As the game my gaming group plays most often, I had high hopes for this, the 2nd expansion of the base set for Race for the Galaxy. I have played a handful of times, and only the two-player version thusfar, but I wanted to share some initial thoughts, as well as cards that seemed to improve with this expansion.
First, I think developing in general has improved significantly. With the new start world (Galactic Developers) that comes with the Interstellar Bank power of drawing a card on develop, as well as two new six-cost developments which improve the phase (Galactic Bankers & Pan-Galactic Research), and most of all - the R&D Crash Program, developing can get out of hand in a hurry. For example, in the 2nd game I played with the new cards, I was able to pair Investment Credits with a Crash Programmed Galactic Federation, and paired that with Pan Galactic Research the following turn. This enabled me to develop 6-costs for 1 measly card, and my last 7 plays were 6 cost developments (Final Score: 85!). Granted a lot of things had to go right for this to happen, but it was still indicative of the new increased power of developing.
Military has obviously been buffed, as there are tons of new cheap ways to get out early military. Most notably, the two start worlds (Imperium Warlord & Rebel Cantina) allow for military acceleration, and the Mercenary Fleet development can easily put a military player to the power they need to be for the rest of the game. In our group, the most sought after cards seemed to be Space Marines and Drop Ships for the military accelleration. This expansion adds 10 cards that boost military at a cost of 3 or less. Also the two new military six-cost developments are very powerful as end game targets, especially paired with any of the existing military six costers.
My first reaction to the "takeover" mode of the game is that it is cumbersome and takes away from some of the elegance the game has which makes it so appealing. This is just a gut reaction as I haven't personally tried it. All in all, I like what I've seen thusfar, and am looking forward to some game plays with a group of 3+.
MORE TO COME. I SWEAR.
-Andrew
Sunday, July 12, 2009
Wednesday, July 8, 2009
Clue Deux
So my friend Chris texted me yesterday with a mission. He said, "Reinvent the game Clue so it's fun." For a long time, I had a grudge against Clue myself, as I tended to play with my sister, and she has a knack for getting the exact answer right on the first guess of the game two games in a row... WHAT ARE THE ODDS?! *Ahem - ok, I'm better now. Anyway, for multiple reasons, I decided to give it some thought, and here's a variant I came up with late yesterday.
Clue Deux
-Rules of the original Clue apply unless specifically stated otherwise here.
-Before the game, randomly deal out a weapon card to each player. Players take the weapon token. This is their starting weapon for the game. Collect the weapon cards, and distribute hands as in the original game.
-On your turn, after movement, you may attack another player if you are in the same room, or one square away orthagonically from each other on the game board. Movement and weapon effects are determined by a two six-sided dice roll, rather than one used in the original Clue.
Attacking a player:
-When attacking a player, roll two six-sided dice.
9-12 = Sneak Attack - Look at a random card from that player's hand, and your weapon effect occurs on them.
5-8 = Hard Fight - Each player looks at a random card from the other's hand, and each weapon effect happens to the other.
2-4 = Clumsy Attack - You reveal a card at random to the other player, and their weapon effect happens to you.
-Weapon effects:
Revolver - Player is sent back to their start square. (Dies)
Candlestick - Roll the dice. Move the player the number shown on the roll. (Burned)
Knife - Player's next movement roll is halved. (Stabbed)
Rope - Player cannot accuse next turn. (Choked)
Lead Pipe - Room cannot be entered or left until your next turn, except by secret passage. (Bar the door)
Wrench - Player loses a turn. (Unconscious)
-After each attack, exchange your weapon with the other player's weapon.
-As noted, all other rules for the original Clue still apply, and the ultimate goal is to deduce who committed the murder, where and with what. Players may still only accuse the room in which they are standing, and accusations still move other players' tokens to that room.
So, that's what I came up with on short notice. Thoughts?
-Andrew
Clue Deux
-Rules of the original Clue apply unless specifically stated otherwise here.
-Before the game, randomly deal out a weapon card to each player. Players take the weapon token. This is their starting weapon for the game. Collect the weapon cards, and distribute hands as in the original game.
-On your turn, after movement, you may attack another player if you are in the same room, or one square away orthagonically from each other on the game board. Movement and weapon effects are determined by a two six-sided dice roll, rather than one used in the original Clue.
Attacking a player:
-When attacking a player, roll two six-sided dice.
9-12 = Sneak Attack - Look at a random card from that player's hand, and your weapon effect occurs on them.
5-8 = Hard Fight - Each player looks at a random card from the other's hand, and each weapon effect happens to the other.
2-4 = Clumsy Attack - You reveal a card at random to the other player, and their weapon effect happens to you.
