Board Game Geek Reviews

by Tstefan

Witam

Zapraszam do zapoznania się z krótką, acz treściwą (miejmy nadzieję) recenzją gry Ingenious Tavel Edition – bardzo dobrej abstrakcyjnej gry logicznej autorstwa Reinera Knizia. Miłej lektury!

*



Krótki opis
Czym jest Ingenious? „Wspaniałą grą dla dwóch mózgów” – takie mnie więcej zachęcające (?) sformułowanie odnajdziemy na pudełku z grą. Co to oznacza w praktyce? Każdy z graczy ma za zadanie zdobyć jak najwięcej punktów układając na planszy żetony stanowiące połączenie dwóch tzw. heksów, czyli sześciokątów foremnych. Jeżeli położenie żetonu powoduje powstanie linii (jednej lub kilku) w jednym kolorze, gracz dostaje punkty. Warto nadmienić, że omawiana tutaj gra to dwuosobowe wydanie; Ingenious w podstawowej (sporo droższej) wersji może „obsłużyć” od dwóch do czterech graczy.



Co w pudełku?
Plastykowe komponenty. Hmm… Dlaczego nie papier i tekturka? ;-) Nie bądźmy malkontentami. Plastyk ma pewne zalety: np. można z niego wykonać różne pożyteczne rzeczy, takie jak mydelniczki czy miski dla kotów, a nawet karoserię samochodów (patrz: Trabant). Poza tym gra papierowa na pewno szybciej się zniszczy. Niech będzie plastyk. Zresztą już pierwsza minuta grania powoduje, że zapominamy myśleć o podobnych sprawach, gra się po prostu świetnie… Na plus zaliczymy zaprojektowanie elementów: kołeczki odmierzające punktacje jak i same żetony dobrze trzymają się planszy – to naprawdę jest Travel Edition (wersja podróżna). Nie straszne nam polskie „drogi” i podskakiwanie na tylnym siedzeniu samochodu.



Jak gra się w Ingeniousa Travel Edition?
Bardzo fajnie! Zasady są bardzo proste, praktycznie z biegu można zasiąść do grania. Gracze wykonują ruchy na zmianę: w każdej turze mamy położyć na planszy jeden z 6 dostępnych w każdej chwili żetonów, zaraz potem następuje podliczenie punktów i zaznaczenie ich w tabeli punktacji (służą do tego kolorowe kołeczki). Gra premiuje sprytne zagrania. Ponadto dobrze jest choć trochę kontrolować ruchy przeciwnika… Sama rozgrywka jest po prostu świetna, nie bez powodu gra dostała tak wiele pozytywnych ocen od użytkowników serwisu.



Stosunek jakość/cena:
Za grę zapłaciłem nieco ponad 60 złotych – jest to cena nieco wygórowana, biorąc pod uwagę to, co jest w pudełku, aczkolwiek niestety taniej nie znajdziemy. No cóż, płacimy za pomysł. I szczerze mówiąc, warto…



Fusy, plusy i minusy
Fusy:
Plastik? (dla malkontentów)

Minusy:
Plastik i jego jakość, zwłaszcza sama plansza jest niezbyt piękna.
Są gracze, którzy lubią obłędną grafikę…
Cena powinna być nieco niższa.

Plusy:
Po minucie gry nie zwracamy uwagi na jakość wykonania: sama rozgrywka jest bardzo wciągająca.
Plastik – gra na pewno będzie dłuuugo służyła, papier szybciej się nieszczy.
Brak tematu graficznego? Phi… ważne, żeby dobrze się grało.
Ingenious ma coś w sobie – na pewno szybko się nie znudzi.
Świetna, błyskotliwa mechanika gry.
Łatwa do nauczenia się.
Dobrze zaprojektowane komponenty – to faktycznie jest Travel Edition.
Kolejna dobra gra dwuosobowa.



Konkluzja – dla kogo jest Ingenious Travel Edition?
Dla dwojga graczy, którzy mają ochotę na dość szybką i łatwą do nauczenia grę logiczną, która jednakowoż nie jest ani banalna ani płytka. W gruncie rzeczy nie wiadomo, skąd to się bierze, ale w Ingeniousa po prostu chce się grać – znowu i znowu… Nie decyduje o tym jakość wykonania (przynajmniej nie w przypadku omawianej Travel Ed.), lecz znakomity pomysł i przemyślana mechanika. Jeżeli nie masz nic przeciwko grom nieprzedstawiającym żadnego konkretnego tematu, lub przynajmniej chcesz zacząć przygodę z abstrakcyjnymi grami logicznymi, a ponadto często grasz w składzie dwuosobowym – bierz w ciemno! Bardzo grywalne!

Ode mnie gra dostaje 8 pkt. na BGG. Zamierzam do niej często zasiadać: szybkie przygotowanie do gry, błyskotliwa mechanika oraz satysfakcjonująca rozgrywka sprawiły, że bardziej zainteresowałem się abstrakcyjnymi grami logicznymi. Ingenious to klasyk, który w moim domu przez długi czas będzie dostarczał niebanalnej rozgrywki. Walkę mózgów czas zacząć ;-)



PS. Jeżeli w tekście znalazły się błędy literowe, pzrzeprazsam…

by wankongyew

NOTE: Since my review of Chaos in the Old World seems to be doing okay, I thought I'd an earlier one on Age of Conan. Hey, more reading material is always good, right?



One of the problems I have when writing about boardgames is that it’s impossible to wait until I’ve played a game several times in order to write about it. This is because for some games it can be very difficult to arrange multiple sessions of a game within a reasonable span of time. Apparently one of the dark secrets of the hobby is that many owners only get to play some of the bigger games they buy a handful of times, sometimes not at all, and yet they keep buying them anyway!

This was the case with Age of Conan, a game that Han brought in to play at CarcaSean and that I probably won’t see again for a long time. This means that all of my impressions and opinions were gleaned from a single playthrough and should be taken with the appropriate grain of salt. As its name implies, this game is set during the fictional Hyborian Age from the stories of Robert E. Howard. Up to four players each take control of one of the major nations of the era and strive to be the greatest empire of all.

Each player only takes one action during his turn and there are really only three types of actions to choose from: military, intrigue or court. The military action allows you to either move or attack with your armies or build additional troops. The intrigue action enables you to move your emissaries, deploy more of them or try to use to convert a province to an ally. Finally, the court action basically lets you either draw cards or play them.



