one has to decide when to start converting the resources acquired to cash and VPs. If one is left with a significant stash of resources at the end of the game (which count for nothing), clearly he or she has failed to time that well. I'm glad there's an option of the shortened game for days when the full game would be an overkill but my preference is to get the full game in cause it's clearly the superior option.

5th Sept 2009 Session Report: Piracy on the High Seas!

2009-09-06T23:32:00.003+08:00

Introduced Loot to a couple of youths during the Creative Service. Played with 4/5 so didn't have an opportunity to try the game with teams. First impressions were a tinge disappointing. I suppose I expected more after reading a couple of reviews on BGG. Found it somewhat tedious and repetitive after awhile. Perhaps a score track tracking the score during the game would add some excitement and allow players to identify and gang up on the leader. Also, the limited number of Pirate Captain (1 for each colour) and Admiral (1 only) cards meant that these 'trumps' had minimal impact on the game - they aid you at best in gaining 1 high valued merchant ship. I suppose it is still a good filler game for non-gaming guests especially since it takes up to 8, but I do hope the team variant spices things up a lot more.

1st Sept 2009 Session Report: First 2-player Alhambra with Van

2009-09-06T23:19:00.003+08:00

It was Teachers' Day and I took the opportunity to game with Van. It had been some time since the 2 of us gamed on our own. I suggested Alhambra since Van hadn't had an opportunity to try the 2-player version of Alhambra. My previous experience was positive so I had high hopes for it.

In the end, Van schooled me in the game though the scores looked closer than it actually was. I lost the record sheet but it was in the region of: Van 126, Me 114, Dirk 93. I struggled to pay exact to reap the extra actions while Van seemed to make those buys effortlessly. On hindsight, I was perhaps a little too eager on a couple of buys and should have bid my time and accumulated currency. But the key to Van's success was her external wall. At the very first scoring round, she already managed a 14 for her external wall. I managed a miserly 4. While she wasn't able to further expand her wall, 3 rounds of 14 was sufficient to give her an unassailable lead which I never got close to. In fact, I was almost on the verge of an embarrassing loss to Dirk but my wall scoring on the last turn prevailed in giving me a clear advantage.

The 2-player rules allow players to purchase tiles on behalf of Dirk. In my 2 games so far, no one has ever utilized this rule since on the surface it makes no sense to do so when the tiles could be added to your own hand. However, I do see opportunities where you are so out of the running of a certain building that you can add to Dirk's hand so as to reduce your opponent's score. Furthermore, it may allow you to clear a tile which doesn't fit nicely into your estate. Will look out for opportunities next time round.

25th Aug 2009 Session Report: 1st Automobile Ride!

2009-08-26T17:17:00.005+08:00

Had an opportunity to game with Valerie and Marcus today. Valerie had some gaming experience back in the UK and we went through some of my shorter games while waiting for Marcus to arrive.

Alhambra (Me 141, Val 100, Dirk the Dummy 92)

First go at the official 2-player variant for Alhambra. Verdict? It plays quite well. There isn't much setting up for the dummy player except to add tiles to his hand at 3 points in the game but serves its purpose to provide some competition for the scoring phase. It is however unlikely for 'Dirk' to pose any threat since he doesn't score points for an external wall. He will tend to lag behind both players unless the players opt to purchase buildings on his behalf (which is an option in the 2-player variant) although I didn't see many opportunities which would make that worthwhile. Val ran into some trouble after acquiring some difficult to place tiles early on, which slowed her progress in expanding her estate. I on the other hand leant from the experience of my first play to acquire more money cards and only purchasing tiles at the exact price as far as possible. I could also concentrate on building an extended external wall this time round which accounted for a significant proportion of my score.

Battle Line (Val 3 Me 0)

Taught Valerie Battle Line figuring its short playtime was especially appropriate in light of Marcus's impending arrival. We started with 2 games without the tactic cards and Val despite it being her first play went on to trounce me soundly. She won one game by making a breakthrough (3 consecutive flags) and the other by nabbing 5 flags to my 2. I then introduced the Tactic cards which she grasped the nuances immediately and promptly won the 3rd game as well.

Automobile (Me $4790, Marcus $4050, Val $3980)

Marcus brought Automobile over, which was a game I was eager to try after all the hype on BGG. Thanks to Marcus, we got to try the game on one of the few sets of the first print run. Apparently, the game will only be widely available early next year. This was also my first Martin Wallace game and while I can see the genius of it, I figured it was a game I didn't feel much compulsion to own. The feel was very much of a business game. Of the games I have played, Indonesia comes the closest although Automobile is far shorter (which is a big plus in my book) and does not involve mergers.

We took awhile to plough through the rules together, but the game mechanics became much clearer after the first round. The challenge of the game lies in estimating the demand each round, and matching your production and sales so as to achieve the largest profit possible. Val and Marcus underproduced for a couple of rounds while I leveraged on my low-cost car factories to make a killing to gain a significant lead.

There are 3 ways to sell cars: 1. 2 cars via Howard (special ability of 1 of the characters), 2. Through distributors (up to a max of 8 which you have to build up over the rounds provided you were successful in supplying them with cars each round), and 3. based on the combined demand tiles drawn (number sold depends on factory placement and modifiers based on executive decisions chosen).

You are trying your best to match demand and supply each round for each unsupplied distributor and unsold car will reap you a loss cube. You also gain loss cubes for factories that lag behind more advanced factories opened. However, our observation from our first play is that the penalty of taking loss cubes isn't too severe and various characters plus closing down your factories allow you to reduce your loss cube count. Loans while available also seem unnecessary as each player starts with $2000. We attributed the lack of tightness to the fewer players in the game - it would be interesting to try the game again with 5, which according to Wallace would be far more cut-throat.

Tulipmania 1637 (Marcus $20825, Me $14775, Val $12875)

Marcus introduced us to another game about the sale of tulips. The mechanics resemble a stock market of sorts where the price of different coloured tulips fluctuate depending on demand and supply, as well as speculation. You earn money via the tulip you put up for sale on your turn and try to accumulate tulips of higher prices so that once the 'bursting' point is attained, all tulips of that colour in hand can be sold at various prices depending on whether one owns matching buyer cards. It is one of those games where you struggle to capture its nuances the first time round, and which is highly dependent on the actions of others. It possesses some similar elements to a potential acquisition, Chicago Express, but somehow failed to capture my interest.

Sorry! Sliders (Marcus - Winner, Me, Val)

We had a little time left so I figured it was a good opportunity to give my new set of Sorry! Sliders a go. Acquired it to add a dexterity game to my collection. Was initially somewhat disappointed by the quality of the components but all in all, it was good fun for the short while we had a go at it. I guess deeper games still interest me more but I believe it will be a hit with the casual or non-gamers I game with.

10th Aug 2009 Session Report: 1st Ever Mass Gaming Session, Well Sort Of...

2009-08-11T17:04:00.005+08:00

I have always desired to organize a boardgaming gathering at my place where multiple games run simultaneously. However, it has been difficult to find a regular time slot which is convenient for my friends and thus most of my gaming sessions have been restricted to a series of single games. I figured that this public holiday, I would attempt to get more over for games and in the end, there were 8 of us in total. However, different ones came later in the day so it took awhile before we got the second 'table' going.

Alhambra (Van-132, Ben-125, Me-115)

We started with Alhambra which was part of the trade of Twilight Struggle. I have heard good things about it as a gateway game. It didn't disappoint...I think. I realized that quite a number of turns were just spent taking currency and the game didn't get interesting for me till I started having difficultly piecing my estate together with the various buildings purchase. As the game progresses, the choice of buildings to buy takes on a different dimension as one needs to not only consider the building type relative to the number owned by your opponents but also whether its walls can fit nicely into your estate. All in all, a fine addition to my collection despite me getting routed in the game. Van won the inaugural game with 132 points while Ben and I had 125 and 115 points respectively.

Railroad Tycoon (Me-64, Van-59, Weilong-43, Xiumei-42, Ben-28)

With 5, I brought Railroad Tycoon to the table, desiring to see if there would be more conflict with an additional player compared to my first play. It wasn't much better and I suppose the sheer size of the map does allow you to largely build up your own network of tracks without much disturbance. I managed to dominate much of the north-east despite Weilong's presence, which gave me a lead I didn't relinquish. I rushed for the starting goals and managed to complete the major line from Boston to Washington.

I opted to keep the Major Lines in the deck this time round to avoid overwhelming the new players. The only rules I changed were for the auction and railroad cards. We played the auction so that the first player to pass would start last and so on. Only the first player had to pay his/her bid but the last player from the previous round would have to start the bidding. As for the railroad cards, I only revealed cards equalling the number of players together with the 3 starting cards, and introduced 2 new cards per turn. I didn't want the new players to be discouraged by all the information they had to read right from the start so as to allow them to familiarize themselves with the mechanics of the game. The game took about 2 1/2 hours which wasn't too long for 5 players but I would have appreciated something heavier for the time invested.

