So it gets a fair number of plays...
The green Growth dice are generally always the most useful. If the Portals are gone, the Growth ones is gone soon after. The weakest one lets you buy a second die - sadly, the game doesn't reward a lot of low-cost dice...you end up with a lot of dice, and you can't get a reliable spin. The favorite? The "Dark Ritual" (Growth Charm) lets you save the die for a turn where you can buy something big.
Death Charms come in second. Killing off other people's summoned dice comes second only to summoning monsters that are able to kill off other people's dice. In 2-player, the Death Incantation is pretty sweet - 5 for kill a level 2 or any level if you get the best version. But I like the Death Cantrip the best - it's hard to pull off a Stampede effectively, but it can take out all players' creatures.
The Victory and Shaping ones have nice dice - minor portal effects. As long as the dice are cheap - awesome...otherwise, they're tough be useful. The Shaping Cantrip is easily my favorite - bringing a just-killed creature back to your Ready Area is pretty broken in 2-player...dropping to pretty good in 3-player, and weaker in 4-player.
The Life and Corruption dice are my least favorite. Defense is pretty difficult to have be effective (plus, you're needing to knock out others' monsters). And finally, Corruption dice are pretty limp. Corruption Cantrip is probably okay if there is a lot of corrupted quiddity to give away. Otherwise, it just becomes extra space in your bag.
Overall, half of the spells could be tossed. They don't have enough "oomph!" when compared to VP-gaining monsters. Some of them make for some interesting combinations, but it's not easy to have enough time to buy the right dice (or even have the right dice to combine in the game). Adding a mechanic of "whenever you buy a spell, you may get rid of a basic quiddity", might make it more approachable.
Tough loves.
Sunday, January 22, 2012
Sunday, January 15, 2012
Why I don't like Caylus
There's a Thursday night game night, where we frequently hit 5 players. This means Le Havre, Caylus, Puerto Rico, Imperial...but normally Le Havre. I picked up Imperial, just because I loved the elegance of Antike, but Imperial doesn't have the same elegance for me.
Caylus I have, but it's not going to get dusted off, anytime soon. My last several experiences were pretty much identical (and miserable).
Caylus has a primary flaw - most of the game is placing workers - gaining special powers for a turn, gathering resources, building buildings, and making bricks for the king's castle. There's a gap after you place workers, and before you start resolving them...and this is where it gets to be a bully contest. Provost time!
Up to this point, there's no table talk. It only happens at the gap. Suddenly, you're trying to make deals with others players to sabotage another player or multiple players. It's tough to hit multiple players, as a tug of war rarely results in a big delta (change of position). So what typically happens, one person gets screwed.
This is why I associate it as the bully step. 2 or more people gang up to thwart one person. It's not a quick hit though, the bullies need to talk about how much they're going to spend amongst themselves, bullying their victim...and making sure that the victim can't fight back. (And the victim gets the extra pain as the bullies rationalize their behavior. Even the discussion becomes part of the act.)
Typically it's not the first place person, as the first place person doesn't need to take the outlier risks that can get burned. The anti-blue shell, the one that can only hit people not in first place. Normally, an interactive step might require 2nd and 3rd to combine forces, just to slow or stop 1st...not here.
That's my disappointment post with Caylus. Bullying and poor risk design. The rest of the game, great.
Caylus I have, but it's not going to get dusted off, anytime soon. My last several experiences were pretty much identical (and miserable).
Caylus has a primary flaw - most of the game is placing workers - gaining special powers for a turn, gathering resources, building buildings, and making bricks for the king's castle. There's a gap after you place workers, and before you start resolving them...and this is where it gets to be a bully contest. Provost time!
Up to this point, there's no table talk. It only happens at the gap. Suddenly, you're trying to make deals with others players to sabotage another player or multiple players. It's tough to hit multiple players, as a tug of war rarely results in a big delta (change of position). So what typically happens, one person gets screwed.
This is why I associate it as the bully step. 2 or more people gang up to thwart one person. It's not a quick hit though, the bullies need to talk about how much they're going to spend amongst themselves, bullying their victim...and making sure that the victim can't fight back. (And the victim gets the extra pain as the bullies rationalize their behavior. Even the discussion becomes part of the act.)