The twist is that not of the actions are available all of the time. Instead, a pool of possible actions is created by throwing seven dice and the actions available correspond to the symbols that turn up. Some die faces show wild cards which can be used to perform any action and some show dual symbols, but the rules state that these must effectively be the last dice to be taken from the pool. Whenever a player picks one of the available actions, he removes the appropriate die from the pool, so that there are fewer and fewer choices left. Once all the dice have been taken, they are rolled again to create a new pool.

Of course this wouldn’t be a Conan game without the barbarian himself in it so in addition to fighting against each other on the map, the players also vie for control over Conan. This is done by secretly submitting bid tokens. Whoever wins gets to control Conan’s movement on the map and if he happens to be an area where you’re fighting against an enemy nation, he will be able to lend his mighty sword to your cause. Conan however has his own adventures to get on with and if his controller helps him to get to his objective, he’s rewarded with adventure tokens that can be immediately exchanged for resources or kept to earn points at the end of the game.

After Conan has completed four adventures, one age is complete and the nations must consolidate, earning money from the provinces they control and spending it on additional troops and other resources. At the end of the third age, the game ends and the victor is determined according to how many empire points each nation has earned. Alternatively, during the third age, a player who controls Conan can try to crown him as his nation’s king. This ends the game prematurely and gives the nation that successfully pulls this off a significant bonus in points.

The key to winning is in fact through military conquest because you immediately earn points equal to the value of any province you successfully subjugate and don’t lose those points even when another nation grabs that province away from you. Converting a province into an ally through diplomacy never earns any points, but is usually much quicker and allows you to immediately earn money in between ages. The Conan mechanic itself seems to mostly act as a timer. It’s quite difficult to actually use him to help out your nation directly but it’s evident that whoever controls him most of the time can achieve a lead in adventure tokens.



During our session, I controlled Hyperboria which starts with only four army units, one less than Turan and Hyperboria, but like Stygia has two sorcery tokens which can be spent to reroll any dice I throw. I also started with an artifact that gave me a bonus die whenever I attempted an intrigue action, so I spent my early turns converting a couple of neutral provinces into allies. This allowed me to get some decent money at the end of the first age but left me trailing behind in the race for empire points.

My wife played Aquilonia, which occupies the centre portion of the map and thus is a natural focal point for most of the action. She started with an artifact which allows her to win ties in military contests even as the attacker (the defender normally wins) and focused almost exclusively on military action. She actually managed to build and sustain a small lead throughout the game, while at the same time gaining control of Conan enough times to be more than competitive in the grab for adventure tokens.

Another way to earn empire points is by fulfilling the conditions on the objective cards that come up. Sure enough one of the cards that popped up awarded bonus points to the nation that had the most forts in the centre portion of the map and Sean, controlling the Turans, duly gravitated in that direction. As the cowardly player that I always end up becoming, I headed northwards and contented myself with munching on the empty neutral provinces there. This kept me in the running without becoming entangled in any big wars but you really need to be bold to win these kinds of games.



Our game ended when my wife succeeded in crowning Conan as king. Unfortunately, her obvious attempt to do so had made her the obvious target and both Han and Sean continuously attacked her. Han in particular was able to play some impressive Kingdom cards, representing the special abilities unique to each of the nations, that significantly boosted his military power, and gradually whittled down Shan’s forts. What the rest of us, except for Han, had forgotten was that the value of each province is added again to the final score at the end. Since Shan only had two forts left by the time she crowned Conan, she came in at last place even though she had a small lead before that. I think she’s still upset about that.

Overall, I found the game to be decent enough without being particularly impressive in any way. Some of the military aspects and the idea of splitting the game into three ages with a consolidation phase in between each phase reminded me a bit of Struggle of Empires, but SoE is still the cleverer and more interesting game. The mechanics involving Conan feel a bit odd to me as he simply moves around the map and completes quest automatically. I suppose that this is a necessary abstraction and it would be silly to have Conan fail at anything, but I would have preferred some additional options there.

As it is, anyone who’s a devoted Conan fan, as Han obviously is, will probably love the game. I’d like to play more in order to see what additional options the Kingdom cards offer, but it seems to me that you draw them very slowly over the course of the game. Finally, I note that the estimated playing time on BGG at 90 minutes is wildly inaccurate. In our case, we took nearly four hours to finish, though that includes extra time taken to explain the rules.

by pupq

I've played [thing=27833][/thing] several times with the regular rules, and recently aquired Steam Barons.

The expansion offers four main features:

Wooden Trains



These replace the discs in the main set for use in marking tracks on the board. They're required, to some extent, when playing the stock market game, as that requires about 10 discs for marking stock ownership/value/etc, and so the normal discs are used for that, the trains are used for track.

The trains nice looking, and work well on the board. That said, I found the wooden discs to be more asthetically pleasing (something about the round discs on the board just made it look cleaner), and may continue to use these when I play non-stock-market Steam.

The trains come in the six "official" Steam colors (white, natural, brown, orange, green, and black). So, if your copy of Steam came with the extra colors (as mine did), you'll have to switch to using the normal colors for the stock game.

Several people have noted that the natural color trains are hard to distinguish from the white. I solved that by simply drawing a light brown line down the natural trains (and discs) with a Sharpie; now, it's easy to tell them apart, even in dim light.

New Board



Steam Barons also includes a double-sided board, with one side being the US, and the other being England. This board must be used for the stock game, but may used for the non-stock (base or standard) Steam game.

I haven't played the non-stock game on the board, so I can't comment on that. It does have a lot of cities and towns (more than the board that comes with Steam), any may make a slightly easier game. It also includes mountains that are $3, in addition to $2 hills.

The new boards will allow up to six players. To facilitate this number of players, extra tiles are included (mostly the standard non-town, 2-connection straight/gentle curve). Additional money is also included (since the stock game has bigger payouts).

The Stock Game



The stock game itself is a significant variation from Steam. Some of the changes are:

- Instead of players individually building track, now companies build track and move goods.

- There's no auction for player order; rather, the company turn order is randomly chosen.

- Locomotive sizes and player income isn't used.

- Towns cannot be urbanized, nor is there city growth (towns are given a cube each, though, so there's still plenty of goodies on the board)

- Players can buy and sell stock; selling stock is the main way that players earn income (though they also get dividends from high-performing companies)

The stock game seems more complex to me than the standard Steam game--there's the additional layer of trying to think about every companies best move, and constantly evaluate whether to sell or buy that shares.
That additional complexity, of course, can be good or bad, depending on your perspective.

The stock game also seems a bit less predictable. In addition to the usual sources of unpredictability (which goods will an opponent move, etc), the company order is randomly selected (which, judging from some comments on BGG, isn't very popular). In addition, you have to decide which stocks to sell before you'll know the turn order for the next turn--removing a valuable clue to the value of a company.