Meuterer x2 (Xiumei - 34/33, Me - 33/32, Lijie - 30/23, Ben-15/27)

We proceeded to split into 2 groups after RRT. I introduced Meuterer to my group while Van played Glory to Rome with Mun, Fang Ting and Weilong. Xiumei complained during the rules explanation that they were hard to follow and promptly went on to win both games, pipping me by a point in both. Playing this time with the correct rules, I noticed how the psychological aspect came into play. Choosing whether to reveal your conflict cards during the play of ware cards can be an important decision in garnering support or serving as a bluff. The order in which one plays his/her ware cards can also be important in ensuring the Merchant is left for you. While my issues with the game expressed in the earlier thread remains, the game has moved up a notch in my book regardless.

Glory to Rome (Van - W, Weilong, Fang Ting, Wai Mun)

Didn't hear much of the game except that Weilong and Van were both vying for a victory by Forum, which Van succeeded in finally.

9th Aug 2009 Session Report: Aye Aye Captain!

2009-08-11T16:37:00.003+08:00

Traded Twilight Struggle recently for Alhambra and Meuterer. Had to make a small cash top-up, prob not the best deal in terms of finances I made but considering how TS wasn't gonna be easy to bring to the table, perhaps this will turn out to be a wise decision in the long-run.

Got an opportunity to pull out Meuterer for a play at a friend's BBQ. I had read the rules the night before but forgot to bring them along, which led to us playing a couple of rules wrongly. Firstly, I mistakenly thought the Mutineer moves the ship anti-clockwise if the mutiny succeeds. Apparently, I got it mixed up with the Pirate ship, but like the Captain, the Mutineer moves the ship clockwise so it's possible for the Captain and the Mutineer to pick the same destination for the ship to dock. Secondly, I assumed that once the mutiny is activated, each player starting from the Captain can play a maximum of one conflict card. A closer reading of the rules when I got back indicated that while each player had only one opportunity to add cards, they could add any number of conflict cards still in their hands. I was glad that I got the rule wrong because the actual rule made the game far more tense and interesting. While the mistakes were nothing game breaking, it would have been nice to get them right the first time round. Van ended with the win with 30 followed by Simon with 28, while I and Sylvia took up the rear with 26 and 15 respectively.

I thought that the game was good value, and packed some tactical depth for its supposed price and playtime. However, I did wish the wares deck came with more cards so that the deck needn't be reshuffled every round. It also gives the sense that one can sort of predict the kind of cards being dealt each round based on what was played two rounds ago. Nonetheless, I don't think anyone approached the game that intensely. The game also did seem somewhat random at times although I guess that's fine for a game of such short playtime. I realize that your ability to score points each round is heavily tied to the cards you receive. If you receive several conflict cards, then go for the Mutineer or defend your captaincy, choosing the island with the most points to dock. If you get a long suit of a particular good or goods, then grab points from selling them, taking the Merchant to break the tie if necessary. I know I'm approaching tactics somewhat shallowly, and timing plays an important part in getting the character desired but there were occasions I obtained 5 cards of different goods, and I resigned myself to scoring minimal points that round by taking the First Mate or Cabin Boy. This is probably the most unsatisfactory part of the game where there are times the card draw leaves you practically helpless. It would be nice if there was an opportunity to score more points regardless of card draw even if probability was low.

Lastly, the game supposedly plays well with 4, and only 4. While versatility is appreciated, I usually try to play games with the numbers they play at so this wasn't a deal breaker in any sense. Still, a game this portable with a short play-time and some depth seems a keeper. While the rules aren't easy to explain, most people do get them after a trial round or so.

5th Aug 2009 Session Report: Twilight Struggle Under 2 1/2 Hours

2009-08-07T00:13:00.003+08:00

I persuaded Ben to come over again today to give Twilight Struggle a go before I traded it off. My rules explanation the day before intrigued him adequately for him to take up the offer but he was clearly concerned about the possible length of the game. We proceeded with him taking USSR and I, the US. I chose not to play US with the recommended added influence as I thought that the added advantage would come in helpful since it was his first go.

Ben concentrated largely on Europe and Asia while I took a foothold in the Middle East and Africa, while combating him on the European and Asian front. He had a number of difficult turns, drawing a flurry of US cards, while I got rid of the USSR cards in my hand thanks to my success in the space race, enabling me to toss 2 of such cards per turn.

While Ben took control of multiple countries, I paid closer attention to the battlegrounds and successfully took control of a number via well-timed coups. I took some cheap points by playing scoring cards during the headline phase. I scored heavily on an American scoring card with only control of Panama, with the continent devoid of any other influence. Eventually, my VPs neared the brink and a couple of fortunate VP cards put me over the top at the end of the 6th turn. In particular, Salt Negotiations allowed me to resurrect a non-scoring card from the discard pile which put the deterministic VP related card in play.

Surprisingly, the game just took under 2 1/2 hours. Even Van was impressed but I could foresee how the game would easily break the 4 hour mark if it went the distance. I also realized that the right distribution of cards at the right time could significantly impact the result of the game. Perhaps, the luck of the draw is somewhat too much for me for a game of such (potential) length. Well it was nice to have another go at TS just before I trade it.

We moved on to another go at Nexus Ops with Van joining us. This time round the game was far more competitive as Van and Ben clearly caught on with regards to being aggressive. In fact, Van put the most Secret Mission cards in play while Ben and I accumulated points from mostly Battle cards. Ben neared victory on the last turn, only needing a successful dice roll to play a Secret Mission card for the win. Unfortunately, he failed and going next, I grabbed the 5 points needed for the win, with the play of Death from Above and another Secret Mission card which required a Fungoid kill which Ben sat pretty on his 3 mine space. I was confident of the win as I took a number of turns to prepare for the Death from Above play. As it turned out, Ben almost beat me to it. Nonetheless, Ben and Van were a whisker away with 10 and 9 points respectively.

4th Aug 2009 Session Report: Battling For Supremacy On A Foreign Moon

2009-08-06T23:43:00.003+08:00

Nexus Ops (Me-13, Van-6, Ben-5)

It has been awhile since the last gaming session and I was raring to have a go at the newly acquired Nexus Ops. Verdict? I liked it - short playtime, good fun, beautiful pieces to boot. There is a degree of luck with the exploration tiles, the card draws and of course, the battles that are seemingly dice fests BUT I exceptionally enjoyed the fact is determined by the player who pursues his/her mission objectives more relentlessly and that the energizer cards offer an added element when conserved for crucial battles. I took the win convincingly as it took Van and Ben awhile to realize that the game rewarded aggressiveness and while they were taking a conservative Risk-like approach, I was picking my battles in accordance to the Secret Mission cards drawn.

Glory to Rome (Me-35, Van-27, Ben-23)

Van picked GtR which was no surprise considering how it has become a favourite at our sessions. An early Gate set me on track early as I proceeded build a series of incomplete Marble buildings to tap on their powers. I gained multiple actions easily per turn with my combination of the Palace and Circus Maximus. Coupled with my Basilica, I loaded my vault early and proceeded to end the game quickly as I saw Van catching up with an impressive haul of influence points from her completed buildings.

Citadels (Ben-40, Me-36, Van-26)

Ben had the last pick of the day and I suggested Citadels considering the time remaining and that I have always liked it with 3. In fact, I think these days, I would only play it with 3 which is clearly the best number with each player taking 2 roles per round. I got killed multiple times by Van and despite my lost turns, I still racked up an impressive score, reaching 8 buildings first and obtaining the colour bonus. However, Ben wasn't far behind and had a much more impressive series of buildings including School of Magic and Dragon Gate. He too reached 8 buildings on the last round and got the 3 bonus points for having a building of each colour. Van's progress was slowed due to getting 3 buildings destroyed by the Warlord. As usual, single gold buildings proved to be unwise options as they got picked off one by one by the player with the Warlord.

14th July Session Report: First Attempt At Being A Railroad Tycoon!

2009-07-20T21:50:00.002+08:00

It was quite a wait but finally, the first of my new games have arrived - Railroad Tycoon and Nexus Ops. My original order included only Nexus Ops cause its price was an absolute steal at A$20 but I couldn't resist adding Railroad Tycoon since it was also on sale at A$60.

Ben joined Van and I for games and I spared no time taking out Railroad Tycoon for its test-run. I have heard the board is big but didn't expect it to come in 3 separate pieces (this is one time I shouldn't have been lazy to use the camera, bah). I had some doubts about acquiring this game initially when I found out Steam was slated for release. After playing RRT though and reading about how Steam differs, I suspect I would stick with RRT as to fill the railway niche in my collection rather than opt for Steam.

