Why Games Matter

I went to two different high schools. At the second one, I fell into the wrong crowd. They had a room to hang out in, off of the library where they could talk, plan hijinks, discuss teachers & students...a free-form and welcome release from the strictures of student-teacher experiences. Study hall in the library was a boring affair, and some of the students would encourage me to hang out and play chess in their room. Their "teacher", Harvey Kimble, was okay with that, and even let me officially join them my senior year.



It was a talented and gifted group. When I say "teacher", he had been a teacher and had switched over to TAG. It was a great experience for me. I think teachers are amazing...and Harvey blew them all away. If there's a word above teacher, assume I used it for him. He was compassionate, funny, challenging, and had this love of enjoying things that he shared with us.



One of the experiences that he mandated for us, was serving breakfast to some inner city children in Des Moines, Iowa. It was early in the morning down by Drake University, I think. Pre-school, kindergarten, maybe some first graders. We helped serve breakfast, did a craft area...there was even a game area. Kimble told me with a smile - after the breakfast portion, I needed to go help out there.



They had checkers, and the kids were excited to play against me - despite my encouragement to play each other. See, they had a plan. They had never lost against the TAG students, and they were looking to take me down too. It was fun - they made up rules on how the game REALLY played. Of course, they didn't tell me those rules until they used them on me.



Halfway to my end, I started using their tricks in return. I could only use the rules they had introduced to me - and my opponent tried to revoke some of those rules in the process. Thankfully the horde of young spectators insisted on fairness. I did end up breaking their streak of wins, but they were pretty happy about it. I was adopted by them, as I had been adopted by the TAG group.



A couple of weeks and several garage sales later, I showed up again for breakfast. This time, I shared my game with them. My father and brothers (and even my sister Martha for a little while) played chess with me. These kids were smart enough to make up their own rules for games, they could learn chess. And they did. It offered complexity, tricks...a bigger game sandbox to play in.



These kids had a tough life then, and I don't imagine it got easier. Kids that young would be used to run drugs. An older teen would take the money, the kid would deliver the drugs. If a police officer stopped the 5 year-old, they wouldn't get good information. It was too big for me and it was bad for the kids - one of those "facts of life" moments that killed me a little inside every time I thought about it.



One of the kids came up to me in a later session. He didn't really feel like his dad loved him, or wanted anything to do with him. This wasn't an uncommon theme - you listen, demonstrate compassion, try to help them cope. He shared with his dad that he had learned chess at the breakfast club! His dad was surprised and doubtful, but got out a board and they played. At the end of the game, his dad apparently had tears in his eyes, and they had bonded. The kid had a happy smile and tears in his eyes when he told me.



This is why I dig board games. Creativity, social glue, critical thinking, it's all there. There are studies out there that discuss how games can spur critical thinking skills, catching up those kids who fall between the cracks - I can believe that. 



And a special thanks for Harvey Kimble and the breakfast club for the memories.

Macao, the Continued Revival

My initial review of Macao was about 3 years ago. I wasn't sure that I liked it - the unknown deck of buildings and people, the fickleness of the dice...since then, we've played dozens of games.

And I still don't know if I like the game. How's that for strange?

It's still what I consider a "light" game. It has issues if players bog down themselves/others/the game with analysis. There's no clean method of choosing cubes, except for taking the unintuitive step outside the mechanics to write down the cubes you take. Players who are delaying can change their decisions based on early choosers, and early choosers look awkward when they realize a better arrangement...mostly when other people have started making choices.

The randomness of the dice can be mitigated by the 6 "dark tokens" aka wild cards. There are buildings and people that can sometimes offer some flexibility, but it's not common and/or not easy to build....er..."activate".

The buildings/people stack is random, and has a huge effect on the game - if you are in the position to draft the card you need. And if you aren't going earlier in the turn order, you risk other people co-opting your strategy, drafting it "because they have the cubes for it", or in a more competitive game....defensively drafting it so you (or others) don't get it. If you defensively draft too often, it'll burn you. Depending on your group and number of players, it can vary a lot.

I wouldn't mind doing a variant where each player gets to secretly view 10 cards at the start of the game, and discard 2. You still wouldn't know *when* it shows up, as far as which turn - you might not be in first, it might show up in the final turn, etc. Definitely adding some skill and longer strategy to the game...a lot of Macao is short-term thinking.

Overall, it gets play because it's quick to teach, with elegant rules. And someday I'll be able to decide if it's good. ;)

Krosmaster Arena review

Some figures on a quarter of the board

Krosmaster Arena is based on a French anime series, and the game was imported into the US market by Japanime, first through this Kickstarter. You can find an electronic version of the game here.

It's a light wargame, best with 2 or 4 players. Each turn, your 4 or 2 figures spend their movement points to get around the board, and their action points to power spells and attacks on the figure's card. While technically you win by the opponent not having any Golden Galleons (GG), this is primarily done by knocking out your opponent's figures.


Component Quality
The figures are really great. Well painted, interesting, dynamic. A couple of them will probably need to be touched up with some super glue. The game comes with a double-sided map, Demonic Reward tokens, some summoned creature tokens, cardboard trees/bushes/boxes, and custom six-sided dice. There are an assortment of chits to track wounds, lost/gained actions and movement points, as well as the coins (kamas).

Rulebook
The rulebook takes the approach of teaching the game using mini-tutorials. After 6 or so tutorials, you reach the main rulebook - it's good, but I wish the structure was a little more clear. GG didn't seem that important until we played the electronic version.

Gameplay
Overall, it's pretty fast. You can break up your movement between actions, making it very flexible. The six-sided dice drive the random elements - how much bonus damage did you get? how much did you block? Did you roll enough boots to escape the magnets that they rolled to stop you?

Tension
Your turn starts off rolling 2 dice for 'tension'. If you get matching dice, each player loses a GG. (If a team has no GG left, they lose.) Then, assign the dice to the same or different characters that you control - a starburst lets you roll two dice when rolling damage with that character. Likewise, the other 3 options are powering up your ability to block damage, escape, or lock.

Actions
You move your characters around, spending action points to pick up the coins scattered around the board, spending action points to buy Demonic Rewards at shops, and hopefully attacking the other figures.

Battles
Very straightforward - your average attack value is 1-2, with a specific range. You roll an extra 1 or 2 dice to add damage, they roll 1 or 2 dice to get shields, their figure takes some damage. A 1 point attack is probably going to eat up about half of the attacking figure's action points. If you knock out an opposing figure, you get GG from that player equal to the figure's level...usually about 3.