-Weapon effects:
Revolver - Player is sent back to their start square. (Dies)
Candlestick - Roll the dice. Move the player the number shown on the roll. (Burned)
Knife - Player's next movement roll is halved. (Stabbed)
Rope - Player cannot accuse next turn. (Choked)
Lead Pipe - Room cannot be entered or left until your next turn, except by secret passage. (Bar the door)
Wrench - Player loses a turn. (Unconscious)
-After each attack, exchange your weapon with the other player's weapon.
-As noted, all other rules for the original Clue still apply, and the ultimate goal is to deduce who committed the murder, where and with what. Players may still only accuse the room in which they are standing, and accusations still move other players' tokens to that room.
So, that's what I came up with on short notice. Thoughts?
-Andrew
Thursday, July 2, 2009
Battlestar Galactica - The Board Game: A Five-Play Review
The latest addition to my burgeoning game collection, Battlestar Galactica came highly recommended to my by several other gamer friends. After several plays with varying numbers of players and groups, there are things that I enjoy about the game, and things that aren't so great.
A brief summary of the game:
The humans are trying to travel to a location called Kobol, and the Cylons, their robotic enemies, are trying to thwart them by any means necessary. Players are assigned secret roles at the game's beginning and again at the game's midpoint, which determines which side they are playing for. Distance travelled and staying alive are the objectives for the human side, but the Cylons can take them down by eliminating any one of a number of necessities such as food, fuel, morale, population, by boarding the ship and destroying it from within, or by destroying the ship from outside attacks. Human players also have to combat other crises every turn which affect their resources.
First, the positive. It is a unique game, in that it is mostly co-operative, but incorporates an element of Mafia where one or two players' objectives could be different from the group or change to be different over the course of the game. It's Pandemic meets Mafia, and the air of suspicion instantly present from the start until all Cylons are revealed is something I haven't experienced playing any other board game.
The game is well designed, in that there is an impending sense of danger at all times, and a clear, Cylon-free board can turn around into a disaster zone in an instant. Being a fan of the show, I think the creators of the game did a very nice job representing the same sensations found throughout the series.
Now the negative. It's really, really hard to win if you're a human. Even though in most scenarios, the Cylons are going to be outnumbered, they have a great deal more power in that they can decide to focus on a particular resource to eradicate the humans. In the games we've played, it's been almost impossible to come back after a Blue, Cylon ships appear and attack regular crisis card doubled with a revealed Cylon's super crisis.
Secondly, while the game box says the game plays 3-6 players, ignore it. It should read "5-6 players, unless you want someone to be bored." Only with five or six are there two Cylons in the game. Of the five games I have played, one has been with four players, two with five and two with six. All except one (potentially tainted) game has gone in favor of the Cylons, and it was likely only due to the fact that no Cylon role cards were dealt out until the midpoint of the game, giving the humans a huge head start. With four players, only one Cylon role card is dealt, and from what I was told and witnessed, it's simply not fun to play this game on a team by yourself, even though she did win (grumble grumble).
Third, it's a long, long game. Our games have averaged about 3 hours each, so it's quite a comittment to start a game, especially knowing the Cylons have a large advantage. Perhaps the game will balance while we continue to discover other strategies for the humans, but we have begun to crank the resources up for the humans. The last game was +2 for population and fuel, and +1 for morale and food, and the Cylons still won. Hopefully, more tweaking will find the right balance for our game group.
Despite the bad, I still really enjoy this game. It's just the right mixture of luck, deceipt, using your cards right, manipulation, and socialization to make it worthwhile. It will likely be a go-to staple for our group for quite a while, or until we've thrown it off the roof in frustration.
-Andrew
A brief summary of the game:
The humans are trying to travel to a location called Kobol, and the Cylons, their robotic enemies, are trying to thwart them by any means necessary. Players are assigned secret roles at the game's beginning and again at the game's midpoint, which determines which side they are playing for. Distance travelled and staying alive are the objectives for the human side, but the Cylons can take them down by eliminating any one of a number of necessities such as food, fuel, morale, population, by boarding the ship and destroying it from within, or by destroying the ship from outside attacks. Human players also have to combat other crises every turn which affect their resources.
First, the positive. It is a unique game, in that it is mostly co-operative, but incorporates an element of Mafia where one or two players' objectives could be different from the group or change to be different over the course of the game. It's Pandemic meets Mafia, and the air of suspicion instantly present from the start until all Cylons are revealed is something I haven't experienced playing any other board game.
The game is well designed, in that there is an impending sense of danger at all times, and a clear, Cylon-free board can turn around into a disaster zone in an instant. Being a fan of the show, I think the creators of the game did a very nice job representing the same sensations found throughout the series.