The game ended 49, 35 (Van) and 22 (Ben) in my favour. I suppose being more familiar with the rules, I paid greater attention to the new card introduced each turn, and promptly won the auctions when valuable cards were available. Van and Ben probably took awhile to fully grasp the implications of the cards so struggled to value them aright. We played with some recommended tweaks such as laying out the major lines from the start as well as dealing each player 2 Tycoon cards at the start for them to pick one. In addition, I opted to play that cubes added to cities could be drawn before deciding the city to add them to. These served to reduce the luck in the game though I question if the last tweak gave too strong an advantage which the game wasn't designed for. I enjoyed the game except for the fact that there was minimal conflict with only 3 players building tracks on such an enormous map. Perhaps the expansion Railways of England and Wales will prove a better option for 3-4 players.

As mentioned earlier, I decided that I would probably keep RRT despite Steam is being at a preferred weight for me. While not Age of Steam, I figured that Steam remains sufficiently "mathy" to put me off. After my experience with Power Grid, I realized that while I will play them, such games aren't much of an attraction for me. Furthermore, the more casual nature of RRT's gameplay coupled with its attractive components make it a boon when introducing the game to new players. Steam's rules which by no means complicated are somewhat more fiddly IMO. My collection has skewed towards weightier games in recent times, and is in need of some "gateway" sort games. Plus, good eurogames that play up to 6 are a rarity although I realize that I frequently game with 3 (I try to convince myself it's better to be prepared). So apart from a slightly longer gameplay for what it is and the lack of conflict with 3-4, RRT seems a potential keeper. But what sealed the deal was the advanced rules I read for Railways of England and Wales which will offer a weightier alternative to the original ruleset - it has been described as 18xx lite.

5 Random Thoughts About The Wimbledon Final...

2009-07-07T23:50:00.003+08:00

1. What can you say about Roger Federer. After starting the season without a single tournament win except for Madrid, the man proceeds to win the French and Wimbledon. He cements his claims for GOAT by surpassing Sampras's haul of 14 Grand Slam titles.

2. Federer was somewhat fortunate to win on the day, where he clearly didn't have his forehand. Thankfully, his trusty serve didn't desert him and that kept him in the game. One wonders whether that would have been enough against a fit Nadal in the final.

3. Federer was nervous for much of the game, and couldn't get loose with his strokes. I initially thought the lack of power was due to his desire to be conservative and draw Roddick into long rallies rather than going for riskier outright winners. But as the game progressed, it was clearly nerves. What ever happened to the comment after the French win: "I will never feel pressure again."

4. People rave about Roddick's serve and while it is clearly faster, the precision that Federer obtains with his is remarkable. He served almost double the aces that Roddick did although that was also partly attributed to Roddick using the body serve to great effect throughout the match.

5. Roddick has improved his game immensely over the past year. He definitely didn't come across as someone with a 2-18 record against Federer. He had Roger on the ropes in the 2nd set tie-breaker but the Swiss somehow wiggled himself out of that predicament. I wouldn't bet against him coming back from two sets down but with the way Roddick was serving that day (almost 80% 1st serves for most of the game??!!), I'm sure he wouldn't want to attempt fending off Roddick for the next 3 sets.

1st July 2009 Session Report: My First & Perhaps Last Attempt At Twilight Struggle

2009-07-07T23:07:00.004+08:00

The title makes it sound as if I disliked the game. On the contrary, I did like the game but perhaps not as much as the love shown for it on BGG as reflected by its no. 4 ranking. However, Van didn't. She was still somewhat neutral towards it during the first half of the game, but as the game crept into its third and fourth hour, her disdain grew. I had high hopes of getting into heavier games such as Through The Ages and Twilight Struggle. TTA was a flop but I put it down to the lack of interaction due to its multi-player solitaire quality, but after this attempt with the highly confrontational Twilight Struggle, I am no longer under the illusion for it was apparent to me that there are limits to game lengths that she would tolerate. Her limit at the moment seems to be 3 plus hours with games such as Le Havre and Indonesia. But any longer and the experience takes a nose-dive, becoming incredibly tedious to her. Mental note to factor game length in future purchases. Oh well, at least, I achieved my subconscious aim of wanting to play each of the top 10 BGG games at least once.

Twilight Struggle appealed to me because of the variation of the cards. TTA while also card-driven was less interesting for the cards came across rather abstract, providing different combination of boosts to the different variables. One can argue that TS is no different with many cards merely allowing the addition of subtraction of influence, the geographical distribution of that influence seems to add a whole extra layer to the game. I like the various routes to victory, whether is it through VPs or through obtaining control of Europe.

Case in point, midway through the game, I began to concentrate all my attention on acquiring all the battleground nations in Europe. I was close to taking the win in round seven or eight when I had the Europe scoring card in hand but was forced to play it with Poland still under USSR's control. The next few rounds saw me attempting to consolidate my control of Europe till the final scoring while Van surged forward on the VP track. The closest she got was 19 VP and if not for a few timely VP and scoring cards, I surely would have lost the game. But as it turn out, I did manage to ride out the tsunami and took the win with Europe control at the final scoring.

The game isn't difficult to learn but can be a brain-burner especially when one isn't familiar with the cards. I like games with diverse card abilities (e.g. Glory to Rome!) but such games tend to have a steeper learning curve due to the large variety of cards. I like how the game captures both tactical and strategic elements. Tactics come in play for each hand of cards, determining the best order in which to play them so as to maximize your advantage while minimizing the advantage to your opponent when you have to play cards with their events. On the other hand, the game is also strategic because you have to decide your plan towards victory whether through capturing Europe or focusing your resources in other continents to gain the upper hand in VPs.

There is probably more luck in this game as compared to Eurogames of similar game length. Luck not only comes in the distribution of cards each round but also the concepts of coups and re-alignment rolls which depend heavily on dice rolls. But it never seems like a game-breaker to me because success is also largely dependent on the targets chosen as well as the operation value of cards played. Therefore, the crux in my opinion is choosing the appropriate target rather than simply going for gold by wishing a 6 each time you roll the die.

I would probably love the game if its game length was at least a half or a third shorter. While a win in the earlier rounds is attainable, it is probably the exception rather than the norm between experienced players. Either that or things must be really going one player's way via the card draws and dice rolls. As it is, the extent of the 'struggle' seems to result in diminishing utility as the game veers into its latter hours. Nonetheless, it is still very satisfying at the end to see that you have ultimately triumphed in the epic struggle.

I have put it up for trade for the moment because keeping a 2 player game that my wife won't play in the collection is clearly unwise. But unlike TTA, I'm happy to keep it in my collection till the right trade or price comes along.

26th June 2009 Session Report: My First Go At Indonesia!

2009-06-27T00:41:00.006+08:00

Marcus introduced us to Indonesia tonight. We were having some trouble with the rules initially and halfway through the explanation I wondered if we would have been better off opting for a game of Le Havre considering the limited time available. But I'm glad we persevered because after a few rounds, we got the hang of it and it was a highly enjoyable affair. I don't think I'll feel a need to own it because of its fiddly nature, lengthy playtime and somewhat cumbersome phases but the open nature of the game intrigued me. As the game progress, I began to catch a glimpse of the possibilities available and the brilliance of the design. The game ended 1200, 1187, 1030 to Van, myself and Marcus respectively. Here are some of my preliminary thoughts regarding the game:

1. The turn order auction is a unique affair. I bidded aggressively for turn order during the mid-game when I was flushed with cash as I realized that the penalty of the bid isn't as severe as in other games. Firstly, your opponents are forced to pay their last bid which meant that it would hurt them almost as much as it would hurt you. In fact, there was a crazy moment where Marcus and I bidded over 200+ or 300+ just to go first (which allowed Van to catch up and eventually take the game). I did realize that unless everyone was equally aggressive in the bidding, the one who bailed early would reap the benefits, which Van did in this case. She forced merged our companies and took them easily with our lack of cash on hand to compete. Secondly, the cash used for bidding while out of play do count at the end to determine victory. We neglected the R&D for the turn order multiplier for most of the game till we realized that that was the way to go if we valued going first rather than bidding ludicrous amounts.

P.S.: Marcus just emailed to say that we were playing the turn order auction wrong - it should have only been once round. LOL, guess that was a major boo-boo!

P.P.S.: A one-round auction for turn order seems to provide a clear advantage to the last player. It seems that turn orders are likely to be reversed from turn to turn. But that's where the R&D turn order track comes in, which rewards those who invest in it - a rather clever design I think.

2. The ability to merge companies is an interesting mechanic of the game. It occurred to me towards the end that apart from gaining income from production and shipping, another viable means of acquiring wealth was through building up the companies and "selling" them off when the merged companies are auctioned off. I intentionally merged two of my companies at the end and gleefully took the first or second bid that Van made in order to end the game by acquiring the remaining companies with my newly available slots.It seemed a wise move at that point as my highly prized shipping company had just been bought over but little did I realize that earnings from the final operations phase would be doubled. Hah, none the less, that would probably still have been my optimal move except perhaps to push up the price slightly more.