Typically it's not the first place person, as the first place person doesn't need to take the outlier risks that can get burned. The anti-blue shell, the one that can only hit people not in first place. Normally, an interactive step might require 2nd and 3rd to combine forces, just to slow or stop 1st...not here.
That's my disappointment post with Caylus. Bullying and poor risk design. The rest of the game, great.
Wednesday, December 7, 2011
Quarriors...Dominion on Dice
There are a lot of games that have been putting out dice versions of their existing board game brands. Settlers of Catan, Through the Ages, Ticket to Ride, Set, Yahtzee...oh...wait.
This game isn't an extension of a brand, but it has the Dominion feel. There have been several rival games riding Dominion's wave...and now there's a dice version. Wizkids produced a fairly good game made by a couple of veteran game designers Mike Elliott and Eric Lang. (Disclaimer: Known to me, not best friends. I think I have their cards somewhere. I would still say their games suck if they sucked.)
Saying "and now" previously is somewhat tricky. It actually came out in August, but it didn't show up on my radar until a recent game night. The game has an expansion that came out recently - following a rough game development schedule for CCGs, I bet they gave Wizkids the initial game in January 2011, and started working on expansions between other projects almost immediately. If I were a betting man, I'd say there were at least 3 expansions they've submitted to Wizkids at this point.
The game is all about dice. Instead of a deck of your own cards, you have a dice bag. Instead of a discard pile, you have an area where you set aside used dice until you run out of dice in your bag. The turn starts, and we'll skip the first phase...scoring.
1. Scoring: the idea is that you want Glory, aka victory points. If you manage to keep a creature die around for the entire run around the table, you score it for 1-4 points.
2. Roll dice: 6 dice. Do what they say, based on the cards on the table. At the beginning of the game, you set out 3 stock cards (a mana card, a basic creature card, and a reroll+add dice card). You deal out 3 random spells, and 7 random creatures. (Mostly random - each card has a color associated with it as well as 5 dice, and you can't put the same 5 dice on two different cards...)
3. Pay for creatures, set aside spells that were rolled. (Choosing to keep a creature die around will cost 1-3 mana, from mana rolled that turn.)
4. Kill off rival creatures. Let's say you summoned a creature with a 2 attack, and one with a 4 attack...you do 6 damage to each players' creatures. Your opponent chooses the defender order...it's possible they bring a stout defender up to protect their other dice.
5. Buy a die. Just like Dominion, you only get one Buy action. Add a new die, if you have the mana to buy it (cost is on the card).
6. Cleanup. Move dice away from your creatures and spells that you kept into a "Used" pile (discard).
Scoring is actually a bigger perk that just VP...you get to get rid of one of your dice from the used pool, accelerating the 'win' of scoring.
Overall, it's pretty interesting. There's dice, there's random dice being drawn from your bag...it has a skill element equivalent to Yahtzee, where you maximize what you can from your dice and you know it'll never be perfect. The rules can be messy. But it's a good 2-4 player game, that wraps up in 30-40 minutes.
*50+ plays later - the support for this is poor. There's one FAQ that was put out in August, which answers a couple of questions, but leaves unanswered key others. (For example, can you attach a spell during scoring?) It makes for a tough-to-love 4 player game...I think most of our 4-player games, one person ends up with 0-1 points. 2 & 3 are pretty good though.
This game isn't an extension of a brand, but it has the Dominion feel. There have been several rival games riding Dominion's wave...and now there's a dice version. Wizkids produced a fairly good game made by a couple of veteran game designers Mike Elliott and Eric Lang. (Disclaimer: Known to me, not best friends. I think I have their cards somewhere. I would still say their games suck if they sucked.)
Saying "and now" previously is somewhat tricky. It actually came out in August, but it didn't show up on my radar until a recent game night. The game has an expansion that came out recently - following a rough game development schedule for CCGs, I bet they gave Wizkids the initial game in January 2011, and started working on expansions between other projects almost immediately. If I were a betting man, I'd say there were at least 3 expansions they've submitted to Wizkids at this point.