Duration
The game takes about 45-60 minutes to play, depending how players go. Defensive, ducking around, stealing health...it can take another half hour. I've played the electronic game in about 20-30 minutes.

Replay Value
The base game comes with 8 figures, exactly enough to play 4 players (or the 2-player game with 4 figures each)...meaning you'll see the same characters every game. Maybe some different pairings, different tactics, almost certainly some different Demonic Rewards...but...the characters drive the game. Getting a booster of 4 figures expands the choices and game play a lot.

Online Component
When you buy a booster/base game or win a promo figure, it comes with a code to play it online. It might even be faster to learn the game on the computer, and then play in real life.

Deal Breakers
The price point and availability is probably the biggest killer for this game. $28 for a booster of 4 figures seems pretty crazy. $80 for the base game is probably fair, as long as you have a lesser need for a strong replay value out of the box.

Overall
The game itself is fun. Players get to move their cool figures around the board, beating up other figures...rolling dice, taking cover - a light wargame. We'll probably have this in regular rotation, as well as fitting in some electronic battles with each other.

Lords of Waterdeep, Scoundrels of Skullport review

PAX Prime is coming up in the next week, and there's a board game tournament put on by Wizards of the Coast, for the new Lords of Waterdeep expansion. We played last year, and I made it into the elimination rounds on the virtue of having won a game. I won my semi-final game, maybe two...making it into the finals.

I didn't end up winning. I did get an LED-hat with Lolth on it, and a prize pick from the game table. This year, I'm not sure we'll put as much time into winning a spot - the expansion much more variable in what matters. How much more variable? Read on!

[If you read BGG, it's there too. This is just everything in one place.]

I picked up a copy of the expansion at a local game store on Sunday - Green Lake Games in Seattle. I had read the rulebook online and had a good idea what we were getting into...

Lords of Waterdeep as a base game is solid. The theme and mechanics are complementary, the flavor and art definitely sell Waterdeep without the hangup of "I don't know how to play D&D." The rules and mechanics had very little "I can't figure out how this works from reading the card."

The main question for my friends and I: how much does adding the expansion(s) change the game? The answer? Quite a bit.

Components Overview:
Poor. How about cards that a slightly different size from the base game? Slightly different shading on the back? Or the card back not matching the orientation of front of the card? This is Wizards of the Coast - messing up cards shouldn't even be a concern. It's cool they continued the innovative packaging from the base game...except the agents need to be placed head down to fit nicely. Oh well.

It's nice they added a 6th player, but it hasn't been a problem in the past - 5 was the playable limit. It makes some Intrigue cards that much better, but there's so much downtime between actions at that point, you can't guess what might be left for your next one.

Set-up:
You can play Scoundrels as both mini-expansions with the main game (taking out some random main game intrigue cards, quests, and buildings so Skullport & Undermountain would still show frequently). You can also play with one or the other, without taking out main game components.

They also included extra agent figures for the base game - this is necessary if you play the recommended "long game" variant when playing both expansions. (Otherwise, lots of empty action spaces.)

Skullport Overview:
Essentially, every building, quest and intrigue card from Skullport is going to have corruption involved somehow. The mechanics for corruption adds a heavier layer to the game - you'll find yourself constantly trying to figure out if it's worth doing the bigger action for a little bit of corruption. Getting rid of corruption is fairly common, with some putting it on an action space, removing it from the game, or putting it back on the corruption track.

Corruption caution: If you need to take corruption and there isn't any left, it's -10 points immediately. And there are intrigue cards that can give corruption, without you doing anything.

Undermountain Overview:
Lots of interesting buildings, quests, and intrigue cards. Powerful combos & some 40-point quests. There is a lot of "take some stuff, and put stuff on other action spaces" which can lead to some complex wrangling of actions...so you can get those bonus materials that might otherwise go to other players.

Skullport vs. Undermountain:
I liked Undermountain a lot more than Skullport. If you want new mechanics and hard-to-guess "best action" questions, Undermountain got most of them. Skullport is limited because nearly everything is based on corruption - put lots of cubes/rewards on a card, then add a corruption marker or two.

Flow Overview:
You remember earlier, how I mentioned how the gameplay in base Lords of Waterdeep flowed mostly naturally, with little rules questions? One of the challenges in adding *more* to a game, is keeping the game elegant and clear of questions, but still making the expansion interesting.

The expansions add mechanics without answering core timing issues. (One of my gripes with Quarriors, but onward!) For example, there's a plot quest that says you get the owner benefit from your buildings when you go to your own building. Let's say you go to a building that lets you play 3 Intrigue cards, the owner benefit says you draw an Intrigue card. When do you draw it? Or the plot quest that lets you draw and play an Intrigue card when you play one or more Intrigue cards - can you do the draw-and-play in the middle of resolving an action? [EDIT: Owner benefit is last. Resolve the 3 Intrigue cards, then draw-and-play for the plot quest.]

I'm hoping they address some basic core timing issues in a FAQ, so that my friends and I don't have to house-rule constantly, as well as teaching house-rules to friends coming over. (Game designers & developers, keep timing in mind when you're putting out the expansions - *you* have a plan on how things work innately, but maybe a page in the expansion rulebook talking about timing issues is much better than a FAQ after the fact.)

Flow, Part 2:
Expansions are a tricky beast. You need to add new things, but leave enough of the core. In the games we've played, there's just so much going on. You might have 4 plot quests, each doing their own crazy thing. The new rewards can be a lot different (build all three buildings for free!) which just adds to the distractions.

So adding new things is both necessary, and sometimes a downer. The randomness "swingy bits" is a lot more prevalent with Scoundrels. You can't reasonably guess what an intrigue card will do, what buildings you might see, or what quests will pop up. In the base game, you might have a reasonable idea on what could happen. Playing one mini-expansion makes it not likely, and two next to impossible.

Lords of Waterdeep went from a strategic game where you might plan ahead for next turn, to a tactics game where you min-max your current action and maybe your next action.

Overall, LoW needed an expansion. Most of the mechanics were pretty vanilla in the base game after the first several plays - the economy of cubes was straightforward as far as acquiring them and using for quests. We'll play the expansions, even with the rules issues and the wild swings of what's now possible...but there's some sadness at least on my part.

One last thing - the Inevitable Betrayal promo? It's in the expansion, for those who didn't get it before. (Woo!)