3. The rule we missed was the expansions rule and despite advancing on that track a little, Van and Marcus missed doubling their free expansions when available. I could see the importance of expansions in the game, not so much to increase goods for shipping since goods then to quickly outnumber hull slots in this game but rather to enhance the value of your company so as to make it less susceptible to takeovers.

4. The options on the R&D track all seem useful in their own ways which allows the pursuit of various strategies. This was nice to see compared to games such as Kingsburg where certain tracks are outrightly stronger alternatives than others. In this game, I maxed out my hull track as I acquired a shipping monopoly amidst a cluster of cities and companies. Nonetheless, I saw how the tracks I failed to invest in tied my hands in parts of the game.

All in all, I had excellent first impressions of the game and would be happy to have another go at it. I consider it head and shoulders above the highest ranked economic game - Power Grid. Nonetheless, it is incredibly fiddly and cumbersome, especially in tracking the remaining hull space of ships and the bidding for merged companies in awkward multiples. I enjoy the openness of the game where players have diverse options to pursue victory. In fact, it is probably even more open that Le Havre but however it lacks the latter's elegance. The games I generally feel the need to own are those which provide the open feel yet are elegant enough so that the mechanics can be easily picked up by casual gamers.

16th June 2009 Session Report: The One With 7 Craftsmen...

2009-06-27T00:18:00.003+08:00

A bit late on this session report having lost the record sheet but here's roughly what I recall. Mun joined us for games and we played both Glory to Rome and Tigris and Euphrates.

I sort of ran away with Glory to Rome. At one point, my clientele was stashed with up to 7 Craftsmen. The buildings that won the game for me this time round were the Scriptorium which allowed me to complete several buildings with a marble material each, the Garden which allowed me to take a client each for the immense influence I amassed from building and lastly, the Coliseum (plus Wall) which allowed me to fill up my Vault with a couple of Legionary plays while Van and Mun weren't having much success getting materials into theirs. I ended up with 40+ points, practically doubling the the next highest score.

Tigris and Euphrates was a much closer affair. Haven't played it in awhile and while I do recognize the brilliance of its design, somehow I don't seem to have the inclination to play it over and over again. From the get go, Van and I went at each other's starting 'kingdoms', resulting in our leaders moving all around the board. I guess that's the way the game was meant to be played anywhere, contrasting greatly with our earlier plays at the game where we stayed out of trouble, building up our own "kingdoms" till much later in the game. As such the first monument only turned up in mid-game which was probably the latest I had ever seen built. In the end, the score was something like 15, 14, 12 to myself, Van and Mun respectively.

9th June 2009 Session Report: The One Where I Finally Got To Play A Full Game of TTA

2009-06-19T17:11:00.003+08:00

Ever since I acquired Through the Ages, I have been struggling to find someone who would play through the Full Game with me. My first few attempts at getting Van and Mun to attempt it fell flat, partially due to the nature of the game but also that I was still familiarizing myself with the rules. In fact, the furthest I got so far was merely halfway through the Advanced Game. However, Ben was open to trying the new game and we plunged right into the Full Game when he came over.

Ben surprisingly grasped most of the rules after my explanation. I suppose the good that came out of my failed attempts at playing the game was that I myself have come to understand the game mechanics better and that showed in the flow of the rules explanation this time round. However, due to the both of us being largely unfamiliar with the cards, the game took us approximately 5 whole hours inclusive of going through the rules. That's the longest game I've played by a mile, with my first game of Le Harve coming in second at the 3 1/2 hour mark. I applaud Ben for getting through the whole game though he too commented that he would be reluctant to give it another go given its length. My suspicion was that in time, 2 experienced players would be able to par the game time down to about 2 hours but the trouble would be getting someone who would be willing to actually acquire the experience together.

While long, I personally did enjoy the game somewhat due to multiple paths to victory opened up by the diverse range of cards. Nonetheless, I could identify with some of the negative reviews on the Geek (the most notable one being Chris Farrell's) that the game came across somewhat mechanical and souless. Despite some hailing its thematic appeal as a civilization game, I surprisingly found it rather abstract, with most of the cards providing a once-off benefit and/or 'income' of one of the in-game variables (e.g. happiness, science points, resources, population, etc.) despite them being labelled as wonders, leaders or action cards. This is in contrast to other card-driven game like the Catan Card Game and Glory to Rome where the cards allow more 'rule-bending' and interaction between players. I suppose I feel this way because I have always preferred greater player interaction in my games though I laud the elegance of the game mechanics.

I won the game by over 50 points, thanks mainly to my combo of Michelangelo and St. Peter's Basilica early on. Both Ben and I struggled for science research points in the game with both of us devoting a substantial proportion of our resources to building up our military might. Ben played a couple of successful aggression cards against me before I caught up later in the game, with one taking out all my temples. It showed me that TTA wasn't as devoid of interaction as many presumed but such direct interaction is also highly dependant on how players choose to play the game rather than inherent in its core gameplay. I pulled ahead in Culture income during the midgame and further pulled away with a string of scoring cards in Age III and IV.

If I ever had the opportunity to play again, I would pay greater attention to building my income stream of science points as its lack hampered my pace of adopting newer technology later in the game. Nonetheless, my wealth of resources and ease of increasing population allowed me to accumulate multiple farms, mines and wonders.

Final analysis: While an intriguing game in parts, its somewhat abstract and mechanical nature, lack of direct player interaction and lengthy gameplay suggest that it's not a keeper. At the point of posting, I have arranged to trade TTA for Twilight Struggle. Nonetheless, I would be happy to have another go at it if the opportunity arises.

GOAT

2009-06-07T23:13:00.001+08:00

'Nuff said!

French Open Final Preview

2009-06-07T00:28:00.003+08:00

A historical moment nears as Roger Federer takes on the 23 year old Swede, Robin Soderling in the French Open final in less than 24 hours.

If Soderling would somehow manage to pull off just one more upset, this will be the first Grand Slam title for a man who till this competition, had never made it past the 3rd round of a Grand Slam. If the victory over Nadal was shocking, this one would be unprecedented, with him taking down the world no. 1 and 2 enroute to the title.

But this match is really about Federer, isn't it? If he pulls it off, winning in the French final, he would not only be in the handful of esteemed players who have completed a career Grand Slam (the last being Andre Agassi) but also have equalled the 14 Grand Slam titles of the great Pete Sampras. With all the precision and power of Pete's game, he never made the final of the French, much less win it. Roger on the other hand had been bridesmaid thrice, losing to who else but his biggest nemesis, Rafael Nadal who was looking almost certain to break Borg's record with 5 straight French titles till he was shell-shocked by one Robin Soderling.

So the stage is set - Federer is one victory away from putting all GOAT arguments to rest. While Rod Laver may still be deemed the greatest of all time by some, winning all 4 Slams in a year twice (1962 & 1969), this victory will be sufficient for Roger at least in my book. I count it a privilege to watch a complete player of such grace ply his trade on court in my lifetime, one who might in a few hours become the greatest champion of all. So with the rest of the tennis world, we wait with bated breath for the moment of history. As Del Porto so aptly put after his bitterly disappointing 5 set loss to Federer, "Everyone wants you to lift the trophy." So come on Roger, just do it!

4th June 2009 Session Report: A Short One In More Ways Than One

2009-06-04T22:32:00.003+08:00

Wanted to have a go at the Catan Card game but Van preferred something snappy and picked Battle Line. I was hoping for something heavier but nonetheless this is an excellent 2 player game, always tense and intriguing. I promptly lost the best of 3 match 0-2, the first going 5-2 in Van's favour and in the second, I was helpless to stop Van gaining 3 adjacent flags.

29th May 2009 Session Report: The One Where We Battled For Influence In Ancient China

2009-06-02T21:45:00.003+08:00

Marcus came over in the evening and brought a new game to introduce to us. I hadn't heard of Confucius before but in view of my increasingly streamlined collection, I was keen to try something new.

This worker placement game (yup, one more on the bandwagon) involved acquiring VPs from 3 main arenas based on diverse yet familiar mechanics. There was an option for exploration which offered early adopters more VPs than others in addition to a Emperor card which allows special concessions. There was a land occupation option which works somewhat like Blue Moon City where players cooperate to conquer foreign lands and share the points derived. This hardly came into play for our 3 player game as there were other opportunities for scoring and none of us really saw the benefit of helping each other. Lastly, there was an area majority option where we battled for influence in 3 different government ministries.

There was a host of other minor mechanics which made the game somewhat fiddly. Another mechanic borrowed from Blue Moon City was that commodity cards denoted both a monetary value as well as licenses required for acquiring ships for exploration or soldiers for land occupation. And as you might guess, these 2 values are inversely proportionate (ie. 1 gold-3 licenses, 3 gold - 1 licenses). The most interesting mechanic involved gift-giving to your opponents which made them indebted to you in a variety of ways, particular in the competition for influence in the ministries.