The game is all about dice. Instead of a deck of your own cards, you have a dice bag. Instead of a discard pile, you have an area where you set aside used dice until you run out of dice in your bag. The turn starts, and we'll skip the first phase...scoring.
1. Scoring: the idea is that you want Glory, aka victory points. If you manage to keep a creature die around for the entire run around the table, you score it for 1-4 points.
2. Roll dice: 6 dice. Do what they say, based on the cards on the table. At the beginning of the game, you set out 3 stock cards (a mana card, a basic creature card, and a reroll+add dice card). You deal out 3 random spells, and 7 random creatures. (Mostly random - each card has a color associated with it as well as 5 dice, and you can't put the same 5 dice on two different cards...)
3. Pay for creatures, set aside spells that were rolled. (Choosing to keep a creature die around will cost 1-3 mana, from mana rolled that turn.)
4. Kill off rival creatures. Let's say you summoned a creature with a 2 attack, and one with a 4 attack...you do 6 damage to each players' creatures. Your opponent chooses the defender order...it's possible they bring a stout defender up to protect their other dice.
5. Buy a die. Just like Dominion, you only get one Buy action. Add a new die, if you have the mana to buy it (cost is on the card).
6. Cleanup. Move dice away from your creatures and spells that you kept into a "Used" pile (discard).
Scoring is actually a bigger perk that just VP...you get to get rid of one of your dice from the used pool, accelerating the 'win' of scoring.
Overall, it's pretty interesting. There's dice, there's random dice being drawn from your bag...it has a skill element equivalent to Yahtzee, where you maximize what you can from your dice and you know it'll never be perfect. The rules can be messy. But it's a good 2-4 player game, that wraps up in 30-40 minutes.
*50+ plays later - the support for this is poor. There's one FAQ that was put out in August, which answers a couple of questions, but leaves unanswered key others. (For example, can you attach a spell during scoring?) It makes for a tough-to-love 4 player game...I think most of our 4-player games, one person ends up with 0-1 points. 2 & 3 are pretty good though.
Wednesday, August 10, 2011
Catching up - augmented reality?
I've been gaming a bit, but mostly Through the Ages. Some of the FFG Civilization game, but nothing crazy new. Hmmm...I take it back, but I don't remember the game, so that'll wait for next time. I've been busy for the past couple of months, writing content and editing for a Facebook application - freelancing helps in paying bills and doing some interesting new things.
One of my fellow freelancers showed off his business card, which broadened my game design thoughts a lot. His business card has an AR code on it...a simpler looking code than the QR code I put on my new cards...but super-fantastic.
AR stands for Augmented Reality. Turn on your webcam, go to his website, and show the webcam his card...it's possible you could print off the code in the upper right part of his page and play with it from there. (Michael Kerr's site) What you see is a bunch of 3-D cubes popping off of his card, and you can move them around in all three dimensions. (Mike's an Interactive Media Developer - he says anyone who is a developer isn't wowed by it.)
If you go to youtube, there are plenty of demos for AR. What's cool is that you can have the AR cards interact with each other - someone had a Porygon facing off against a Pikachu, waving around a third card to mimic an attack.
What does this mean? In the future, these could be your trading cards. They could show hidden information, that didn't previously exist on the card's text. Your Shivan Dragon could literally pop out. A business card could actually have a 3D model of that person. Flash cards could interact with other flash cards - putting together a sentence with correct grammar, or a math problem spelled out. Maybe you want a 3-D model that you can examine what it looks like when you take something apart.
Augmented Reality has a lot more than just these cards, really...but it's a start.
One of my fellow freelancers showed off his business card, which broadened my game design thoughts a lot. His business card has an AR code on it...a simpler looking code than the QR code I put on my new cards...but super-fantastic.
AR stands for Augmented Reality. Turn on your webcam, go to his website, and show the webcam his card...it's possible you could print off the code in the upper right part of his page and play with it from there. (Michael Kerr's site) What you see is a bunch of 3-D cubes popping off of his card, and you can move them around in all three dimensions. (Mike's an Interactive Media Developer - he says anyone who is a developer isn't wowed by it.)