Castle Dice review

It's a light dice game, produced through Kickstarter. Seemed fun enough that I'd play it again several times, but not deep enough that I need a copy if a friend has it. (Comparable to the base 7 Wonders game in difficulty and amount of time.)

Players have 7 turns to get victory points from building Castle cards and turning in animal sets for random chance cards. Every turn, players take certain dice based on the turn, and add several of their choice.  (Players make this choice based on Castle/Village cards in their hands, and what they hope to build with the resources they get that round.)

Village cards increase or adjust your production. Castle cards are primarily VP, sometimes with a minor game effect. You might guess that Castle cards are more expensive to get out.

Once everyone rolls their dice, they take any dice-killing barbarians out to add to the players' own turf. In turn order, players then draft one die at a time, adding the appropriate resource to their bank. (3 wood from the wood die, increases your wood stock by 3, then discard the die for the round.) The 4 different animals let you break the rules in small ways, or you can turn in a set of 4 (different) to get a chance card. After all of the dice have been drafted, players build their cards from their hand - and any leftover resources might be raided by your barbarians (a brown barbarian would only raid for 1 wood).

The game goes fairly quickly. The player interaction is limited to counter-drafting - very indirect. The chance cards seemed like a fairly light return, but then again, the random draws from Castle and Village decks make it difficult to have a consistent hand of building what you want to build.

It would be interesting to see what would have happened if players could choose which specific "Village" card that wanted to draw. For example, if you wanted to build soldiers that turn, you could draw soldiers. (Same for farmers, merchants, workers.) Heck, maybe even be able to choose to draw "wall" cards vs. random Castle cards.

The game, as-is, is very light on strategy. I think it'd be fun to play with kids who are getting into board games, as the reading is light and there is a luck factor that isn't overwhelming.

Ad Astra Review

I finally fit in a game of Ad Astra. I saw it on a friend's game table once, and thought - it has exploration, trading...great! This is for me...but maybe I should play it before buying another space game.

We played a 4-player game - it can handle five. The core of the game is playing your action cards into order. Maybe you want your exploration card put early in the turn order, or a production card placed at the end of the round. This is the actual game, not the giant space board that covers most of the table.

You start with a factory in the home system, and a spaceship in "deep space" (one space away from every system). After everyone has placed action cards into the order hopper (12 spaces, 4 players - we each put in 3 cards), start by revealing the card in the first position.

Ah, Red played Explore a small yellow system or explore a large red system. Red gets to move one of their spaceships to one of those systems, or jump a spaceship from any system to deep space. If you move into an unexplored system, you get to choose which facedown planet you take. Everyone else gets the same movement option, then Red can move more ships.

The next card might be a Production card by Blue, where the Blue player chooses which mode of the card happens - produce resource A or resource B. Everyone gets that resource, if they have spaceships, colonies, or factories on that resource from a planet.

The action card types are Explore, Production, Build, Trade, and Score. (Build lets everyone build one thing, based on their resource cards in hand, and the person who put it in can build whatever; Trade lets that player and that player only to trade with other players, or 2-for-1 with the bank.)

Score cards are modal as well - choose to score all colonies/factories or spaceships. Whoever gets the most points from a score card also gets 3 bonus points. Each player has the same three different Score cards...and you only get them back after you've used all of them (preventing a player from playing the same Score card every turn).

The Explore part is weak. Trade is weak. Build is unexciting. Production becomes a question of if you've overlapped with other players or if you specialized in a resource. (Some or all/nothing.) Score cards are a reflection of what you've done on the board (again, some points or all/nothing).

They have a light alien/chance card effect, but the alien cards were pretty weak. Ad Astra looks really awesome, but the action takes place elsewhere. I'll probably end up playing it again, but probably not for several years.

Eclipse Strategy Tips

The quick overview: You have 9 turns to gain the most victory points.

Your total VP at the end of the game is based on these factors:

• Controlling systems (1-4 VP each, as stated on the hex)
• Reputation draws (every battle gives you a 1-4 VP chip) - each race can have 3-5 chips.
• Science tracks (if you max out a row, you get 5 VP for that row)
• Discovery tiles (2 VP, instead of being used for their power)
• Monoliths constructed by players (3 VP each, expensive and easy to target)
• Race-specific victory point goals
• The current person who has the Traitor card (think hot potato/musical chairs)
• (Expansion only) - Alliance bonus/betrayal, limited Development bonus

 These are just the victory points though - to win, you only need to have these at the END of the game.

Methods of Winning:
These are the general methods in how you gain the various VP listed above.

1. Exploring (primarily discovery tiles)
1. If you explore Tier 3 hexes, they typically have less Ancient Ships (board-generated enemies), less resources, less victory points, but more likely to have discovery tiles.
2. Discovery tiles can boost your economy quickly, kept as 2 VP, or get you early ship components.
3. It is important to read over planned bankruptcy - at the end of each of the 9 turns, you have to pay money equal to the amount revealed by the discs you have spent. The more discs you spend on taking actions or claiming systems, the more you will have to pay at the end of the turn. If you cannot pay enough money, you reclaim discs from the board until your money income+existing money is equal to or greater than the taxes you need to pay. This can be to your benefit, to reclaim those discs you spent to take the discovery tiles. (If you have existing material or science you may use those to avoid bankruptcy, but it's not mandatory. Material and science income cannot be used.)
2. War (reputation draws, discovery tiles, controlling higher VP/better economy systems)
1. Early combats will get you better quality reputation draws on average. (Bigger battles give you more draws to choose one from.)
2. Fighting hexes with Ancient Ships - these hexes are generally going to have better resource production, as well as VP draws, and earlier discovery tiles.
3. Technology (science track VPs, and in rare cases Monoliths)
1. Science gain is primarily a multiplier effect on action discs, beyond providing VP at the end.
2. Ships and ship upgrades rely heavily on science purchases to wage better war.
3. Economy bonuses - Advanced Economy, Advanced Labs, Advanced Mining, and Orbitals make your systems more productive, without the cost of extra discs. Advanced Robotics gives you a cheap extra disc - similar to an economy bonus, as well as giving you more flexible disc allocation.

Disc Management
It is EXTREMELY important to be able to take 3 or more actions in a turn. If you spend discs to hold systems that only grant you one planet for a population cube, you will find yourself with un-upgraded ships, little ability to explore, and no economy to support taking more valuable systems from Ancient Ships. (Imagine this turn - build a dreadnought, upgrade a dreadnought, move a dreadnought, have a disc leftover to take the system...that's 4 actions.) Planned bankruptcy can free up your discs, without spending action discs to do so with Influence.