Personally, I don't mind these features--it helps keep the game in a "intuitive" mode, rather than a "I can count every single thing and it becomes a math exercise" mode.

I don't know how often I'll play the stock game with 3 to 6--the additional complexity may make it a bit harder to get to the table.

2 Player

The last main feature that this offers is that the stock game allows for 2 to 6 players (since you'll always be using all 6 companies, the board fills up and gets tense; you don't need more players to make that happen, as you would in the normal game).

With two players, the stock game makes for an interesting, one-on-one challenge. Some of the feel is lost--you can't form allegiances with another player on a company where you both on stock--but there are additional strategies: since you'll both own controlling shares in several companies, you can use one company to help another of yours, or sacrifice one just to screw up the delicate plans of a company controlled by your opponent.

Overall

I'm glad I got this. Each of the features, on its own, wouldn't be worth the money: I just don't think the stock game will prove as popular for most people as the standard game. However, having a good two-player option AND wooden trains AND new boards AND new rules makes this a well-valued addition to Steam.

by EyesOfWolf

General Information
Number of Players: 2 - 4
Length of Game: 1.5 - 2 hours
Difficulty of Game:
Strategic Depth:
Fun Factor:
Popularity at local game night:

Overview
In the game of Y’s, you take the role of a merchant. And like any good merchant, you want to increase your profits and outperform all of your rival merchants. Isn’t that the basis for the great concept of capitalism at its finest? All of the trade that you are interested in is gems. You want to amass a fortune much greater than anyone else in precious stones. But the market is fickle. You need to stay aware or else all of the gems you so coveted might drop rapidly in value, and at that point, your precious stone collection could be worth little more than a bag of rocks.

Game Materials
The board for this game is very well put together, from both an artistic stand point and also from a durability standpoint. While it has not been played a lot, it is made of thick hard cardboard and leads me to believe that it will stand the test of time well. The city and market areas are well illustrated with a high level of detail. As for the rest of the pieces and cards, they are standard but of good quality. The cards and tokens serve a purpose, but do not have an inherent artistic value. They do serve their purpose well, are clear, and also seem to be of significant durability.

Play Summary
The game is divided up into four turns. Each turn starts with players bidding on turn order. Once that has been established, players put out tokens, two at a time. After placing two tokens, play goes to the next player until it goes all the way around. The first player then places two more tokens, and so on, until everyone has placed all of their tokens save one. This last token is put in front of the players’ screens and is used to break ties.

Once all of the tokens are placed, the relevant areas of the city are scored and points, gems, or special action cards are awarded. Finally, the market is adjusted, and then play continues to the next turn. At the end of the fourth turn, all of the players total up their gem counts. Points are assessed based on who has the most gems of a certain color. For example, if all the other players have 2, 3, and 4 red gems, you will score the same if you have 5 red gems, or 20 red gems. It only matters where you rank in comparison to other players. After the final total, a winner is decided.

Each of the tokens has a value painted on one side ranging from 0 to 4. Every player has the same number of tokens of each number. When you are placing the tokens, you always place one face down and one face up. So one of the values is known, and the other is hidden. It is possible to win a region with a zero point token if no one else places a token in that area. The zeroes also have a reasonably high value in the market as I will explain later, and as ways to scare people by putting them face down.

When you are bidding for turn order, each player picks two tokens and places them in front of their screens. Once all players have placed tokens, the values are revealed. Whoever bid the highest takes the position he or she wants. Usually, it is to go last since that enables you to place tokens in relatively undefended or unoccupied zones at the end of the turn. Then the next highest player picks a position to go. If there are any ties at this point, they are broken by turn order of the previous turn. So, if player A went first on the previous turn and bids 5 for position, while player B went fourth and bids 5 for position, A would get to pick position before B would. In the case of the first turn, the winner is decided randomly.

Once turn order has been determined, the placing of tokens commences until we get to the scoring portion. In the scoring portion, ties are broken by the tokens in front of a player’s screen. This includes the two tokens used to bid for position and the final token that was not placed on the board. If there is a tie in this, then turn order determines the winner as above.

The city is divided into four quarters and three circles, making twelve distinct regions. If you are playing with less than four people, you will only be using three of the quarters. Each quarter has a ship card associated with it. This is a collection of three gems on one card. The large gem on the card represents two of that gem color, so each quarter has a total of four gems arriving to it on ship every turn. If you place the highest total value in the entire quarter, you get the first pick of gems. The player with the most value in the quarter gets to pick two of the four gems to keep, and they can be any of the four. The next player gets to choose one of the remaining two gems. The third ranked player, even if he or she has a value of 0, but still has a token in that quarter, gets the final gem. If there is a fourth player in the quarter, that player receives nothing from the shipment. This is done for each of the quarters.

In addition, each section of a quarter is evaluated differently. The outer ring of the circle grants the highest contributor to that 12th a precious black gem. Black gems are worth a set value at the end of the game, regardless of how many black gems other players have. The middle circle of each quarter grants the highest contributor an immediate three victory points. And finally, the inner circle of each quarter grants the use a special card which can be used to give you a bonus. For example, some special cards allow you to change the market, or grant you a couple of free gems. The cards must be played on a subsequent turn. Because of this, in the last turn of the game, there are no special cards and they are instead replaced with white gems. White gems, whether acquired during the last turn from the center ring or from ship delivery on a previous turn, must be traded in at the end of the turn they are acquired. When you trade in a white gem, you can take a colored gem of any type except black.

Finally, we get to the market. First of all, when you place a token in the market, you immediately gain a victory point. These should be scored at the time of placement in the market. Each row of the market has a gem associated with it. Whoever scored the most points in that row is awarded that gem. If there is a tie, it is broken by the number of tokens used to make that value, and then by the normal fashion described above. More tokens is better, so having a 2 and a 1 is better than just a 3.

Then the columns are looked at. This is where the market can fluctuate. The gem stone which has the highest value in the column above it goes up by two points. The next highest stone goes up by one point. The next highest value goes down by one point and the lowest value decreases two points. Here, and at the end of the game, ties are broken by which gem is closest to blue. It goes blue, green, yellow, and red.

The last move in any turn is that the highest contributor to the market total gets to adjust any one gem value up or down one point. At this point, the turn is over and play continues to the next turn.

Play Experience
This game is very well put together in terms of interacting with other players. A large part of this game becomes predicting what the other players will do an using that to your advantage. What comes along with that is trying to mislead players with what your overall goal. Other players have imperfect information about your pieces. They know the total pieces available, which ones were used up to bid for turn position, and which ones are face up on the game board. The rest of it, they can only speculate upon. It makes it interesting and tricky to try and steal a sector or a quarter out from underneath a player.