If you go to youtube, there are plenty of demos for AR. What's cool is that you can have the AR cards interact with each other - someone had a Porygon facing off against a Pikachu, waving around a third card to mimic an attack.
What does this mean? In the future, these could be your trading cards. They could show hidden information, that didn't previously exist on the card's text. Your Shivan Dragon could literally pop out. A business card could actually have a 3D model of that person. Flash cards could interact with other flash cards - putting together a sentence with correct grammar, or a math problem spelled out. Maybe you want a 3-D model that you can examine what it looks like when you take something apart.
Augmented Reality has a lot more than just these cards, really...but it's a start.
Friday, March 25, 2011
Politics, aka Collusion Revisited
I recently started listening to the podcasts at Games with Garfield (link on the side), and the most recent podcast as of right now, is their game discussion of King of Tokyo.
It covers a new game he's releasing through a French publisher, Iello. It's not out in the US yet, but the game discussion he has with Jessica Price and Skaff Elias is really interesting.
They have a fun talk, ranging from game design, to politics in games, into games in different cultures. Their discussion of politics is particularly sharp, and makes me ponder further on the nature of collusion in games.
Skaff and Richard have a quick breakdown for politics in a game - if you can help or hurt another player, there's politics. "Attack him, he's in first place." Their clarification that politics doesn't exist in a game like Werewolf, because there are only two sides. They play a version where the villagers, dead or alive, win if they kill of the werewolves...therefore you wouldn't care if you died, as long as your side wins.
Politics aren't necessarily bad. They had a point, where you're playing the players, not the game, inside a political game. In a game like Ra, you're studying their pressure points. One of my brothers will act differently than another - one tactic won't work the same on both.
Collusion can take place in non-political games, but it's much harder. If you can't help or hurt another player directly, politics is hard. For example, in Through the Ages, if the aggression and war cards are taken out, most of the politics have been removed. You could still collude - on drafting, how many units players build, how much you bid for colonies...
In my Collusion Part 2 article, I talk about fighting collusion...and perhaps I can add to that, after pondering the role of politics in a game. We can talk about collusion as *part* of the politics of a game. In this way, collusion becomes acceptable...as long as you're willing to talk about it in terms of the politics of a game.
It's still a difficult task. People see themselves as normal. I am Jimmer. When I am playing a game, it is Jimmer playing a game. There isn't usually a split personality, where all of a sudden - Mr. Hyde shows up. If you point out in a game, where Alice and Bob are always teaming up...Alice and Bob are generally going to get hard feelings. "We're not ganging up on you, honest! We just both play the game the same way, we would never cheat!"
The problem is, Alice and Bob could be teaming up, even subconsciously. They've known each other for 15 years, and me for 2...who has the deeper bond? In a 3-player political game, you'd guess that I would generally lose. If you bring up that topic, they might feel forced to attack each other...which might not even be correct game strategy - they just want to fake being Dr. Jekyll, to avoid the unpleasant topic of collusion.
So it appears that collusion is perhaps more common in political games - it's very hard to pull off otherwise. When looking at designing a game (or playing one), there are choices you can make that would limit the types of collusion available, should you dislike collusion.
I don't think I'm entirely against political-style games, but it's certainly something to consider when choosing a game for the evening.
And don't forget to check out Games with Garfield - he's an awesome fellow!
It covers a new game he's releasing through a French publisher, Iello. It's not out in the US yet, but the game discussion he has with Jessica Price and Skaff Elias is really interesting.
They have a fun talk, ranging from game design, to politics in games, into games in different cultures. Their discussion of politics is particularly sharp, and makes me ponder further on the nature of collusion in games.
Skaff and Richard have a quick breakdown for politics in a game - if you can help or hurt another player, there's politics. "Attack him, he's in first place." Their clarification that politics doesn't exist in a game like Werewolf, because there are only two sides. They play a version where the villagers, dead or alive, win if they kill of the werewolves...therefore you wouldn't care if you died, as long as your side wins.