In the last few turns of the game, if most of your discs are tied up holding systems, it means you have less action discs to respond to aggressions. Consequently, if an opponent has tied up their discs, even if they are strong, they can't respond easily to your threats. Having the existing money or money income to take 5 or more actions in the final round can be very important to winning.


Exploration Combat Odds

• Tier 3 hexes will have less planets to settle, a high percentage of discovery tiles, and a low percent of Ancient Ships.
• Tier 1 & Tier 2 hexes are about 50% Ancient Ships - if you see three Tier 1 hexes out there already without an Ancient Ship, you're very likely to see them on future Tier 1 explores.

Choke Points (Explore)
It's tempting to rely on how you explore and how you angled those hexes, to control how others can attack you. In the first two-thirds of the game, choke points will work to funnel player attacks against you into a limited number of hexes. Once the Cloaking technology or Wormhole Generator shows up (and is affordable), those choke points will become less useful...and all of those discs you spent being defensive there will not be as useful.

It can be common for games with newer players, where players only connect to each other through the Galactic Center. This usually reduces the amount of player versus player combats, as the only person who can attack or be attacked is the person controlling the center.

War & Technology
Key early technologies will carry you through the first half of the game.

• Improved Hull makes your ships last longer - a cruiser or dreadnought with two improved hulls are essentially immune to a single Ancient ship.
• Plasma Cannon makes Ancient Ships 1-hit kills, for the low energy cost of 2.
• Positron Computers can give you the slight speed edge, as well helping you hit more often - but still not as good as an early Improved Hull or Plasma Cannon.

Late technologies are necessary to take on players or discourage them from coming for you.

• Neutron Bombs are almost mandatory for killing enemy population cubes.
• Anti-Matter Cannon does 4 damage in one hit, enough to kill most ships. In the expansion, they add a splitter, allowing the 4 damage to be spread over multiple ships.
• Plasma Missiles trump faster ships, but only in quantity - computers are mandatory!
• Star Bases often trump fast ships, and have the space allotment of a cruiser.
• Cloaking (expansion) and Wormhole Generator techs are the red flag for possible aggressive behavior, even if you buy them to stop others from getting them.

"Rock-Paper-Scissors" Ship Builds
Unless you have a lot of science or upgrade actions available to repel or initiate combat against another player, your ships will typically have either be a rock, paper, or scissors build.

• Fast ships trump armored ships (computers and good cannons mean over time, they win more often, and the opening round can wipe out the opponent's most effective ships due to speed)
• Missiles trump fast ships (missile ships require missile & computer parts to make sure they hit hard on that opening salvo, but then lack room for more armor or lasers)
• Armor+Shields trump missiles (negate missile-computers, making the only set of missiles mostly ineffective, but the armor and shields will take up most of your ship)

You can use this idea to pick easier targets for you, as well as identifying how much of a threat a specific player is to your ships. In rare cases, you can upgrade your ship to have an even match-up, or ideally the match-up that favors you.

Final Point
Managing your discs is so extremely important it needs to be repeated. If you get down to only being able to spend two discs each turn...in 2 turns you have 4 actions, while a person with 3 discs per turn would have 6 actions - essentially a free turn compared to you.

Conan, the bane of RPGs

Conan, what is best in life?

"To crush your enemies, see them driven before you, and to hear the lamentation of the women!"

He has a certain animal appeal. I remember reading Robert Howard paperbacks in high school - Conan is a barbarian. He's strong and a skilled warrior. He's almost supernaturally savvy, his instincts giving him an edge up over similarly strong and skilled fighters. Most recently, I had some friends pass along several books about Kane, the immortal badass (Karl Edward Wagner).

Last night, we had a one-off from a normal Pathfinder game. The plot of the adventure was taken out of a collection of Conan stories done by Howard. Essentially Conan gets roped into helping a nearby town, takes some guardsmen, and hunt down the orc (Pict) in the jungle across the river. The DM chose a very deadly story - the plan was to kill all of the NPCs as well as the PCs. Not even in a chancy way at the end - just throw small waves of orcs at us.

Overall, it's a recurring story about Conan (or Kane). Lots of random folks die, especially those helping the hero (or anti-hero). For me, it's tragic. The characters are mostly one-dimensional. They don't change, evolve, or challenge the world in a meaningful way. And this impacts players who are shaped by what they read.

1. Death by combat is often the only solution.
2. NPCs are rated on how powerful in levels they are, and if they can be fought.
3. No continuous character development - they gain hp/feats/skill points, but mostly remain the same mental state from where they started from.

This is a trap for players and DMs. In one-shot games, it's not as important, but it can reinforce these behaviors. One of the 3.5 campaigns in, the DM stuck us in a never-ending dungeon. I think we spent a half-dozen sessions, trying to heal up enough to make headway. We leveled up, but our only motivation was to become killing machines in the game. The rest of the campaign, that became most of our goal.

How can you combat this (if you think it's a negative in a game)?

1. Leave NPCs alive, at least sometimes. Not only is it challenging to do this (in both mechanics and role-play), it gives the game a bump in continuity. And maybe the semi-evil henchman that you let live today, comes back in a future episode to save/help you. There are some 110% evil people in games, but all? Think of the angle of redemption and forgiveness.
2. The first level mayor can be a pain in the ass. The baker's daughter might be wiling to risk her life for perceived love, or even just a patriotic call to arms.
3. Take several minutes before your weekly session, and think about what drives your character - their flaws, their dreams, their fears. Think how it will shape the game that day.

Risk management in board games

'Risk management' is used in a lot of business speak, and it trickles into game designing meaning both something similar and different. It's also a term used in "Traders, Guns, and Money" - which again is more of a business sense.

Risk management is somewhat of a trick. One, it implies that there are (probably dangerous) risks out there, and that someone else can come along and manage it for you, so you can think about all the profits you'll make. Traders, Guns, and Money - risk management is supposed to limit the damage that bad trades can cause.

In games, I use it to cover both sides of a fence. If you're ahead, you want to expose yourself to the least risky course, and glide into the win. If you're behind, you're looking for someway to make up the shortfall and vault into first place. It's rare that you're at equal chances of both winning and losing, which would be the top edge of the fence. So, you use risk management one way or the other...to push the envelope, taking higher risks to win, or to find paths that let you avoid pitfalls. (Tonight's game of Mage Knight, the girl found herself behind, so she took more difficult unknowns. It didn't help.)