While an eye-opener, I found the connection between the various aspects and mechanics of the game somewhat forced and it felt almost as if the designer simply borrowed a couple of existing mechanics and bundled them together. To be fair, we played with 3 in a game which doesn't scale well and I can see how the neglected VP options would be more relevant in a game with 4 or 5.

Or maybe it could just be sour grapes, I ended up dead last with 13 VPs which Marcus and Van had 23 and 19 respectively.

We ended the night with a go at Glory to Rome. As it was getting late, Marcus declared he was going for a fast game taking a Craftsman client on his first turn, leaving behind a Merchant client for me. He promptly took a second and went on a building spree. Van while somewhat slower in acquiring building VPs, managed to stash a marble in her vault in addition to a couple of stockpile points from her Wall. I on the other had good buildings which I couldn't get in play in time as Marcus ended the game with a Catacomb. Marcus and Van were tied with 13 VPs and 3 cards in hand, while I took up the rear with a mere 8 VPs.

28th May 2009 Session Report: The One Where I Broke My Losing Streak

2009-05-29T16:55:00.003+08:00

I finally managed to break my duck against Van in the tournament format of the Catan Card Card. To think of it, this is only my 2nd win out of 13 plays, inclusive of basic and expanded games - a clearly dismal record. And while I thought I was doing rather well throughout, the final score was closer than I thought, with me eking out the victory 13-11. My last 2 victory points came from snatching the Knight token from Van by playing Samsor the black dragon with 6 strength points (fortunately for me, Van hadn't managed to get her Cannon into play) and building the Merchant's Guild Hall, having managed to sift out and build the Harbour (pre-requisite) a few rounds earlier.

I revamped my deck for this game but went for a primarily magic strategy with harbour and fleet cards in hope of at least being competitive with regards to the commerce/windmill token. I also reduced the number of buildings in my deck in view of the space constraints I anticipated (Van as usual got to the 5th settlement first). I built 2 citadels this time round instead of 1 and used the Materialization action card twice (regained it from the discard pile after the first use with the help of Knowledge of the Ancients) to upgrade the 2 other settlements to cities at a low cost of 1 magic point each. With 2 citadels and 3 wizards in toll, I managed to built the Stone of Wisdom which reaped me another 2 victory points, leaving only 3 more necessary for the win.

Van had an early advantage and tournament points and benefitted substantially from it. I on the other hand, gained from occassions when the Year of Plenty was rolled on the Event die, with me gained 2 additional gold each time, thanks to my Toll Station. At one point, I got 2 gold and 3 resources from a Year of Plenty roll when I completed my Treasure fleet - that gave me sufficient resources to obtain the remaining VPs required.

We agreed to allow each other access to our drafted cards not used for the next game, which means there will probably one or two tweaks we need to make with my deck before we go at it again. Hopefully, this will be the start of more closely-fought games between the two of us.

24th-26th May Session Report: 2 & A Half Games Over 3 Days...

2009-05-26T22:20:00.004+08:00

Through the Ages

Tried the full game of Through the Ages with Van on Sunday. It was a struggle for me to come to grasp with all the rules and communicate it clearly without overwhelming. On Van's part, it was a struggle bearing with the lack of direct interaction in a game which went on for hours. We finally aborted the game when we were halfway through Age II and it was then when I realize that I'll probably never be able to get Van to give it another go. It is clear to me that interaction in Through the Ages is subtle like most typical Euro-games, in particular Race for the Galaxy. I too prefer somewhat more direct interaction in my games but nonetheless am keen to give Through the Ages another shot, perhaps with someone more diehard. For the record, Van was leading me by almost 20 culture points when we aborted.

The Princes of Florence

Introduced the game to Da-win, Huifen and Mie on Monday. Once again, it reaffirmed my opinion of PoF as an excellent deep game to intro to casual or even non-gamers, which was the case for the 3 of them. While the strategic options are varied, the mechanics are simple to grasp with merely an auction in phase 1 of each round and 2 actions to execute in phase 2. And in essence, the 2 actions boil down either to a purchase or a production of a piece of art. I commented during the game that PoF appeals particularly to gals because at the heart of it, it's a game to do with shopping - you 'buy' stuff for most of the game to enhance the pieces of art you produce. Makes me wonder whether a fashion show theme could be used for it instead to gain even greater appeal with the opposite gender. Anyway, we all ended up somewhat bunched up in terms of prestige points (another reason why it's actually a rather accessible game) with the exception of Van who won with close to 50 points. I made an early and late mistake which cost me the game but was glad the 3 new players enjoyed the experience.

Catan Card Game

Van and I decided to have a go at the game on Tuesday. We re-drafted in view of my dismal record against her. The draft we utilized involved us splitting all duplicate cards initially, and drafting 4 cards at a time of the remainders. We would alternate picks, so I get the first and third choices for the first 4 cards flipped, and the second and fourth choices for the 2nd set, so on and so forth. While I was trying to avoid building a Wizards and Dragons deck, I ended up with the better cards from that expansion deck. Against my better judgement, I went ahead building my deck around those cards and ended up crumbling to Van's superior principality 13-7. In particular, I fell behind her in terms of commerce points, and the event die was brutal in allowing her to steal numerous resources for me. You would think that after so many defeats, I would know better. Guess not.

19th May 2009 Session Report: The One Where We Had Our First Go at Through The Ages

2009-05-20T21:30:00.002+08:00

Despite missing the white counters for Through The Ages, I decided to have a go at it with Van and Mun by substituting the batteries in Galaxy Trucker for them. I initially hoped to try at least the Advanced game but it was clear after 5 minutes of rules explanation that it was not going to work because 1. they looked clearly overwhelmed, and 2. I myself was struggling since it was the first time I was attempting to teach the game (of course worsen by the fact that I've never tried it either). Thus, I decided for us to have a go at the Simple game instead despite forum comments that while useful up for picking up the mechanics, it was a bad reflection of the actual game.

Based on Van and Mun's comments after the game, I could clearly see why. There were so many aspects missing that the game came across a strictly multi-player solitaire experience. We felt like we were choosing cards at random since we weren't familiar with them and had no grasp of any significant strategy. It seemed that I might have trouble getting them to try it in future though I encouraged them that it would be premature to give up on the game without having tried it as it was meant to be played (aka the Full game). I suspect however that we would probably have to use the Advanced game as a stepping board to the Full game since the Simple game has only introduced the basic mechanics. Nonetheless, I wonder at the back of my mind whether the additional mechanics would successfully extinguish the multi-player solitaire feel of the game which even I myself experienced.

We moved on to our old favourite, Glory to Rome in hope of salvaging the night. It didn't disappoint, at least for me, with me taking the solitary game with 37 to Van's 24 and Mun's 12. I acquired excellent cards right from the start, and while it took some time, eventually completed my Temple (+4 hand), Colosseum (in addition when playing legionary, feed opponents' clients to Vault) and Wall (immune to legionary and 1VP for every 2 materials in stockpile at game end). They served as quite a combo and I didn't even need my uncompleted Sewer (add own order cards to stockpile after each turn) which would further enhance my Wall strategy. Van had a chance to win the game before my Colosseum was utilized, but she failed to end the game despite her influence advantage. Once I was able to play a legionary with the Colosseum, I acquired an unassailable advantage with me adding a number of different materials to the Vault from Mun's clientele. While Van managed to immune herself to the Legionary in time, she was unable to catch up with me in terms of Vault accumulation, and I reaped 9 bonus points from having the majority in 3 materials. Coupled with the massive number of points acquired thanks to my stockpiling through playing consecutive legionaries, I never relinquished the lead once I overtook Van.

12th May 2009 Session Report: The One With A Botched Attempt At Through The Ages

2009-05-12T22:49:00.005+08:00

Had Ben and Mun over for games today - it had been awhile since we met up. Ben was early and I was eager to finally unwrap my new copy of Through the Ages and give it a go but shockingly when I was about to start sharing the rules for the game, we discovered that my copy lacked 35 white counters which was stipulated in the rulebook. I called Terence who I bought the game from and he advised me to contact FRED Distribution directly instead. I immediately emailed them and so far the only reply I received was one that indicated my mail would be forwarded to customer service. Hopefully, this matter will be resolved asap since it was terribly disappointing for the most expensive game I bought to date to be missing components!

Anyway, we continued with other games in hope that our inability to try Through the Ages would not spoil our session.

Puerto Rico (Me 49, Van 48, Ben 41)

I had the stronger early game, managing to obtain Coffee and Tobacco monopolies. This reaped me some lucrative early trades and set me off in acquiring the Guild House and the related production buildings. However I made a critical mistake towards the end which almost cost me the game. I could have ended the game by Mayoring but failed to realize it, and ended up Captaining for a small advantage. The game continued an additional round which allowed Van to acquire an additional large building and she closed the gap to a single point.