What works to your advantage is if you can bluff other players into committing a large number of their resources to take a single section when you contributed a relatively minor force. This is a huge advantage and is one of the many places where face down tokens come to your advantage. You can also try to scare out other players with multiple face down tokens of low to no value. Often times this might make other players decide it would not be worth the price you are forcing in order to gain control. In both of these situations, you come out on top. But, of course, other players are attempting to do it to you as well.

The market is a critical component of this game and some people overlook it until the end game, which does not appear to be a sound strategy. Collecting a lot of gems can be a useless endeavor if the majority of them are one or two colors and those are the worst-valued gems on the market. As such, you need to pay attention to the market, and more than likely, try to influence it in your favor. I have seen games won by a last minute switch on market values during the last turn; a move which made the entire difference between a first and a second place finish.

Because of the nature of the game, players can spend a long time planning their moves. This can be frustrating to some, and it warrants mentioning. In my experience, most players don’t take so long that you become bored waiting for your turn to come around. But, I can easily see it happening as a player weighs all of the options.

One final thing to mention is that this game has received a relatively low score for game night popularity. At this point, I think that is more of an indication that it is new to the game group and there are few people who know how to play it. As it gets brought out more often, I can see this game becoming more popular as a local game night option.

Notable Praise
The interaction with the other players is key to this game and a very good element. Paying attention to what they place, why, when, and trying to figure out the values of this unknown pieces is truly an exciting element. It is also fun to try and use your face down pieces to manipulate other players into doing something to your advantage. I think that the game captures this feeling very well and it is one of the main strong points of the game.

I think the other key element is the use of the market. You do not always need to be snatching up the most gems to win. While it certainly helps, it is by no means a requirement. Ignoring the market is something that can often come back to haunt you in the end game. Paying close attention to and manipulating the market is at least a key element in winning the game. This multiple approach to winning is a nice element when it exists in games and is balanced well, something I think this game does nicely. And let’s not forget the benefits of scoring points now through the special cards or middle ring, versus the benefits of changing the market or getting black gems to increase your point value in the end game. There are multiple things to keep track of approach, which adds to the complexity in a positive way.

Notable Gripes
The game says that it is playable with two players, and has special rules, but I find that the game definitely pales in comparison. You have the added element of a neutral player that both players are somewhat responsible for (placing tokens for). But, while this mechanic does make the game playable with two, I think that it pales in comparison to the full game. This is not high on the list as a two player game, and I would review it more harshly as two players opposed to four. The game is best with four people, without a doubt, but playable well with three.

There is a possibility that the market becomes so spread out in the first few turns that it is almost impossible to change on the third, or completely impossible to change on the fourth turn. This can happen if the same pieces keep getting the same general placement for the first two or three turns. It can be such that there is no way a gem will ever come out of last place, or only through perfect manipulation, become second-to-last. I have not played the game enough yet to determine if this is a potential whole in the game or is a byproduct of people not paying enough attention to the market in the early game.

Summary
I think that this is a wonderful game that I am glad to have added to my collection. It has strategy on multiple levels that you need to at least pay attention to, if not influence, in order to win. It also has multiple options for you to consider when you are attempting to accomplish your goal. This are very good traits in a game and I think a good mark of strategy when they are well balanced. Personally, I like the interaction and trying to read other players. The best comparison that I can think of is if you like poker, you will like this game. What I mean by this is if you like the trying to predict other players, read them, and eventually bluff them, you will like those elements of this game. If that is not your preference, you should probably pass on this since that is a major element of what makes this game enjoyable.

by fastfingers

This review is a cross-post from my personal games BLOG at http://www.aworldwithoutstring.com



Ad Astra
I don’t think I’ve published an actual board game review so far in all of 2009. Hopefully, this one will be worth your time to read. There have been many excellent games introduced in the past year. I selected this one for review right now because we’ve been playing it at home recently and I really enjoy exploring and playing this game. It deserves more attention.

This is a review of the board game Ad Astra. It is published in the US by Fantasy Flight Games. Here is the introductory flavor text about the game from the publisher:

In Ad Astra ("To the Stars"), you will guide one of the five factions of future humanity in its exploration of the galaxy. Wield powerful technology; reshape newly discovered planets to give a new home to man; and explore the mysterious relics of a long-lost alien civilization...

Who will be able to create the greatest star-spanning civilization?

The game is designed by Bruno Faidutti and Serge Laget. It’s rated for players aged 10 and up, supports 3 to 5 players and takes about 90 minutes. The game retails for around $60 and is available on-line for about $45. As of late November 2009, many on-line stores were out of stock but expecting new game inventory soon. I purchased my copy at a Friendly Local Game Store for full retail. I have also successfully played an unofficial 2-person variant for this game that worked quite well.

Before I discuss how the game plays, let’s begin by looking at what comes in the box.

What’s in the box?

Image made from a photograph by “Wedge1126” on Board Game Geek.

The first thing that will surprise you is that there really is no game board. Well, there is a Scoring / Planning board, we’ll get to that in a bit. Instead, the board is randomly created at the start of the game by placing stars and planets on the table. It will look something like this when it is setup.


Actually, a few turns have already taken place in the picture above, but you can see how the game “board” is intended to work. The stars are placed on the table, and the planets are distributed around them. The number of planets will be between 3 and 7 per star. There are always 9 stars, one of which is “Sol”, or “The Sun”. Here are the different star types.

The players begin at “The Sun” and then explore out to the other stars. At the beginning of the game all the planet tiles are placed face down, except for the planets around the home star system. There are 7 planet types.

There are several stacks of cards with the game, including resource cards, player action cards, and alien artifact cards. The resource cards match the planet types.

The three Ore types have official names in the game, “Xanthium”, “Yoyodium”, and “Zozodium”. We often get the names confused and have resorted to calling them “Graynium”, “Rednium” and “Gold” in the order shown above. The game does a wonderful job of using icons for everything so the actual names have no bearing on game play.

There are 5 sets of Player Action Cards, each with a unique race drawing and color scheme.

There is the Score / Planning board. More about how this works, later.

Each player gets a set of these cool looking plastic components.

The plastic components come in 5 colors: Red, Yellow, Blue, Green, and Gray. These are very “stiff” plastic pieces and feel a bit brittle, especially the starships. We were worried we might break one easily. However twice we have had a piece bumped off the kitchen table and hit the linoleum floor without any damage. Fortunately, the game manufacturer included an extra piece of each type in each color with the game. I’m not sure if they did this in case the owner loses a piece or breaks a piece, but that’s comforting to know.