Several years ago, I picked up a copy of Pitchcar. To play the game, you flick your wooden disc around the track, bouncing off of guardrails, muscling past other cars, and hope to stay on the track as well. There's a lot of risk. If you flick it too hard, you go off the track, and lose your turn. You can attempt to glide along the rails, but if you miss the shot, you're off the board or rebounding back towards where you came from.

If you're in first, you skip the risky plays. If you don't go off the course, other players are going to have to push their cars hard to catch up. By flicking their cars harder, they're more likely to force their own car off the track, or in rare cases, actually catch up. If you're a half track ahead, chances are slim that they can ever catch you. (Designers of Powerboats - take note! Ugh. Really, take note.)

There's another racing game that addresses the issue, which is Mario Kart. It's fast, it's furious, you can take some risks, but you're really just trying to drive as accurately as possible in your cartoon car, at its fastest speed. There's really no risk for driving the best...but it's not exciting if you know who's going to win. The risk of being ahead in Mario Kart is that you get less options on your powerups. While others get the full range...but especially the Blue Shell of Death. It auto-hits the first place player, but only the last place players have a chance of picking one up from a box. Experienced players can complain about it, as it's a risk they can't avoid, except by not winning. Thus there's tension for 1st, even though they are winning...but will it show up in the powerups?

Other forms of risk can be demonstrated in Diplomacy, where you open yourself to dangers as treaties are formed with other players. Other players will be lying to you at some point - figuring out the how and when can limit how much damage you take, your exposure to risks.

You can also take risks when you ARE in first - to make it more interesting for you or for other players, due to perceived 'fun', or maybe because the game forces you to. The last part is particularly interesting, where you aren't allowed to just coast...you still need to make good decisions to win.

Risks are inherent in a lot of games. Eliminate the need to choose what risks a player engages in, and you're stuck playing a game of Life. Going too deep into complex ideas, while allowing the player many risks to manage, your game comes to a standstill. Creating an intuitive flow with several paths of risk management is a thing of beauty.

PS - To 'fix' Pitchcar, I mocked up some extra items to turn it into Mario Kart in some ways. (If you're interested in doing the same, it's discussed in a thread here. There are some newer threads that did a lot more work, if you liked my Mario Kart variant.)

Overall Mage Knight design discussion

I've played the game enough now, I feel competent in discussing what's really going on.

Mage Knight is a light deck-building game. You'll add cards to your deck, but not every turn. Getting rid of cards in your deck is very rare - you'll add more luck to your deck with more powerful cards. (Mostly an innate balancing factor, you are more powerful, but at the cost of your deck tipping to one side or the other.)

Adding more cards is kind of like winning - you'll get more points for them. You'll also be gambling on big turns more often. If things come together, it will be AMAZING. If it doesn't come together, you'll be stuck imagining what could have been, and hope for it next game.


Sadly, you'll generally need a big turn to take on multiple monsters at a site, or even just a Draconum. What does it tell you when you're an experienced adventurer, but you still choke on turns? Tough love.

Allies are a guaranteed use, once per round. It means you don't need to draw them, or take up precious hand-size. They're even victory points. The silver units are roughly on par with a basic card from your deck...is it worth spending a couple of turns to get them? Maybe not.

Realistically, you'll probably lose a turn or two every round due to a bad hand. Don't have any move? Feel like pitching a hand of combat cards to move one space? Maybe you drew your influence cards after you left civilized areas. Honestly, the move actions are probably the most painful to appreciate. Much like the movement dice in Runebound, it can end your turn immediately.

I think there's a key element of spectatorship in most games. In a game like Carcassonne, another player is placing a tile, there's two elements of interest for you - what you could do with that tile if you had it, and maybe cheering them on for how it can help them. In Mage Knight, there's none of that. Maybe you can offer some critiques on how they can be more efficient, but you won't have knowledge of their entire hand. It's possible you can talk about their options on where to go next. In Vlaada's Through the Ages, it was sometimes entertaining to watch opponent's actions - what are they really valuing? What motives do they have for doing X as opposed to Y?

Overall, the game is pretty solid. The movement issues are mostly okay - it added some design options for extra abilities/spells/advanced actions. I'm frequently sad on other player's turns...nothing to really spectate, and their turn can last 5 minutes or so if they are optimizing.  (And if they are optimizing, they might need silence at the table.)

Mage Knight, 4-player

Soon on the heels of the 3-player game, we taught the game to 2 new players. They're competent gamers, and I had learned how to teach the game. 4 player game took about 3 hours, including explanation...not too bad.

I ended up playing the Elf lord, Norowas. I had last choice of day actions, which led me into going first with card #3. I managed to get to the nearby village and hire crossbowmen on my first turn. Second turn, I beat up the marauders, giving me the free ranged attack skill, and an Advanced Training that gave a white crystal or Ranged Attack 4.

For the rest of the game, I attempted to fight non-fortification monsters...meaning monster dens, dungeons, and rampaging monsters. The second monster den wounded me as I was eventually caught out, but I was able to end the third round very early, discovering the city on my first turn. After end-game scoring, I had 37.

Arythea the Blood Cultist got stumbled in the first turn - it was tough racing ahead, when you start behind. It persisted the rest of the game, trying to get to the monsters that could be defeated reasonably.

Tovak was played by one of the new players - he focused on keeps, no allies, and the backstabbing skills (can't draw on the source and the one that deals wounds for drawing on the non-selected mana). He finished second with 36.

Goldyx had the misfortune of battling a summoner-type in a fight for a mage-tower during the first Day round. Brutal 5, when you're not ready for it, is messy. (6 wounds. Fortunately he could heal two immediately after combat, but the others would be more painful to cure.)

The Tovak player embraced a healthy strategy - try a specific strategy, even if it fails, he's learned something.
The Goldyx player played an open game - go for whatever feels most easily scored. There's nothing wrong with this, it just means the player will miss out on deeper strategies until later.
My focus on ranged attack was pretty good, although I wish I had picked up my opponent's discarded range attack skill...that would have been +3 ranged attack, every turn, night and day turns. It was definitely painful, where I couldn't pick up keeps or mage towers. I had a lot of influence, but the monasteries were usually full, and the mage towers were scattered to the edge.