Politics aren't necessarily bad. They had a point, where you're playing the players, not the game, inside a political game. In a game like Ra, you're studying their pressure points. One of my brothers will act differently than another - one tactic won't work the same on both.
Collusion can take place in non-political games, but it's much harder. If you can't help or hurt another player directly, politics is hard. For example, in Through the Ages, if the aggression and war cards are taken out, most of the politics have been removed. You could still collude - on drafting, how many units players build, how much you bid for colonies...
In my Collusion Part 2 article, I talk about fighting collusion...and perhaps I can add to that, after pondering the role of politics in a game. We can talk about collusion as *part* of the politics of a game. In this way, collusion becomes acceptable...as long as you're willing to talk about it in terms of the politics of a game.
It's still a difficult task. People see themselves as normal. I am Jimmer. When I am playing a game, it is Jimmer playing a game. There isn't usually a split personality, where all of a sudden - Mr. Hyde shows up. If you point out in a game, where Alice and Bob are always teaming up...Alice and Bob are generally going to get hard feelings. "We're not ganging up on you, honest! We just both play the game the same way, we would never cheat!"
The problem is, Alice and Bob could be teaming up, even subconsciously. They've known each other for 15 years, and me for 2...who has the deeper bond? In a 3-player political game, you'd guess that I would generally lose. If you bring up that topic, they might feel forced to attack each other...which might not even be correct game strategy - they just want to fake being Dr. Jekyll, to avoid the unpleasant topic of collusion.
So it appears that collusion is perhaps more common in political games - it's very hard to pull off otherwise. When looking at designing a game (or playing one), there are choices you can make that would limit the types of collusion available, should you dislike collusion.
I don't think I'm entirely against political-style games, but it's certainly something to consider when choosing a game for the evening.
And don't forget to check out Games with Garfield - he's an awesome fellow!
Tuesday, March 8, 2011
2-player games
I've been dating a lovely young lady for about 3 months now, which means a bit more of the two player games than normal.
We started off with Carcassonne and Thurn & Taxis, branching into backgammon and cribbage. (We even dove into my old copy of Khet, aka chess+lasers!)
She decided to start a board game library again, beginning with one of the Carcassonne Big Box versions...5 expansions, enough for 6 players, etc. (Ah, we have it at both places now!)
She also picked up Lost Cities, Lords of Vegas, Hive, and Mr. Jack.
Lost Cities is a tight, 2-player only game that is one of the few games that was pulled by its publisher on Xbox Live. In 2008, it was nominated for best of XBLA 2008...and withdrawn before it could win. The turns are quick and full of choices - do you go for big points? Can you discard a certain card, without powering up the opponent? Do you skip steps to get done with that part of the game faster?
Depending on the speed of players, a game can wrap up in 20-30 minutes. Fun.
Lords of Vegas is 2-4 players, with a fair amount of gambling and real-estate management. We've modified the rules slightly to remove the bottom quarter of the deck, instead of pretending we can't count cards. Fast, light...no dense ideas to process. Easy game to teach to rules-averse players.
Hive is a tile-laying game, where you try to trap the opponent's queen bee. I think it is limited in play, but maybe fair when the players come to the game on an equal scale. It's like a shorter game of chess...but I don't recommend chess highly - therefore I don't recommend Hive quickly.
Mr. Jack, I thought would suffer from a similar fate. 8 characters running around London, controlled by the detective player and Mr. Jack. One of the eight is Mr. Jack's imposter, and the detective has to piece together which one it is based on in-game hints and the overall play of Jack. It's broken down into consumable chunks, with strong pacing and a lot of choices. It's my latest "favorite two player". I'm just hoping my turns don't take too long.
We started off with Carcassonne and Thurn & Taxis, branching into backgammon and cribbage. (We even dove into my old copy of Khet, aka chess+lasers!)
She decided to start a board game library again, beginning with one of the Carcassonne Big Box versions...5 expansions, enough for 6 players, etc. (Ah, we have it at both places now!)
She also picked up Lost Cities, Lords of Vegas, Hive, and Mr. Jack.