Now the negative. It's really, really hard to win if you're a human. Even though in most scenarios, the Cylons are going to be outnumbered, they have a great deal more power in that they can decide to focus on a particular resource to eradicate the humans. In the games we've played, it's been almost impossible to come back after a Blue, Cylon ships appear and attack regular crisis card doubled with a revealed Cylon's super crisis.
Secondly, while the game box says the game plays 3-6 players, ignore it. It should read "5-6 players, unless you want someone to be bored." Only with five or six are there two Cylons in the game. Of the five games I have played, one has been with four players, two with five and two with six. All except one (potentially tainted) game has gone in favor of the Cylons, and it was likely only due to the fact that no Cylon role cards were dealt out until the midpoint of the game, giving the humans a huge head start. With four players, only one Cylon role card is dealt, and from what I was told and witnessed, it's simply not fun to play this game on a team by yourself, even though she did win (grumble grumble).
Third, it's a long, long game. Our games have averaged about 3 hours each, so it's quite a comittment to start a game, especially knowing the Cylons have a large advantage. Perhaps the game will balance while we continue to discover other strategies for the humans, but we have begun to crank the resources up for the humans. The last game was +2 for population and fuel, and +1 for morale and food, and the Cylons still won. Hopefully, more tweaking will find the right balance for our game group.
Despite the bad, I still really enjoy this game. It's just the right mixture of luck, deceipt, using your cards right, manipulation, and socialization to make it worthwhile. It will likely be a go-to staple for our group for quite a while, or until we've thrown it off the roof in frustration.
-Andrew
Sunday, June 28, 2009
The Luck Factor
One of the most heavily debated topics in my own personal game group is about the value that luck has in the games we play. I've considered myself for many years to be a strategy man, but am coming around to the idea that luck not only is important when gaming with a group, but it's necessary. That said, there are different levels and types of luck when it comes to games. The most important and prevalent types are:
1. Dice Rolling
Dice to me can make or break the fun factor of a game. If overused, then the game becomes less fun for competitive players. The best example I can think of in which dice are overused is the Risk series of games. Risk, in theory, is a good game. In practice, it comes down to whoever was able to defy the odds for the longest, or whoever rolls the most sixes. This is a problem in this game because it freaking takes forever. Dice rolling, and luck in general is best suited to games that don't require a heavy time commitment. That way, if someone got completely hosed by the dice, they can either play again and try for better rolls, or leave the room to punch a pillow.
2. Card/Tile Drawing
In most games, there will likely be either cards or dice, and the rolls you make or the cards you draw can determine who is in a better situation to win. Cards and tiles are generally less invasive to strategy, as there is almost always a decision to be made with whatever you have drawn, whereas dice are cold and unforgiving. Again, if a game is entirely about the cards drawn, it, at least personally, detracts from the enjoyment I'm going to get out of a game.
3. Turn order
This is something that people rarely think of when sitting down to play a casual game, but can greatly affect one's ability to win a game. If turn order is random, and you sit after someone who makes great decisions, then it's going to be tougher for you to capitalize. This is something I've noticed when playing multiplayer games of Scrabble, among other games. I can do everything in my power to not set up the person after me, but if it's a three player game, I have no control over what the person to my left does. They could perfectly set up the person to my right, and as a result, I could lose every game that way. For this reason, especially if gaming with a group that has varying levels of game experience, that turn order should ideally be randomized. However, this is not often practical, and people seem to have an aversion to leaving their chosen chair behind.
I feel that a good game has about 75-80% strategy or decision-making, and 20-25% luck. As my girlfriend recently pointed out to me, it is important to know that going into a game, anyone has a chance of winning, otherwise - what's the point? I once saw a graph which ranked some games as where they fall in the Luck vs. Strategy realm, I'll try to recreate my own version here:
This is again, incomplete and subject to some opinion, but I tend to gravitate toward the center of the graph as far as games that I find most fun to play. My favorites here are Puerto Rico, Race for the Galaxy, Settlers of Catan, and Scrabble. That said, there are aspects of all of these (and most every existing game ever) that I enjoy and respect the value of.
Also, it is fair to point out that there are plenty of games that require other characteristics to be successful such as speed/dexterity, creativity, relationships etc. These are the Pictionaries, Craniums, and Apples to Apples' of the world, which are all in their own right great games and I thoroughly enjoy as well.
Hopefully this can be used as a tool for discussion and debate, and to define perhaps where your own tastes lie.
Hugs and kisses.
-Andrew
1. Dice Rolling
Dice to me can make or break the fun factor of a game. If overused, then the game becomes less fun for competitive players. The best example I can think of in which dice are overused is the Risk series of games. Risk, in theory, is a good game. In practice, it comes down to whoever was able to defy the odds for the longest, or whoever rolls the most sixes. This is a problem in this game because it freaking takes forever. Dice rolling, and luck in general is best suited to games that don't require a heavy time commitment. That way, if someone got completely hosed by the dice, they can either play again and try for better rolls, or leave the room to punch a pillow.