I'm looking forward to trying some of the new-to-us scenarios. I might like 2-player a little more in some ways - 3 and 4 ruins at least one player because they get shut out of explores in the normal wedge shape.

Mage Knight follow-up, 3-player

We played a 3-player game last night, where we taught a new player the game. Rob is a pretty relaxed and easy-going guy, but he can get frustrated if the game is messy. A test of teaching the game, as well as introducing it to a new player.


A three-player game was tough - monsters get wiped out much faster, allies are purchased earlier...going last in a round can really be a hindrance.

Elle grabbed a keep in the first Day cycle, while I managed to snag a Mage Tower. For Elle's level-up, as the blood cultist, she could pitch wounds to other players, which was pretty nice. Rob managed to beat up a couple of marauding monsters.

The Night cycle is pretty awesome for spells. I picked up a fire-based spell that blocked damage, and if I spent a red and a black mana to do it, it destroyed the opposing creature - no Attack damage needed. The second Day felt less exciting - we got stuck without moves or without attacks, leading to a couple of dead turns in the beginning.


My second dungeon was tough - I had a good mix of Attack and Block cards, but the dungeon spawned a 5 defense (easy), 7 damage monster with swiftness - it was either Block 14 or take 7. My hand was good, but not that good. The three wounds I racked up turned out to be bad for me...my healing spell I picked up went on top of my deck, and I didn't discard enough cards to draw it (I figured there would be a couple of turns left.) Sadly, the final turn came early, as Elle stopped battling and continued to explore - with the first of the final tiles showing the end condition. I managed to heal one of my wounds at a magic glade, but it left me with wounds and the most wounds tile...losing the the game.


I managed to defeat two dungeons, a keep, and a mage tower. Sadly, both dungeons awarded spells - I really wanted an artifact. The keep was stolen away by Elle - only got half fame for the gray monster guarding it, but gave her 2 fame at the end, as well as taking 2 fame away from me.

I still haven't recruited like I should - they are better than spells, in that they don't require you to draw them and usually don't take mana to power them. There was a rules question I got wrong during the game - I wanted to use black mana from the source, during the day, but in a dungeon (dungeons are considered night). Sadly the rulebook uses the words "never" about usimg black mana from the source during the day. Go rules FAQ on BGG!

Other missed rules - when buying multiple things with influence in a turn, your reputation penalty/bonus only applies the first time. Buying spells, you also need to spend mana of the same color of the spell. There are lots of little things that happen in the game - I'm sure as the full rulebook is consumed, there will be dozens of understandings corrected. Clumsy.

Next up, a 4-player game.

Initial review of Vlaada Chvatil's Mage Knight

I'm hugely disappointed that Wizkids doesn't offer rules support for Quarriors - to the point where I'd even avoid purchasing other games they produce, even by a favorite designer. I've mulled over Mage Knight since it came out, but couldn't pull the trigger.

My girlfriend was aware of my "could be good, but not buying it" stance, and just bought it one day when we were hanging out at a game store. It sat on our shelf for several weeks, waiting for the right time to come and play.

It plays 1-4. Word on the street is that the rules and game are dense. I ended up doing a single-player game as a warm-up one day, watched a guy play a single-player on youtube (painful, it's not worth it!), and then played a 2-player with the girl.

The rules are dense and somewhat clunky. I like Chvatil's design for Through the Ages - elegant! Dungeon Lords, Galaxy Trucker, and Space Alert are good in different ways. Mage Knight has so many rules that are not easily intuitive, I'm sad.

** The overview **

Mage Knight is an adventuring board game, in a complex vein of Runebound. Each player has a hero, who slowly walks around fighting monsters, occasionally picking up an ally. There are different scenarios to play, but that's pretty much the focus of the game - level up, take on bigger rewards.

The engine for gameplay is your own custom deck of cards. Everyone's deck is the same except for one card. You'll be able to add more cards to your deck, pretty much at the expense of your entire turn...I think we each added 4-5 cards. Everyone has their own selection of skill level-ups, but you won't see many in a game - maybe 2.

Your starting hand each turn is 5 cards. They can have a range of ordinary things - Move, Attack, Block, Influence, and custom effects that affect other cards. Each of those ordinary effects have a number - Attack 4 is good. Attack 2 means you'll need to add extra cards to make it work. Move 2 gives you enough move into a plains hex, or explore the edge of the map. If you have enough Block, you can avoid taking wounds (that clutter your hand and deck). Influence (combined with whatever reputation you've gained) is used in towns to pick up allies, spell cards, and advanced training cards.

Each card in your hand has a second effect. You can borrow 1 energy die from the common pool to use the second/better effect. If you have other energy lying around, you could boost more than one card. Needless to say, the basic effect of each card is tough to love. (Cards in your hand can be used as Attack/Move/Block/Influence 1. Wounds cannot be used that way.)

It's really about just wandering around and killing monsters. You can attack monasteries, Mage Towers, dungeons, tombs, monster dens...they all give you some kind of bonus, with the more challenging ones giving a bigger reward.
***
That quick overview is about it. The game adds some complexity on how monsters deal damage or avoid damage, as well as rules for playing during the day vs. a turn at night. Overall, it's a lot of fiddly bits.

First - movement is cranky. You thought Runebound was awkward, with rolling dice for movement. If you want to move and attack, you better have exactly the right cards. Mostly, you'll move and then have to attack next turn, because you'll probably need Block cards too (starting hand size is 5 for awhile). Or maybe you just want to move, and none of the cards you drew have move icons - each card can be used as a Move 1...which means you spend 2 to get just one plains space. (Your movement and vision change at night, as well as some spell effects.)

Second - damage is sluggish. You need X to kill a creature - fine. But to avoid damage from a monster, you spend block value equal to or greater than their attack value...or don't spend the cards. How about managing damage? Damage absorption is messy. And what happens if combat goes awry? Your hand floods with wounds, making you unable to draw cards. You spend your next turn, or turns as needed, discarding wounds into your discard pile (so next round you'll be crippled). Amazingly punishing.

Third - it's a deck-building game. You're supposed to add more cards to make your character better, right? The basic game is 3 large turns (Day, Night, Day.) Typically when you get a card, it goes on top of your deck - you'll get it for next turn. It's hard to imagine getting any of those cards in the first day cycle, which means for the effort of buying those cards, you *might* use them twice the entire game. Assuming you don't buy them on turn 3, or buy them turn 2 and not see them in turn 3.