Lost Cities is a tight, 2-player only game that is one of the few games that was pulled by its publisher on Xbox Live. In 2008, it was nominated for best of XBLA 2008...and withdrawn before it could win. The turns are quick and full of choices - do you go for big points? Can you discard a certain card, without powering up the opponent? Do you skip steps to get done with that part of the game faster?
Depending on the speed of players, a game can wrap up in 20-30 minutes. Fun.
Lords of Vegas is 2-4 players, with a fair amount of gambling and real-estate management. We've modified the rules slightly to remove the bottom quarter of the deck, instead of pretending we can't count cards. Fast, light...no dense ideas to process. Easy game to teach to rules-averse players.
Hive is a tile-laying game, where you try to trap the opponent's queen bee. I think it is limited in play, but maybe fair when the players come to the game on an equal scale. It's like a shorter game of chess...but I don't recommend chess highly - therefore I don't recommend Hive quickly.
Mr. Jack, I thought would suffer from a similar fate. 8 characters running around London, controlled by the detective player and Mr. Jack. One of the eight is Mr. Jack's imposter, and the detective has to piece together which one it is based on in-game hints and the overall play of Jack. It's broken down into consumable chunks, with strong pacing and a lot of choices. It's my latest "favorite two player". I'm just hoping my turns don't take too long.
Thursday, February 17, 2011
C-More C-iv
I played Civilization several more times through, finally getting a 4-player game in. Game 1 of last Friday, we started off as a 3-player game. I figured I would try out the coin win. I made a couple of mistakes, but successfully hid my coin plan until it was too late for the other players to unite against me. My final turn I gained 3 coins from having researching Banks...really awesome, but making the level 1 version of it is now completely a giveaway.
The 4-player game, I fell into another coin strategy as the Chinese...I picked up monument pieces early from huts and villages, but then drew into famous figures who had coins as well. I used shortcuts I learned in the previous game, executed them earlier, and won so fast that we finished in 2-2.5 hours. Coins seem to be much easier to win with - it takes some tactics, but it's more reliable than military and takes less time than culture/science victories.
I hosted a game night last Saturday for friends, where we played Le Havre, 7 Wonders, and Cash'n'Guns. 7 Wonders is hard for me to teach well...either the game is awkward for learning, or I am. (And I've demoed hundreds of games, some more than others.)
7 Wonders is nice and relatively fast, but I have some doubts for long-term play. First, there are only so many choices you make. Second, the stacks of cards within an Age are completely random. Finally, you might not be able to get some cards at a big enough table...if you need a cloth, they might not exist for you or your nearby friends. Maybe pay 3 to the bank to get it.
It's a beautiful game, but I'm sad that it doesn't do more. Maybe it is waiting to do expansions to make the game interesting...they released an 8th Wonder through BGG.
Sunday day will be featuring Advanced Civilization, an old-school game. The corrupted trade bit is probably the most interesting thing about it, but the players are all good people and a great way to spend 6-7 hours.
The 4-player game, I fell into another coin strategy as the Chinese...I picked up monument pieces early from huts and villages, but then drew into famous figures who had coins as well. I used shortcuts I learned in the previous game, executed them earlier, and won so fast that we finished in 2-2.5 hours. Coins seem to be much easier to win with - it takes some tactics, but it's more reliable than military and takes less time than culture/science victories.
I hosted a game night last Saturday for friends, where we played Le Havre, 7 Wonders, and Cash'n'Guns. 7 Wonders is hard for me to teach well...either the game is awkward for learning, or I am. (And I've demoed hundreds of games, some more than others.)
7 Wonders is nice and relatively fast, but I have some doubts for long-term play. First, there are only so many choices you make. Second, the stacks of cards within an Age are completely random. Finally, you might not be able to get some cards at a big enough table...if you need a cloth, they might not exist for you or your nearby friends. Maybe pay 3 to the bank to get it.
It's a beautiful game, but I'm sad that it doesn't do more. Maybe it is waiting to do expansions to make the game interesting...they released an 8th Wonder through BGG.
Sunday day will be featuring Advanced Civilization, an old-school game. The corrupted trade bit is probably the most interesting thing about it, but the players are all good people and a great way to spend 6-7 hours.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