2. Card/Tile Drawing
In most games, there will likely be either cards or dice, and the rolls you make or the cards you draw can determine who is in a better situation to win. Cards and tiles are generally less invasive to strategy, as there is almost always a decision to be made with whatever you have drawn, whereas dice are cold and unforgiving. Again, if a game is entirely about the cards drawn, it, at least personally, detracts from the enjoyment I'm going to get out of a game.
3. Turn order
This is something that people rarely think of when sitting down to play a casual game, but can greatly affect one's ability to win a game. If turn order is random, and you sit after someone who makes great decisions, then it's going to be tougher for you to capitalize. This is something I've noticed when playing multiplayer games of Scrabble, among other games. I can do everything in my power to not set up the person after me, but if it's a three player game, I have no control over what the person to my left does. They could perfectly set up the person to my right, and as a result, I could lose every game that way. For this reason, especially if gaming with a group that has varying levels of game experience, that turn order should ideally be randomized. However, this is not often practical, and people seem to have an aversion to leaving their chosen chair behind.
I feel that a good game has about 75-80% strategy or decision-making, and 20-25% luck. As my girlfriend recently pointed out to me, it is important to know that going into a game, anyone has a chance of winning, otherwise - what's the point? I once saw a graph which ranked some games as where they fall in the Luck vs. Strategy realm, I'll try to recreate my own version here:
This is again, incomplete and subject to some opinion, but I tend to gravitate toward the center of the graph as far as games that I find most fun to play. My favorites here are Puerto Rico, Race for the Galaxy, Settlers of Catan, and Scrabble. That said, there are aspects of all of these (and most every existing game ever) that I enjoy and respect the value of.
Also, it is fair to point out that there are plenty of games that require other characteristics to be successful such as speed/dexterity, creativity, relationships etc. These are the Pictionaries, Craniums, and Apples to Apples' of the world, which are all in their own right great games and I thoroughly enjoy as well.
Hopefully this can be used as a tool for discussion and debate, and to define perhaps where your own tastes lie.
Hugs and kisses.
-Andrew
Thursday, June 25, 2009
Introduction
*Reads newspaper
Oh, hi there! I didn't see you come in. My name is Andrew, and the intention of this blog is to discuss one of my favorite subjects: games.
To give a brief background on your humble blogger: I might be what you would call, an "addict" when it comes to gaming. In one form or another, like many others, I've been playing games my entire life. This has progressed from "mainstream" board games like Scrabble and Monopoly, to video games on PC and console, to more obscure board games like Puerto Rico and Race for the Galaxy.
It's safe to say that games, especially board games, are the most widely available outlet for competitive socialization. This two word phrase which I may have just coined, succinctly describes why my personality attaches to board games as a primary hobby. I like competition. I like socialization. I'd bet that there aren't many people who game that don't like both. As a result, the people in my life have become avid gamers as well, and we hold a game night once or twice a week.
So, again, using this site as an outlet, I will attempt to provide an analysis of all things game (It's the subtitle! Tying it all together, oh yeah.) which will range from game reviews, of both old and new favorites, some game theory discussion, some tips and tricks, and general rants!
Please feel free to comment, as I'd prefer this a collaborative site, and if there are any requests or suggestions, bring 'em on.
Coming soon: POST TWO: Return of the Lost Ark
Oh, hi there! I didn't see you come in. My name is Andrew, and the intention of this blog is to discuss one of my favorite subjects: games.
To give a brief background on your humble blogger: I might be what you would call, an "addict" when it comes to gaming. In one form or another, like many others, I've been playing games my entire life. This has progressed from "mainstream" board games like Scrabble and Monopoly, to video games on PC and console, to more obscure board games like Puerto Rico and Race for the Galaxy.
It's safe to say that games, especially board games, are the most widely available outlet for competitive socialization. This two word phrase which I may have just coined, succinctly describes why my personality attaches to board games as a primary hobby. I like competition. I like socialization. I'd bet that there aren't many people who game that don't like both. As a result, the people in my life have become avid gamers as well, and we hold a game night once or twice a week.
So, again, using this site as an outlet, I will attempt to provide an analysis of all things game (It's the subtitle! Tying it all together, oh yeah.) which will range from game reviews, of both old and new favorites, some game theory discussion, some tips and tricks, and general rants!
Please feel free to comment, as I'd prefer this a collaborative site, and if there are any requests or suggestions, bring 'em on.
Coming soon: POST TWO: Return of the Lost Ark
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