That’s most the contents. There’s a First Player marker and the Alien Artifacts cards. More on those later.

What’s the game about?
Ad Astra is a game of space exploration and light civilization building. There is no direct conflict, this is not a wargame. As each player advances their race by building Starships, Colonies, Factories and Terraformers on planets they can score points. Since the undiscovered planets are face down, their resource output is unknown until a starship arrives in that planet’s system. Ultimately as each player accumulates victory points, as in many games, it’s really a race to score the most points before the game ends. The game ends when the first player reaches 50 points.

What is interesting about the game is how you have to remain flexible about your winning strategy. Your starting world’s resources are determined randomly and you don’t know where the resources you will need are located amongst the stars. And even though there is no direct conflict between players, what another player does can impact you. Sometimes you even count on it.

With each turn there are varied and sometimes agonizing decisions to make. Makes for a fun game.

Game Setup
Each player chooses one of the 5 colors and collects all their plastic pieces, race Action Cards, and corresponding scoring token. All scoring tokens are placed on the 0 position. There’s also a color coded player aid available for each player. It’s 2 sided. On on side there are useful diagrams explaining the resources needed to build everything and on the other side are detailed texts explaining each of the possible Alien Artifact Cards that a player may discover.

Next the nine stars are placed around the table. It doesn’t matter how they are distributed. The planets need to be distributed after the stars are placed. For the home system, “Sol”, there needs to be one planet for each player. Each player randomly selects a resource planet and places it face up around “Sol”. They place one of their Factories on it. If an Alien Planet is pulled as a starting planet it is discarded back to the random stack and the player chooses again. It is possible for more than one player to have the same starting planet type.

Now the rest of the planets are distributed amongst the other stars. They are placed face down and are placed with 3 to 7 planets to each star. Every planet must be placed.

The game comes with 2 “optional” Alien Artifact cards: “Omnibus Rebus Responsum” (The Answer to Everything - a salute to “The Hitchiker’s Guide to the Galaxy”) and “Magnum et Antiquum Arcanum” (Great Old Secret). These 2 cards can sometimes change the game ending conditions a little wildly, so the developers included a note that they were optional. I have yet to include them in a game so I cannot speak about their impact or value. The Alien Artifact cards are shuffled. The Resource Cards are organized into stacks and one of each kind is given to every player. Every player begins the game with 1 each of all 6 resource types.

Finally, each player places one of their starships out in deep space (anywhere on the table that’s not a planet or star). The players choose a starting player and give that person the First Player token.

Since this is a review, I want to point out that the First Player token is a cardboard chit about the size of a penny. In the picture of the box contents shown earlier, it’s that tiny little red chit sitting by itself in one of the box insert compartments. It looks so out of place compared to the rest of the components. Needing to rectify this situation, I purchased a small plastic space ship figure that could be used as a First Player token instead. Here’s a picture.

Image by “lordzogat” on Board Game Geek.

It’s a piece from a Star Wars miniatures game. This particular one is Palpatine’s Shuttle. I purchased it from a Friendly Local Game Shop and selected it because of the sharp angles on the piece - they look consistent with the rest of the designs in Ad Astra. I believe I paid around $3 for this piece, so you may not choose to do something similar.

Anyway, it’s just “feels right” to pass this token to a player when they are going to be First Player next round.

While I’m commenting on game components, I need to say that I think the artwork and pieces are great. Even the rule book is first rate - quite typical for Fantasy Flight Games. It’s full of examples and diagrams and it continues with the space exploration, galactic civilization theme with it’s artwork. I do believe the player aid could be improved upon. There’s not quite enough information on each once to make playing quick for beginners. Fortunately there are several fan-made player aids available on the Board Game Geek web site. My current favorite player aid to use is by Sterling Babcock (nick: Solamar) and can be found [filepage=48032]here[/filepage].

There is one other very interesting quality about the rule book that deserves attention. Included along the left side column of pages in the rule book are a series of notes about the game designers. They are calling this the “Nexus Design Series”. Within these notes, the game’s designers are introduced, including a game ludography for each one. If you’re a fan of these designers, or maybe new to them, it’s wonderful to read something about the designers who created the game you are playing. It’s also amazing to me that the notes includes descriptions of other games by the same designers. What’s amazing about that to me was that several of the referenced game titles are produced by competing game publishers. For example, Mystery of the Abbey, a wonderful game also designed by Bruno Faidutti and Serge Laget , is published by Days of Wonder. As a fan of these “Euro” board games, I was happy to have this additional background information about these designers. Well done.


Playing the Game
Okay, we’re all setup. How does the game play?

Ad Astra is played in rounds, with each round divided into 2 phases: Planning and Action. At the end of the round a check is made to see if someone has won, and if not another round resumes. Players also need to ensure they do not have an excess of 10 Resource Cards at the end of the round. The player having the First Player token is always the start player in each round. That token can change hands between the players multiple times within a round.

Planning Phase
Each player will secretly review his own Action Cards and decide which ones he will use this round. The cards are placed face down, by player turn order, on the Score / Planning board. If there are 3 or 4 players, the slots numbered 1 through 12 are used. With 5 players, all 15 slots are used. Here’s an interesting game mechanic, the players can place their card on any open slot on the Score / Planning board. This does not have to be the earlier slots. In fact, as we will see soon, sometimes it’s advantageous that your Action Card goes on the last or later open slots. Once all the players have placed their Action Cards the planning phase ends and the action phase begins.

When the Action Phase commences, each card on the Planning Board is revealed and resolved one at a time. Everyone in the game gets to participate in the action the card defines. Also, the player who played the card, identified by the race color of the card, gets a special “benefit” from the card.

To understand what’s going on here we obviously need to review the Action Cards. Here’s a typical set.

Image by Scott Everts (“ScottE”) on Board Game Geek.

Note, every player has the same kinds of Action Cards, but the details on some of the cards are different by design. Let’s look over a few cards carefully first.

This is a Production Card. During the Action Phase this card will cause resources to be produced. There are 2 resources identified on this card: “Water” and “Yoyodium” (aka “Rednium”). The person who owns the card can choose which one of these two will actually be produced. There’s a faint grey line between the two resources, indicating the player must choose one. Players having production units on planets producing the selected resource type will receive resources.

You can see one strategy here is to ensure the resource you choose benefits you the most. The other resource types are found on the remaining Production Cards the player has. Here’s the interesting twist. While everyone will have a Production Card that has Water and Yoyodium, they will not likely appear together on anyone else’s card.