Glory to Rome (Mun 28, Van 27, Me 20, Ben 16)

I struggled to get any good combinations going all-game long. Used my Prison to capture Van's Wall (Immune to legionary and 1VP for every 2 material in stockpile at end of the game) but in retrospect, it was too late in the game for it to really benefit me. Mun built rapidly and her Circus Maximus (double client actions when player leads or follows) and Basilica (when Merchant is played, player may additionally add card to Vault from hand) sealed her victory. None of us had many resources in the Vault but Mun managed to accumulate 4 marble cards which together with the marble majority bonus, accounted for about half her points.

Princes of Florence (Me 61, Mun 54, Van 51, Ben 38)

I managed to win in a rather unconventional way which for me is part of the charm of the game. I pulled off the victory despite producing the least works (4) amongst all the players, but took home the best work bonus 3 times, scored a hefty bulk of points from my 2nd builder, my 3 buildings and...my 2nd and 3rd Lakes. By avoiding expensive auctions, I had to get creative in racking up the points. I also took a Prestige card early and it was fun making sure I fulfilled the condition of being the player with the least empty spaces (I ended up with 6) which reaped me 8 prestige points to take me over the top.

Tichu (Van/Ben 440, Me/Mun -30)

We played till 300. The game was relatively close till I failed my bid for Tichu on 2 consecutive rounds. On the last round, not only did I fail in my Tichu bid, but Van made hers and both Ben and her cleared their cards before Mun and I. Ouch...

10th May 2009 Session Report: The One With What Else..Catan Card Game

2009-05-10T23:01:00.003+08:00

Catan Card Game - Van and I were at it again.

I revamped my deck to pursue a University strategy but was short of couple of cards with Van holding them in her current deck. In particular, I wanted the additional University and Abbey cards as this strategy depended on getting those cards out in particular. I unfortunately had only 1 of each and took quite awhile to build them both.

Danger still persisted with Van holding both Arsonist cards. I thwarted her first attempt with the successful use of a Bishop but her 2nd attempt was successful and that was the beginning of the end, as I struggled for several turns failing to rebuild it.

This was due to 2 reasons: Firstly, I stalled in terms of settlement expansion in exchange of city upgrading and thus had only 3 settlements to Van's 5. The sheer disparity in resource patches was evident from turn to turn. Secondly, Van had control of the commerce token and the Windmill symbol on the Event Die came up consistently, allowing Van to steal from my pitiful stock of resources. It was practically impossible for me to garner sufficient resources to rebuild my University which was key to my strategy since most of my action and unit cards needed it as a pre-requisite.

Nonetheless, the game ended much closer than previously ones, with Van taking it 13-10. She and I had control of the commerce and knight tokens respectively. We decided to redraft at the end of the game instead of remaining with our current decks. I was tempted to persist with what I had in hope of tweaking it successfully for a win eventually but figured it would probably be more interesting for us to start on level ground again, with me having around lost couple of choice cards to Van from my previous losses.

For our next game, we have decided to split all duplicate cards in the game and draft for the remaining ones. Hopefully, I will be able to provide more of a competition the next time round...

Age of Empires III, Le Havre, Fairy Tale & Loot On The Way... Goodbye Stone Age!

2009-05-06T21:38:00.009+08:00

Found out that an ex-student of mine was making her way back from the States after completing her degree so I took the opportunity to request a delivery favour which she graciously agreed. Did some research on BGG (where else?) and finally decided on a package of Age of Empires III, Le Havre, Fairy Tale & Loot - the last necessitated by the need to break the free shipping barrier at Coolstuffinc.com

Age of Empires III: The Age of Discovery

Was contemplating between this and Chicago Express but after getting favourable comments about it at BGG, I figured that this would probably suit me better. It seems relatively deep with a multitude of ways to victory, and most importantly, sufficient conflict between players to keep me interested. I was initially undecided because I was wondering whether I needed another worker placement game since Le Havre was a definite order but it was reassuring to hear that it had a variety of mechanics including some area majority.

Le Havre

This was the game that prompted the order because after 3 tries with Marcus's copy, I realized that this was a game worth owning despite the price point. It was between this and Agricola and despite the latter being a more accessible game and the one Van preferred, I couldn't help but feel that Le Havre was inherently the better game due to its less constrained gameplay. I realized I highly valued multiple paths of victory and my experiences with Le Havre gave me that feel despite some opinions that the coke strategy seemed invincible.

Fairy Tale

This game had been a couple of my previous orders but I took it off every time. I finally took the plunge thinking that my collection lacked a deeper filler ever since I sold Race for the Galaxy. While no way as complex as RftG, I have heard good things about Fairy Tale and its CCG elements were particularly enticing since I realized that while I have never tried a proper CCG, those elements in various eurogames such as Glory to Rome and Catan Card Game appeal to me.

Loot (Reiner Knizia)

As highlighted above, this inclusion was due to a need to breach the US$100 barrier. I was pondering the option of acquiring Archeology: The Card Game instead but decided to opt for the safer choice based on BGG game rankings. Additionally, the ability to play up to 8 was appealing since it would serve as a option to entertain big groups. I gave away the same game at a Christmas gift exchange despite having never tried it and the feedback I got from the non-gamers who ended up with it was promising.

_______________________________

I was hoping Dominion:Intrigue would be released in time for the order but in vain. While I wasn't as impressed by its predecessor but I figured its accessibility coupled with the heightened interaction promised made it an interesting potential acquisition.

With such a load of games on its way together with BSG, Sorry! Sliders, Railroad Tycoon and Nexus Ops, I figured there was a need to trim down my current collection. In the end, I decided on Stone Age and got it sold today. It was a good-to-have game to have in my collection due to its accessibility to casual gamers. I enjoyed the dice which reminded me somewhat of the feel from Settlers but at the end of the day, I deem it too light for a worker placement game of its length. I would rather spend the time and some on a worker placement game such as Agricola or Le Havre. The game also lacks the tension of those games and blocking is rare, reducing the interactivity. At the end of the day, I decided that it was dispensable.

The only other non-filler game that I considered selling was Galaxy Trucker especially in view of its cost but Van likes it considerably. I too enjoy the ship building phase but what comes next is often disappointing. Nonetheless, its one-of-a-kind mechanic makes it worth keeping in the collection, at least for the time being.

5th May 2009 Session Report: The One Where I Came Excruciatingly Close...

2009-05-05T23:38:00.004+08:00

First of all, I must say it's fantastic to have a wife who's willing to game with me on a regular basis. Van and I attended a Marriage retreat with our church last week and during one of the sessions, it was mentioned that one of men's key emotional needs is to have 'recreational companionship'. I can totally identify and I'm thankful my wife makes an effort to express her love for me by obliging my gaming requests. Having said that, gaming with me and going easy on me during the game are completely different matters.

We went head to head in the Catan Card Game with our existing decks with minor modifications. And I came awfully close to winning but still feel short at the end 12-13, with Van having control of both the knight and commerce tokens. Nonetheless, I was encouraged that my efforts to enhance my resource production was somewhat successful as I managed to acquire victory points through buildings much more rapidly than Van. In addition, I managed to pip her to the 5th settlement for only the 2nd or 3rd time in 10 games. Nonetheless, my downfall was in my inability to control either token and left me struggling to hamper her progress towards victory.

I came agonizing close in the last turn as I was one brick resource short of victory. I realized that my deck not only gave me no opportunity to nab the commerce token but I also had no answer for her Cannon (which gives her 6 strength points and is immune against Lady Imelda). I arsoned her University which was the requirement for her Cannon to function but she managed to rebuild it and gained victory soon after.

I lost my sole Arsonist for my defeat and I find myself at a huge disadvantage for the next game with Van holding both Arsonists, and 2 of the 3 available Spy cards. I'm tempted to request a re-draft especially with our Tournament record at 0-3 but find it challenging to build a winning deck with what's available. The tweaking between games keeps me motivated though Van seems somewhat bored at how I'm failing to offer much of her challenge. She nonetheless noticed that my deck has become much stronger this time round.

The challenge for me lies in enhancing the commerce ability of my deck with minimal additions and a way of tackling Van's Cannon. I also need to defend myself against her barrage of attack action cards and find a way of putting my Mint into play earlier which I failed to this game. Daunting indeed - will I succeed? Stay tuned....

4th May 2009 Session Report: The One Where My Strategy Stalled

2009-05-04T21:06:00.005+08:00

Had another go at Catan Card game against Van today and unsurprisingly, I suffered another loss. Suspect if I don't improve my results against Van, she's gonna get bored of the game real soon with the ease at which she is gaining victory. Van ran away with the gam 13-7, taking control of both the knight and commerce tokens.