There are variants, which I'm sure we'll explore. And the player vs. player, which they recommend for later games...maybe I'll revisit after some more experience.

How does my love affair with Eclipse die?

There are several main reasons why you give up a favorite or cherished game...here are some ideas.

1. You've played it so much, there is nothing else to learn or appreciate
2. It turns out there is only one way that anyone should play the game
3. You find a new game that you love more
4. Your friends tire of winning/losing/playing the game all of the time
5. You tire of your friends who will play the game

Eclipse has a really fascinating system for keeping interest. Every game is subtly different, due to when/if certain technologies show up, which systems are found, and what discovery tiles are revealed. There's a gambling nature in each of those cases, where you feel like you might get lucky in how things come your way...and you cherish those feelings so much - it lessens those memories of those other times, where things were normal.

Even in the games where it isn't going your way, there's that nagging feeling of those golden fields from the games of yore. Games strive for that sweet spot - it obviously can't happen every time, but it needs to happen *just* enough.

There's a game that my girlfriend picked up, seeking a good 2-player game. A Few Acres of Snow is an interesting game, where each player essentially builds their deck and plays it out according to their needs at the time. One person plays the British, the other French...deciding who wins the war in early North America. It has a sense of flavor for the history of that time period, which is awesome. Sadly, when looking up a rules clarification on BGG, it turns out there is one and only one strategy for the game, and it generally means that the British win. I read through it, displeased that it existed. Oh, the problems of static games. Imagine if there was a perfect opening for white in chess...only we're just not smart/computational enough to see it.

There were games before Eclipse. My friends and I have a long tradition of Settlers of Catan (more specifically, Cities and Knights). Race for the Galaxy and its expansions took over more than a couple of game groups. Through the Ages took out Le Havre. But by and large, the "perfect" game comes along rarely. More rarely, that it comes along to wipe out an existing perfect game.

Friends - they drive games the most. You can play some games solo, but that's usually not the motivation when desiring to play a board game. At Spiele, I found vendors were pretty much interested in doing demos for groups of friends. 4 people, great! My cynicism is that there's a chance that at least one person in the game will feel that it's the perfect game, and will champion it to the others (as well as picking up a copy, of course). Maybe that friend is tired of the favored game coming to the table. Someone recently told me a story of a friend who ONLY wants to play Power Grid. They sit down to decide a game, and the only game that he will play is that one...the group usually concedes out of politeness, but he'll find himself looking for a new group eventually.

Or sometimes you tire of the group who will play the game. Maybe you need new blood, or you become exhausted dealing with a certain player's style - whining, bickering, politicking, analysis-paralysis, etc.

For me, it'll probably be #3 - maybe that's what everyone should hope for. A better game can be hard to imagine, but maybe someday...

Book Review: Characteristics of Games

I have a couple of books I *should* review first, as I've had them longer - The Kobold Guide to Board Game Design and Raph Koster's Theory of Fun. Instead, I'll cover a book that's been on my mind a bit.

"Characteristics of Games" was written by Richard Garfield, Skaff Elias, and Robert Gutschera - veterans in the industry. The most important bit about the book, is it seeks to define and categorize ideas so that they can be discussed in an accurate manner. This is more of a textbook, rather than an armchair read.

One of the up-front categorizations of games, is that they are a race or a brawl (or a mix). Races are straightforward - you run for win condition, with little or no interaction from other players. Brawls are more common in multiplayer games, where interactions and politics drive the action.

When first playing Eclipse (the most recent game discussed), it felt a lot like a race. Get the most VP. Some jockeying takes place, as you try to master the game in the most efficient way. Now, it almost feels entirely like a brawl.

• As you research, you grab techs that become no longer available for others
• You explore, attempting to take away expansion options from rivals
• Upgrading your ships is a form of politics - if your opponents don't feel like they can beat your ship designs, they are more likely to wage war on other players...or maybe you lure a fleet against you, and then do your upgrades and builds to crush for more VP
• Where you build is key for intimidation and attacking
• Who you exchange ambassadors or make alliances with, will shape the game

The victory point race comes a distant second to the political (and ship-fighting) brawl that takes place.

An early discussion that takes place, is the discussion of heuristics, or the method of play.  I can identify with their general point that players get enjoyment from mastering heuristics of a game. Flipping a coin to determine who wins a game isn't satisfying. There's nothing you've learned or done, that makes you feel more likely to win in the future. Figuring out strategies and tactics engages a part of the brain that says "this is good, this is fun".

Flipping back to Eclipse, as you play the game through, you learn different ways of playing the game. You think "Ah-ha! I think this Tier 3 explore habit is pretty powerful, especially when paired with this other thing!" Maybe you figure out how to run your economy better. You no longer wonder "how can anyone win this game by skill?" You still might not win, but it encourages you to critically think where you went wrong, and where you could improve next time.

Let's say you do get better at the game. Sadly, according to the book, you may lose more often as a result. As politics get involved, other players are more likely to pick on the perceived "winner", or at least the person who is most on track to win. (This only matters in more than 2-player games.) Maybe this requires more knowledge on the part of the players, better political skills (both overt and indirect) on your part, or to develop a new technique that is less subject to politics.

There isn't a lot of directly applicable material, if you are looking to become better at playing games. One part stood out to me, in the topic of kingmaking. Usually how it goes, is that everyone tries to take down the first place player. I'm borrowing from the book, but I won't spoil the exact math. A, B, and C are playing a game. Each player has decreasing accuracy with their ability to take someone out of the game. In usual games, B & C take their shots at A, while A takes a shot at B (the closest in skill/chances of winning). How did the math actually work out? A should take out B. C should try to take out A. B - this is the interesting part...should go for C, at least according to the math.

But the book in general is extremely approachable, if dry. I've skimmed over several topics here - the book has another 50+. The appendices offer more in-depth knowledge, and occasionally you'll think about picking up some new math skills. If you aspire to good game design, this book can help with any gaps in your background - and it's unlikely that you'll have Richard/Skaff/Robert on call to talk about these things in person.

Thanks for sharing your knowledge with the world!

Eclipse, Rise of the Ancients.

As I mentioned in the last blog post, Eclipse is amazing. Lots of replay. The expansion, Rise of the Ancients, came out last December...right as I was leaving for a wintery Iowa Christmas.

It felt like a tough proposition - Eclipse, a 4-hour game, during a week of family gathering...most games are short stints where people can jump out and jump in, depending if they need to wrap presents, go shopping, help cook, etc. It was played nearly every day, sometimes twice. Let's talk about the expansion!