This is a Movement Card. It specifies which star systems are available for entry. Note that there are icons for 2 star systems on the card. In this case there is no grey line. Both system are active. However, as with the Production Card, the mix of which two star systems is not the same for all players’ Movement Cards. In fact the interesting twist here is that for any given player they will have movement cards for only 6 of the 8 other star systems in the game. That is, they can only choose 6 systems with their card. They are dependent on another player choosing the “missing” systems for them to have access.

We’ll go over other details about these Action Cards when we review the Action Phase. The important concept here is that everyone has the same set of Action Cards for planning, but the mix between them is different.

Action Phase
One by one each Action Card is revealed and resolved with the person owning the card gaining an added benefit. Let’s briefly review each Action Card.

Production
We’ve touched on this one already. For the card shown, the player can decide between Water or Xanthium. If a player has a unit that produces on a planet of this type, that resource is added to the player’s hand.

If a Starship or Colony is present, 1 resource is produced (for each). If a Factory is present, 2 resources are produced. Because of building rules it is not possible to have both a Factory and Colony on the same planet. However it is possible for a planet to contain both a Starship and a Factory. In this case, 3 resources of the selected kind are produced.


MOVEMENT
This card was also described previously. For the card shown, both the small red star and yellow spiral star are activated and can be visited by the players. The player that owns the card moves 1 Starship to either star system first. Note, a player can choose to simply move out to deep space instead with any Movement Card action. After the owning player moves their Starship, the other players in clockwise order around the table may also move 1 Starship to either star system.

The benefit the owner of the card gets comes in last. The owner may then move all other Starships they may have on the board to these selected systems.

There is one aspect to movement that’s a little tricky to get right for new players. Movement costs Energy Resources. It breaks down line this. When moving a Starship from deep space to any star system, there is no Energy cost. To move from a planet out to deep space costs 1 Energy. If your starship is already on a planet and wants to move to another planet within the same star system, it costs 1 Energy. However, if you want to leave the planet you are on to go to a planet on another star system, it costs 2 energy.

If the player does not have sufficient Energy Resources they may not be able to move.

No two players can ever be on the same planet. When a Starship first enters a given star system, the player secretly examines each face down planet to decide where they may want to land. Once chosen, that planet is flipped face up so everyone can see it.

If it is an Alien Planet, the player immediately receives an Alien Artifact Card. The planet is turned face up. If the player visits an already face-up Alien Planet they do not receive an Alien Artifact Card. A player can build a colony or factory on an Alien Planet but it does not produce resources. There are some scoring benefits for building there however. Alien Artifacts Cards details follow below.


Build
This is how a player adds items to planets and creates new Starships. When this card comes up, the owning player begins by building one item. It can be anything that can be paid for. Each of the different items have a schedule describing the resources required on the player aid.

After the owning player builds one unit, each other player in clockwise order around the table may build one item. After the other players complete their portion of the Build Action, the owning player is permitted to build any additional units desired, provided enough resources exist.

The Starships, when built are placed in deep space. This has the benefit of being able to land on a planet in a later Movement Action without spending any Energy Resources.

A Colony can only be built where you have a Starship. Colonies produce goods on the planet.

A Factory can only be built where a Colony already exists. Once built, the Colony is returned to the player’s supplies and can be used again.

Terraformers have restrictions on where they can be built. They can only be built on either a water or food planet. When Terraformers are built they score immediate points as a bonus.

Trade

Resources are kept secret in a player’s hand unless this card is played. The owner of the card is the only one permitted to perform a trade action. However, the first step is that all players must reveal their resource cards on the table face-up. The owner of the trade card can then negotiate a deal with any of the other players. The other players are not required to agree to the trade. The owning player can also trade with the bank at a 2 to 1 ratio. That is, for example, the player can trade 2 Water Resources for 1 Energy Resource. Trading between the other players is not permitted.

Scoring Action Cards
Each player has 3 different Scoring Action Cards.

When these are played, the owner of the card gets to decide what gets scored.

The first card shows having a Terraformer icon on one side and a stars icon on the other. If the player chooses Terraformer, then all Terraformers are scored for all players, giving 3 points for each one in the game. The player having the most Terraformers gets an added 3 point bonus. If the player chooses Star Systems (the other icon), the players score 1 point for each system they have a presence in. The player having the most systems also gets a 3 point bonus.

The second card shows a choice between Colonies / Factories, and Starships. If the Colonies / Factories is selected, players score 1 point for each Colony and 2 points for each Factory. The player scoring the most gets a 3 point bonus. If the Starships are scored, players get 2 points for each Starship in play. The player scoring the most for Starships also scores a 3 point bonus.

The third card shows two choices again. The first choice has an X / X, and the second choice shows an X / Y. The scoring proceeds a little different for this Score Action Card. Ordinarily, when a Scoring Action Card is played, the owning player scores first, then in turn going around the table, the other players score. For this card, the player to the left of the owner scores first, rotating around the table with the owner scoring last. The reason this is done is do that the owner has an opportunity to score an advantage. Here’s how the X / X and X / Y scores are calculated. If X / X is chosen by the owning player, the first player to the left looks at the resource cards they are holding and decides how many identical resource cards they are willing to discard. 1 point is awarded for each resource discarded. This continues to the next player who then decides which identical resources they would like to discard, 1 point per card. Eventually it comes back around to the owning player and that player makes the same decision. And just like for the other Scoring Action Cards, whichever player scored the most points gets a 3 point bonus. Now it becomes clear why going last is an advantage. When it comes back around to the owning player to discard they can evaluate the highest count of identical resources witnessed discarded by the other players. If they are able to they can discard just 1 more to get the 3 point bonus.

The X / Y Scoring Action Card gives points for each different resource that a player discards. Again, the owning player goes last and whomever scored the most gets a 3 point bonus.

When a Scoring Action Card is played, the owner of the card immediately gets the First Player token. They will be the first person to place an Action Card on the Planning Board in the next round. It is possible for another player to also play a Scoring Action Card later in the round. In this way the First Player token can move between players within a round. This is one of the reasons a player may choose to place a face down Action Card on the last available planning slot during the Planning Phase.

One other rule about Scoring Action Cards. At the end of a round, the players gets back all the cards they placed. The exception is Scoring Cards. A player’s Scoring Action Cards are set aside until all three of that players’ cards have been played. Only then will the player get the Scoring Action Cards back into their hand.

Alien Artifact Cards
These cards can be very valuable. The player aid contains a nice summary about each card. In some cases there are multiple copies of specific Alien Artifacts in the deck.

These are the standard Alien Artifact Cards. I think of these guys as “rules breakers”, giving the player a specific advantage. In some cases the card is played immediately, in other cases the player holds the card until the proper moment.