I was banking on a Mint strategy, trying to enhance my gold production with a production doubler and a colony outpost, which effectively gave me an additional gold resource patch in addition to my doubled two. Unfortunately, I got the doubling production house out late and suffered a successful arsonist attempt by Van on my Mint (allows a 1:1 exchange of all gold). While powerful, the Mint is also extremely expensive (6 resource for no VPs & 1 commerce symbol) and my failure to defend against Van's arsonist meant that it took me quite awhile to get the Mint up and running again. Nonetheless, there seems to be some potential with this strategy and I will look into getting up and running earlier in the game.

Van on the other hand managed to rush to the 5th settlement again with the help a good rolls on the event and production dice. Her brick doubler building further enhanced her ability to build roads and settlements. But her killer card this time round was the Treasure Fleet which gained her 3 additional resources each time the Year of Plenty was rolled instead of the usual 1. Coupled with her Toll Station which gave 2 gold resources during the Year of Plenty, that meant a total of 5 free resources each time. I made a mental note to include a couple of Pirate Fleets in my deck so as to combat that advantage as well as the commerce advantage she derives from her trade fleets.

Being the victor, Van got to choose one card from my deck as her reward. Her choice was Merchant Outpost which allows her to leech off production from 2 adjacent resource patches in my principality. While a powerful card at a low cost when utilized early, at least it doesn't penalize me (except for a lost building spot) and can be removed when 6 commerce points are gained.

For my next deck, I have decided to remove all cards from the Wizards and Dragons expansion deck as it takes far too long to put them in play. Furthermore, I find building space tight especially when I'm restricted to only 4 settlements. Hopefully, I'll be able to improve on my 0-2 record against Van in the tournament format.

30th April Session Report: The One Where We Tried Our First Tournament Game

2009-05-02T18:55:00.004+08:00

After ploughing through the 6 different expansion decks of the Catan card game, Van and I were finally ready to have our first go at the tournament rules. The original tournament game requires two sets of the original game as well as the expansion sets but as we had only a set of either, we had to get creative...

I suggested drafting for cards. It involved a simple draft where I would open 2 cards at a time where each of us would alternately get the first pick of the cards, while the remaining card would go to the other. After all the cards were allocated, we then picked the requisite 33 cards from the pile of cards we acquired. Once chosen, we would exchange our remaining pile of unwanted cards for the other to switch any cards if so desired.

I built a knights and magic intensive deck with a several low cost knights, several cards from the Wizards and Dragons expansion deck and cards focused on enhancing ore and gold production. On the other hand, Van had a number of nice trade fleets and cards that enhanced her commerce advantage. Expectedly, I took the lost 8-13.

In retrospect, it was probably unwise for me to bank so much on the magic cards when Van had the better spells and magic action cards. She wisely only used her magic on Materialization (which reaped her a cheap city upgrade) and Magic Kitchen (which allowed her to gamble on easy resource gains). I struggled with resource production, once again losing the race to the fifth settlement. Van held on to the commerce token for practically the whole game and while I did nab a couple of resources from tournament event rolls, she finally snatched the knight token from me in the final round thanks to her Cannon with 6 strength points. It was a strong move in view of her University and allowed her a leap in strength points for only 2 resources. I was complacent with my lead in strength points and failed to put my Dragon in play earlier.

Despite my loss, I enjoyed the Tournament game significantly. It played much faster thanks to the much more useful cards that cycled through our hands. In the Expanded game, there was a tendency to draw cards that you didn't need due to the large number of cards in play. Additionally, it was interesting to build a deck with various combos even though I clearly had much to learn in that aspect. I suggested to Van after the game that in our future games, the winner will be allowed an opportunity to pick any one card from the opponent's deck for his or her own use. Figured that would give us added incentive for the win. I already know the first card I'll pick if I win - Materialization. Although looking at my poor win-lose record against Van (1-7), she shouldn't have problems holding on to that card of hers, or would she?

28th April 2009 Session Report: The One Which We Dueled With Wizards & Dragons

2009-05-02T18:31:00.004+08:00

Vanessa and I tried the final expansion from the Settlers of Catan card game. The Wizards and Dragons was unlike the other expansions in that they introduced Citadels which was an alternate upgrade of settlements apart from cities. Citadels do not allow red buildings to be built but allow special Wizard cards to be played. These wizards are placed above matching region cards and allow resources to be transferred as magic points to the wizards. These wizards can then utilize Spell Books which can be placed for free in spaces accorded in each Citadel.

The spells available range from searching the expansion decks to manipulating the Event die. The one that stood out was the Countermagic card which allowed actions played by the opponent to be denied at the cost of 2 magic points. There are also purple buildings and magic action cards that can be played through the use of these magic points. The card I found extremely useful was Materialization which allowed a free city upgrade with a mere 2 magic points provided the player possesses at least 2 wizards in his or her principality.

While I lost a close game to Van 12-13, it was an interesting experience playing with this expansion deck and I look forward to incorporating some of these cards into my Tournament deck the next time round.

27th April 2009 Session Report: The One Where We Tied For PR

2009-04-27T23:38:00.004+08:00

Shouqin came over for games tonight. Introduced him to 2 giants of Eurogaming - Settlers of Catan and Puerto Rico.

Settlers of Catan (Me 10, Van 8, Shouqin 6)

We played the tournament version as usual and despite going first, managed to nab all 5 resources with my 2 placements with decent numbers. Van was riding on her coal port for most of the game but I managed to partially block her coal supply for large portions of the game. She had the slight edge with the resource production but I took the victory thanks to the Longest Road and 2 VP development cards, despite failing to upgrade even once.

Puerto Rico (Me 43(1), Van 43(1), Shouqin 30)

Shouqin mentioned that he preferred games with minimal luck so I decided to reach for PR after the dice-fest of Catan. Shouqin picked up the rules easily and while he understandably couldn't fully grasp the strategic and tactical implications in his first play, he commented that he enjoyed the experience. Shouqin, I and Van started with Indigo, Sugar and Corn respectively. I was torn between a building strategy (by purchasing the Guild House early) and a shipping one (purchased a harbour as my next buy), which almost spelt my doom. Van obtained 3 large violet buildings to my 1, but somehow my advantage in shipping earned me a tie, with both of us being equal on VPs and cash.

23rd April 2009 Session Report: The One With Another Loss

2009-04-23T21:23:00.004+08:00

Another day, another loss at the hands of Van in the Catan cardgame. This time despite me rushing to 5 settlements first and nabbing all the coal with Scout cards. Van took the game 13-8.

Despite me trying to block her out of the coal resource patches by taking 2 with my 1st Scout card, Van happened to draw both wheat resource patches on her next settlement build, effectively shutting me out of wheat as well.

Over the course of the game, Van also gained an obscene amount of free resources from holding the windmill and knight tokens for large parts of the game. She also had a Pirate fleet which gave her a free gold each time Year of Plenty was rolled and 2 Land Reform cards which was worth 6 additional resources. With the abundance of resources, she upgraded 3 of her settlements to cities and built a number of VP buildings to put her over the edge. This was despite me managing to wrestle over the windmill token towards the end of the game.

Another reason why I fell behind was that the Science & Progress expansion deck which we played required a Abbey/Library and a University to benefit from most of the expansion cards. Van built an Abbey early and subsequently the University which also gave her nice gains from Progress Event cards, which rewarded the player with those buildings with additional resources. I on the other hand in my bid to be first to 5 settlements, put off searching for a Abbey which left me unable to take advantage of many of the expansion cards. In particular, Van built a Cannon which cost only 2 resources but supplying 6 strength points, effectively giving her the knight token for good. While I also obtained the same Cannon card, my lack of an Abbey/Library and an University left me incapable of building the Cannon to attempt regaining the knight token.

Looks like the Expanded game has been generally brutal with me, with me taking only a single win in our 6 games so far. Hopefully, the tables will be turned when we move into the Tournament game. Only one more expansion deck to go: next up, Wizards & Dragons!

21 April Session Report: The One Where Border Disputes Spelled My Downfall

2009-04-22T21:43:00.004+08:00

Van and I had another go at Settlers of Catan cardgame. We were halfway through the expansions, and halfway towards the goal of playing the game tournament style. I opted for the Knights and Merchants expansion this time round and the expansion cards played a huge role as the decider.

One of the keys in this game is being the first player to rush to 5 settlements. There is a odd number of settlements in the game and therefore the slower player has to make do with 4 settlements, but more significantly, 2 resource patches less. This is critical since the game revolves around the use of resources. There had been only one game when I won the race to 5, and this was no different. I struggled obtaining the right resources to expand quickly enough but what went my way was the brutal draw Van had in acquiring her new resources patches. We were both without the Scout cards which allowed a selection of resource patches and I ended with 3 coal mines to her 1. This was BIG as coal is typically of growing importance as the game progresses.

Unknown to me though was this game had a Border Dispute card which allowed the player with the knight token to exchange any duplicate resource patch for one of his opponent's, together with the resources on it. Van got an early lead in terms of knight strength points and played not one, but TWO Border Dispute cards to rob me of 2 of my coal mines. That spelled the beginning of the end as I battled in vain to claw back the disadvantage. She took the game relatively easy, 13-8.