Sometimes expansions to board games change the strategies of the base game so much, that there can be a huge disconnect. Or rules changes, that break up poorly thought-out play balance issues. Fortunately, RotA exists primarily to add more content. New races, more discovery tiles, more hexes, some variants, and the ability to play up to 9. Maybe a little bit of anti-missile mechanics, but minor.

The expansion adds 3 unique aliens, as well as the "humans" of the expansion...basically the other side of each alien card. I'll try to limit myself to just the facts...followed by some tips.

Alien Overview
The Enlightened of Lyra (aka, the Shriners) - they get points for building and holding shrines at the end of the game. There are mini-rewards for building clusters of shrines, but one of the coolest parts is being able to spend unused colony ships to re-roll combat dice.

The Exiles (Orbitals of Death) - skip star bases...your orbitals are your starbases. Sadly, no combat speed and only 3 upgrade spaces mean that they won't be half as cool. To make up for this, you start with a rare cloaking technology - they have to block your ship with 2 of theirs...which means pinning you is a lot harder.

The Rho Indi Syndicate are chancers. They have faster combat speeds like the Orion Hegemony, and they have a built-in -1 shield which doesn't take up space. They lose out with Dreadnoughts - can't build them. They start with star bases and Gauss Shield, but it's unlikely they'll waste another precious ship space on their small ships for Gauss. They raid and pillage the best though - 4 ship activations every time, instead of the 2 for the other aliens (or 3 for humans).

The Magellans are the generic race of the expansion - maybe the best alien race to play. Their ships and actions are stock (except for Influence, which is slightly worse). You can turn unused colony ships into any resource; ship part (and spent) discovery tiles are worth 1 VP for you, instead of nothing; you get a free discovery tile the first time you get 4 discoveries in the same row; and you start with the 6-Energy Fusion Source. Amazing.

Tips & Strategy
The Shriners and the Exiles are tough to love. Both encourage defensive turtling strategies, which is extremely tough to pull off. Offense has its advantages in Eclipse - being able to decide where and when something is going to happen is huge. Losing the shrines or orbitals means a loss of VP and/or production, making those systems especially valuable for those folks trying to thwart you.

The Rho NEED combat, hopefully every round. If they find it, it's a pleasant game in the top finishers. If they can't find combat, they are in last place. With all of that movement capability, it pays off to have a fleet that can move. If you can move 4 ships into every battle, with just one influence disc, it gives you incredibly flexible tactics. After awhile, with a hefty armada, you can bring in a swarm of ships into each major combat (minimizing your losses).

The Magellans have some benefits that really encourage a scout/bankrupt style for the Tier 3 hexes. Ideally, every Tier 3 hex you explore has a discovery tile on it. The return is pretty good...if you discard it, you'll get a VP in addition to the perk. How does this play out? Explore 4-5 times in the first several rounds, with the expectation of not keeping any of them beyond your home planet at the end of the round due to planned bankruptcy. You get to use your colony ships for materials or science. Seriously, this is an easy thing to do. You sacrifice one, maybe two turns of the 9 that you get to explore Tier 3. Everyone else is losing discs to settling hexes, making modest inroads on a developed economy.

Other races can do the same Tier 3 sweep, but Magellans pay off a bit better with their resource-generating colony ships and VP for discarded discoveries. To counter the sweep, explore around those players, and limit their turns 3-5 expansions to their bad Tier 3 areas. Their economy is going to be dicey, depending on what discovery tiles they get. Because they aren't settling, they will have more discs handy...difficult to attack, but more likely to not get first pick of technologies. You can also try to counter their sweep of Tier 3's, by doing the same thing. Tough to pull off as well, but if they aren't hitting Tier 3 hexes with discovery tiles...it is probably richer for you.

I probably have at least a couple more discussions about the game. Maybe next time, I'll even cover design. ;)

Follow-up: Eclipse (pre-expansion), and general discussion of game duration

I wrote about Eclipse last year, and promised a follow-up article. (Link.) This is extremely delayed, and has been sitting as a draft for too long. I'll do a real follow-up about the expansion...soon?

Since that article last May, I've probably played 2-3 games a week. It's blocked out the sun, in terms of other games.

The elegance is nice, and hasn't dulled the overall appreciation of the game. Each of the alien races (except for maybe the Eradani) feel interesting, different, and balanced. The Eradani start with two less tokens, a ton of money, and 3 fair technologies. Two less tokens is painful though - you start eating your free money from the start, and you'll hemorrhage the whole game. The biggest deficit is at the end, where you have to stop playing actions because you're out...and others keep going.

Big, 6-player games can result in player combat (and betrayal) almost immediately. (I think I was hit turn 2, once.) We've had discussions on betraying people early so you don't get stuck with the -2 at the end of the game...obviously someone will betray again before it's over. Probably.

2- and 3-player games are a bit less diplomatic. Most of the points are known, and 1st place is likely going to see a couple of incursions in round 8/9.

As you explore, you get some degree of choice of how explored tiles are placed. Fencing off your area is pretty strategic, until someone grabs the expensive wormhole technology, and then you fall to pieces. Likewise, exploring in a way that cuts people off from attacking you (except through the galactic center) means that the Galactic Center is a public target - everyone can reach it, but only one at a time.

Oh, Galactic Center. It's there in every game. Slow, bulky, minorly defended Galactic Center. Your early games, it probably doesn't get hit until round 7 or 8.  If you're ambitious, maybe as early as round 5-6. It marks a turning point in the order of the universe - it's a juicy target and a super-highway to other players. Gloves are off.

Depending on the players, you might see a lot of ships crashing rival systems. While I haven't seen a player-wipe yet, it'll happen someday. What usually happens is player A takes a high-value system from B, and then C could choose...attack B, or attack A...and A has more points. Which leads us into...

Game Duration
As players, we generally accept how a game ends. There's no question of "what happens tomorrow?" Eclipse ends the game at an arbitrary 9 turns. Settlers of Catan says 10 points. Through the Ages when you run out of cards.

In the case of Eclipse, ending at 9 turns is important. You spend the first half of the game, setting the stage for the second half. What necessary technologies show up, who gets them, where the resources pop up, and how bad/good luck is distributed...with that in play, you make the best of what you can. Honestly, anything past 9 hits the "eternal strife mode" where no one gains ground...much like Risk games of old - player wipe would be the only solution.