These are the “optional” Alien Artifact Cards.

Variants
There are a few things we do when we play that may fall under house rules. One of the rules we use, and it’s not stated explicitly in the official rules, is that a player is permitted to peek at the face-down planets in any system where they already have a presence. I don’t prefer to make this a game about memorization. Since the player has presumably already examined all the planets in a star system when they first arrived there, and if they placed a Colony, Factory, or Terraformer on a planet there, or if they still have a Starship parked on a planet, we allow the player to peek again to help remember what other planet types are present.

Related to the assistance with memory, we’ve even taken to allowing a player to peek at his face down Action Cards on the Planning Board after they are placed. Sometimes you just forget. The only thing your not permitted to do is change a card once placed.

The last variant to discuss here is how we accomplish a 2-player game. It’s surprisingly fun. We reduce the number of places on the Planning Board to 8, giving each player 4 cards to place. The next tweak is to allow better trading options when there are only 2 players. We build a small deck of resource cards, seeding with 4 of each resource, shuffled. This small Trade deck is placed face down and the player may do a 1 for 1 trade against this blind deck as an additional option. Lastly, there is a special consideration when working with only 2 players that impacts setup. Since not all player colors can “reach” all 8 external star systems, we need to be sure that the 2 races used cover all 8 between them. I found that using the Red and Yellow races covers this nicely.

Conclusion
Obviously, I quite enjoy this game. It’s a nice blend of several modern Euros. The game reminds me of Starfarers of Catan, Race for the Galaxy, and a bit of Warrior Knights. It’s not difficult to learn, but I would rate this in difficulty as being a little steeper than a gateway game like Ticket To Ride. It usually takes a full round for things to sink in. And I also believe that the game offers a lot of potential for trying out different strategies. In fact, I think that new players will not often discover what it takes to play with whatever you were given at the start of the game. Experience helps enjoying the game.

I recently once played a game, for example, without ever having a single planet that produces Energy. Yet it’s easy to believe that unless you find Energy Resources early in the game you will lose. Not true.

Another strategy that is often not obvious upon initial plays, is how to anticipate what the other players are doing and playing successful Scoring Action Cards early and often.

Although the game is rated to play in around 90 minutes, it’s been my experience that you should plan on 2 hours per game until enough experience develops with the gaming group.

High points for me are theme, replay ability and the wonderful opportunities for indirect player interaction that is quite subtle and sometimes abrupt. The components are first rate. The rule book is well written and, considering the higher prices of many newer board games nowadays, I think it’s another good value.

For me the downsides are that there can be some analysis paralysis. When players are in the planning phase this can sometimes happen. I’ve also seen AP during the Trade Action, while a player evaluates exactly what best to do.

Another downside for me is kinda silly, but I think that First Player Token is out of whack. Obviously, I resolved my frustration by purchasing a fancy miniature to use instead.

And lastly, out of the box, the game is designed for only 3 to 5 players. I would like to have seen rules making it possible to play with only 2 persons without any special variants.

I also think it would be possible to have expansions for this game in the future. Here’s hoping that happens.

Ultimately, “Ad Astra” gets a nice thumbs up from me.

by AndyNovo

I've never written a game review before but Maka Bana deserves more attention that it gets on BGG. My wife and I moved to France last year where Maka Bana seems to be a household name (the game stores here all carry it and the local game groups seem to know it), but when I went on BGG to see what sorts of goodies were available in the forums I found very little. So I want to spread the word about why this game has become our gateway game of choice.

Maka Bana is a 2-5 (really 3-5 I'ld say) player, 45minutes to an hour, fairly light weight game which is simple to teach. We've taught it to about 7 people (a couple of those using only our baby French) so far who have all enjoyed it and wanted to play again shortly thereafter. So the rules are very intuitive and simple. The game itself is beautifully balanced.

Here's a quick summary of the rules:
If you haven't played it before take a look at an image of the board from the site (I do really love the colorful map):



The squares on the board are places where the players will plop down tiki huts. The beaten path splits the board into 4 beaches (A, B, C, D) and each square is uniquely identified by the beach, its terrain (water, grass, sand, gravel), and the pattern (tribal tattoo, fish, flowers).
Each player starts with an identical set of cards, one for each possible characteristic (an A card, B card, C, D, sand card, fish card, etc.) and two painting cards.

Each round players will pick a spot that they want to build a tiki hut on (they'll grab the appropriate 3 cards and set them aside).

Then they each reveal only one of the three cards (a clue).

Then each player blocks one of the spots where no one can build this round.

Everyone reveals and sees which huts get built this round.

At the end of the game each hut is worth 1 point, every chain of huts is worth extra (1 for the first hut, 2 for the second, 3 for the third, fourth and more...), and each beach gives out 4 points to the person with a majority of the huts on that beach.

The two painting cards can be used (once the game board is getting filled up) to target someone else's tiki and change its color.

Thus ends my rules review.

Now usually simplicity doesn't sell me on a game (although it's a good point for gateways). What this game does so well is take the great parts of an intrigue/bluffing game and boil them down into purest form. Every round you find yourself balancing your own incentives and your desire not to be blocked, since you have to give up a clue you want to be sneaky but not ineffective. Every round is filled with tension and excitement and the game is very well balanced. In my opinion Maka Bana is to intrigue games what Chinatown is to negotiation games, the purest version out there. More direct then Citadels with no downtime.

Each round each player has to make 2.5 difficult (and simultaneous) decisions, 1.5 are selfish and require a bit of bluffing/sneakiness (where to build and which clue to give), the other is tactical, open, and deductive (where to block given the clues). Anyway, it's a beautifully balanced and straight to the tension game which deserves more love (from more eloquent people than myself) on BGG. For those who like intrigue games I'ld say it's well worth finding yourself a version (likely in French) and printing up the English rules from BGG.

by da pyrate

The Caucasus Campaign, July-November, 1942
Two-player Military History Simulation



Designed by Mark Simonitch
Published by GMT (2009)


I like this game. I think that is the best of Mark Simonitch’s hex-games that I have played.

Operation Edelweiss, named after one of the best-known European mountain flowers, was a German plan to gain control over the Caucasus and capture the oil fields of Baku during World War II. The operation was authorised by Hitler on July 23, 1942. The main forces included Army Group A commanded by Wilhelm List, 1st Panzer Army (Ewald von Kleist), 4th Panzer Army (Colonel-General Hermann Hoth), 17th Army (Colonel-General Richard Ruoff), part of the Luftflotte 4 (Generalfeldmarschall Wolfram Freiherr von Richthofen) and the 3rd Romanian Army (General Petre Dumitrescu). Army Group A was supported to the east by Army Group B commanded by Fedor von Bock and by the remaining 4th Air Fleet aircraft (1,000 aircraft in all). The land forces, accompanied by 15,000 oil industry workers, included 167,000 troops, 4,540 guns and 1,130 tanks. The Caucasus Campaign is GMT’s latest game which simulates this part of the Second World War.