The other card of interest which I failed to built but would definitely be a contender in my tournament deck is the Palace. It allows for a card from the discard pile to be retrieved during every Year of Plenty roll in exchange for one free resource.

4 expansion decks down, 2 to go...

Goodbye Power Grid & Red November...

2009-04-21T18:30:00.002+08:00

Recently in an effort to trim down my collection in anticipation of the new games arriving, I sold off my copies of Power Grid and Red November.

Power Grid

It came as a surprise to me that I would be willing to let go of my copy of Power Grid. After all, it is the no. 3 game on BGG and before the phenom that is Agricola, Power Grid was firmly etched in its no. 2 behind Puerto Rico. Power Grid was also part of my first bulk boardgame purchase which represented my commitment to seriously get into the copy. Lastly, this is one of the heavier games that Van actually enjoys and she is some Power Grid player if I may add.

I was tempted to keep it but the diminished plays it saw amidst the new kids on the block led me to finally pull the trigger. As awesome a game Power Grid is, it does come across somewhat fiddly. Some find the mechanics elegant but I'm part of the opposition who find that the game tries too hard to avoid player elimination. The mechanics are geared towards giving the trailing players an edge to enable catch-up. The effects are pronounced in multiple phases, providing an advantage in plant auctions, resource purchase and city connections, such that it pays to lag behind. This unintuitive approach coupled with the mathematically laden endgame meant that I would rather play Princes of Florence or El Grande with 4 or 5. While one of Power Grid's advantages is that it plays 2-6 and scales decently, it takes too long with 6 and loses some of its luster in the auction phase with 2 or 3.

Red November

Red November confirmed for me that cooperative games without a traitor element are simply not my cup of tea. While it had less of a puzzle-like element than Pandemic, it felt terribly repetitive and uninteresting with the lack of differentiation amongst players. Pandemic tackles this well with the different roles with special abilities. The use of the dice to determine if repair efforts are successful diminishes potential strategic/tactical play. While I can imagine some enjoying it as it is, it is clearly not for me. And when Van declared that she would rather play Race to the Galaxy than Red November, her dislike was similarly apparent.

10th April 2009 Session Report: Good Friday Gaming

2009-04-12T15:34:00.003+08:00

Van and I invited our ex-students over to our place on Good Friday. Amidst the food and programmes, we managed to teach them High Society and Tichu. I managed to join in for a game of both.

High Society

They caught the rules relatively quickly and while I initially doubted this purchase, I'm starting to see it's a good option to introduce to new games - it has simple rules yet plays with some depth. Furthermore, it plays quick for non-gamers. In the game I played, I took the win as I managed to grab a few luxury cards on the cheap towards the endgame. While I reminded the other players on the importance of keeping the smaller denominations for flexibility, many of them were down to their last few cash cards towards the end. I guess it's tough for them to value the cards aright on initial plays which is to be expected with auction games. Nonetheless, they seemed to have good fun with most of them equally clueless as to how much to bid.

Tichu

Van and I each taught group of ex-students Tichu. It helped that they are familiar with Big Two which is quite similar in terms of play mechanics. Tichu seems a myriad of Big Two, Bridge and Hearts. Big Two for the gameplay, Bridge for the partnership play and Hearts for the initial exchange of cards. I won the game which I took over the Van and got soundly whipped in the other after allowing them to make Tichu twice.

Bah...Missed Another Stone Age Rule

2009-04-10T18:05:00.002+08:00

Was reading through a Stone Age review on BGG and came across another rule that I've overlooked. Resources at the end of the game (not including food) are worth a point each regardless of type. While not significant except in close games, it's nonetheless an important rule. It somewhat diminishes the penalty for unspent resources at the end of the game, and makes it friendlier for new players since they usually fail to time the end game as well as more experienced players.

Hopefully that's the last Stone Age rule I've overlooked...

9th April 2009: The One With The Breakthrough!

2009-04-10T01:53:00.004+08:00

Duelled Van in the Settlers of Catan cardgame again. Get the idea that it's becoming one of our preferred games. I still think Glory to Rome is the better game but with 2 players, Catan cardgame comes across more interesting though a whole lot longer.

After 3 consecutive losses to Van in the game, I finally managed my first victory. Though Van was getting really sleepy as the game dragged into its 2nd hour, so maybe that had something to do with it. We played with the Trade & Change expansion theme. The final score was 13 to 10.

I once again focused my early game in rushing for the 5th settlement which I succeeded in. I also searched out a Scout card which helped me line up my foundry between 2 coal regions. The knight and commerce tokens were fiercely competed for throughout the game with each of us nabbing one at the end of the game. I was able to upgrade 4 of my settlements to cities due to riches in coal and obtained the remaining VPs from a Church, Town Hall and Library.

7th April 2009: The One Where I Tried Harry Wu's New Game

2009-04-07T23:11:00.008+08:00

Trying a new format for session reports. Played a couple of games with various ones today:

The Settlers of Catan Card Game (Van 13, Me 8)

Played with the Politics and Intrigue expansion theme. I started well and for once, managed to rush to 5 settlements before Van. What cost me were the 2 Arsonist cards that Van played against me, uprooting 2 valuable red buildings and giving her the commerce advantage. Also had a few untimely hits by the brigades which Van escaped thanks to her Garrison. Van also played 2 Excommunication action cards, preventing me from assessing the 2 expansion decks available. This game can seriously be rather cut-throat but that appeals to me. Still waiting for my 1st win against Van, will be sure to pay more attention to the attack action cards the next time round.

Glory to Rome x 2 (1st game: Me 47, Van 22, Mun 13; 2nd game: Me 25(4), Van 25(3), Mun 17)

In the first game, I ran away with the game thanks to a Aqueduct (allows you to additionally add a client from hand when Patron is played) and a Basilica (In addition when playing Merchant, player may add card to vault from hand). My vault was stocked while the other 2 struggled to keep up. Ended the game by taking the last in-town site.

In the second, I managed to get up to 3 craftsman clients. Coupled with my Circus Maximus (Doubles your client actions), I had a slew of building actions. Was going to end the game by taking the last 2 in-town sites with my 6 craftsman action but drew a Catacombs thanks to my Temple (+4 max hand size) and ended the game by completing it with the special ability of my Road (use any material for stone buildings). The 3 influence points proved critical as I was unaware Van had completed her Wall (1VP for every 2 material in stockpile) and scored heavily for the bunch of materials in her stockpile. Checked the rules for the tiebreaker and apparently it boiled down to remaining cards in hand which I pipped her by 1.

Citadels (Me 26, Van 16, Mun 9)

Hadn't pulled this out for awhile which was nice since this was one of the first games I bought when I got into the hobby, plus the oldest player gets to start first! I find Citadels best with 3 as each player gets 2 roles per turn and the game doesn't drag out like it does with 5-7. We played the shorter game to 7 buildings as Mun needed to leave. I took the Assassin for the first 2 turns and avoided missing a turn throughout the game, which allowed me to rush to 7 to end the game.

Prussian Eastern Railroad (Van 734, Me 618, Marcus 574)

Marcus brought over a new Harry Wu game for us to try. I have been hearing good things about his other game, Chicago Express and thus was intrigued to have a first go at one of his games. The rules were sufficiently easy to grasp but it yet it was hard to figure out how to play it well. The difficulty playing new games with an auction element is not knowing how much to bid. In retrospect, we underbid for the railway shares, and Van who obtained the bulk of them acquired the upper hand. In addition, we allowed her to purchase shares in 7 out of the 8 railway companies which made it difficult to claw back the advantage. For whatever we tried to do in increasing railway income or triggering double dividends for certain companies, she would benefit too.

With a fixed number of shares per company, I realized it made little sense to split up the shares 1:1:1 between us which was what we largely did. It seems like it makes more sense to buy additional shares in the company you already have a stake in unless you can force your opponent to overpay. There is some luck with the turn order mechanism but not enough that it makes the game flaky. Keen to try it again but doubt it will be something I'll be looking to own. The metagame element seems rather significant and there is some kingmaking element. Reminds me somewhat of El Grande where there can be a runaway leader issue unless everyone else works together to thwart the leader.

5th April Session Report: The One With A New Friend

2009-04-06T00:58:00.003+08:00

A new friend, Gengyang, came over our place to hang out. I asked whether he was keen to try some Euro boardgames and he obliged though I don't know whether he was fully sure what he was getting himself into it. I figured I would kick it off with Stone Age as a representative game, hoping to catch lightning in the bottle. After I got through the rules, I somewhat regretted my decision as I could tell he was a little caught by surprise at how involved the game was. Nonetheless, he somewhat got the hang of the game after a couple of rounds. The game ended with me taking the win with 150 points over the other 2. Next time I have a non-gamer around, I will be reaching for my copy of High Society perhaps...