I think that GMT has done a fabulous job on the physical components of the game. The map is colourful and functional – it actually looks really good and I can see it framed and hanging on one of my walls. The counters are 5/8” (larger than normal) which makes them a lot easier to read and to move around – especially for aging gamers like me. The counters are colourful and have the information well and clearly set-out – the game is really easy to set-up and special features of individual units are easy to recognise due to the intelligent use of colour and symbols. The game also comes with a couple of dice, a couple of identical player aid cards and with 10 plastic bags in which to store the counters. These GMT guys think of almost everything.



Just as an aside, I personally would like the counters to be a little thicker as I like the feel of slightly thicker counters – but this is just a personal call and does not detract from the game. Also, I can’t believe that they didn’t supply a weather counter.



The rules are printed in colour and have four pages dedicated to an example of play. I have to confess that as I become older I am finding that I am becoming dumber – examples of play are a lot more useful to me now than they were during my youth. I actually have a theory about this – I feel that people are born with a finite amount in wisdom and if you use too much wisdom too early in life you become really stupid as you get older. I now try to limit myself to a maximum of three pieces of wisdom each day.

The games mechanics draws upon ideas Mr Simonitch has used in some of his earlier designs.

There are two scenarios – the campaign game goes for 14 turns (representing 14 weeks) and the tournament scenario lasts for 7 turns. Victory is achieved by controlling victory point hexes at the end of the game (usually cities). However, the German player is on a tight schedule, and must acquire a certain number of points at the end of each turn to keep the game alive. Also, there are around 40 victory points on the map and the Axis player only needs 20 of them for victory in the full game or 14 of them in the shorter tournament scenario. This means that there are several ways that the Axis player can go about achieving victory.

Before looking at the actual Sequence of Play and mechanics that drive the game, two aspects of the game present themselves with even just a quick perusal of the components – there are not all that many counters (counter density on the map is low and this is good for a game of this scale – the game moves along really quickly) and that infantry have low movement rates and low attack strengths. His means that for the Axis the armour play the primary role in advancing and that you have to be careful about where you move your infantry because it may take some little time to reposition them if necessary.

Sequence of Play
A. Axis Player Turn
1. Initial Phase - place reinforcements – collect replacement points – roll on weather table – place previously removed Headquarters.
2. Axis Primary Impulse – move and shoot.
3. Soviet Secondary Impulse – move and shoot with restrictions.
4. Axis Secondary Impulse – same as Soviet Secondary Impulse.
5. Axis Supply Phase – check supply status – check for possible attrition on Isolated units – remove Disrupted markers.
B. Soviet Player Turn
1. Soviet Initial Phase – place reinforcements – acquire three random reinforcements – roll on Soviet Event Table – place previously removed Headquarters.
2. Soviet Primary Impulse – move and shoot.
3. Soviet Supply Phase – remarkably similar to its Axis counterpart.
C. Victory Check Phase

And The Difference Between the Primary & Secondary Impulses Is?
During the Primary Impulse units may move, may use Rail and Sea Movement and may use ‘Extended Movement’ – Extended Movement just means units receive an extra two movement points AND must not end their move in an Enemy Zone of Control. Units may also receive replacement points during the Primary Impulse.

During the Secondary Impulse mechanized and cavalry units are allowed their full movement – but must pay 3 movement points if they wish to participate in a combat. Foot units have the option of either moving a single hex OR participating in a combat – they can’t do both. Mechanized units are also allowed to perform Mobile Assaults during movement – something that they are not allowed to do during the Primary Impulse.

Strategic movement is allowed during both impulses – this just means that units may move along roads at a reduced cost but must stay clear of Enemy Zones of Control.

One very important feature of the design is that units may move through enemy zones of control – it just costs an extra two movement points to leave an EZOC. This means that the defender may need to create a solid line of defenders as the enemy may be able to infiltrate through any gaps between units.


Bang! Bang! You’re Dead!

Combat is fairly standard for this type of game. However, column shifts are most important. To achieve this the attacker needs armour – these can be cancelled if the defender has anti-tank units. Both sides have air units that will provide column shifts. Troops are also rated for their quality – high, medium, low – and superiority in this regard will also give a column shift.

Naturally terrain has some impact on combat. Units attacking across rivers are halved. Defenders using terrain, such as mountains, are given a terrain bonus – but this is in the form of a number of defence points rather than being doubled which is fairly standard in most games of this type. The impact of this is that stacking lots of units together in a single hex is no longer the most effective way to defend.

If forced to retreat, defending units have the option of making a Determined Defence which allows them to nullify retreats at the risk of possibly losing steps. The chances of success when making a Determined Defence are based on the type of terrain occupied, troop quality and support from air and naval power.



Playing the Game

It’s nice to play. The rules are not at all complicated. The decision making is relatively straight-forward due to the small number of units on the map. It is interesting as both players have a plethora of options available to them.
The system is clean and doesn’t have a lot of chrome – the chrome that is in the game is very easy to polish due to the clever use of colour and symbols on the counters and the user-friendly map.
My only disappointment is that there is no weather counter to place on the board in one of the two weather boxes. Given time, I’m sure that I can get over this one disappointment.

by Brokito

This article was initially posted in [geeklist=47966][/geeklist].
Please consider that my observations are initial impressions only !

In Assyria we are put in the country of the 2 streams a good couple of centuries ago. Each player expands and develops his tribe in this fertile land - but beware of the two streams which will flood away all cities build at their shores. After 3 eras/floods (after 2nd, 5th and 8th round), the player with the most VP wins.

The players start at predetermined spaces outside the 2 rivers with the foundation of a temple as their home base.

Each round all players (n) start with collecting resource cards (5 different resource types). n+1 card couples are sorted by number of resources (1-3 resources on each card of the same type plus a joker card worth 1 resource). The players pick each one couple of cards. This will determine in the following phases the player order (the player with the least valuable resources goes first).

Now the players expand their tribes from their temples. They can expand their tribe by building a number of cities adjacent to any of their buildings. The amount of expansion is determined randomly by a card which is drawn each round. The players will expand towards the region in-between the rivers, as they gain 2VP after expansion per city whereas cities outside just gain 1 VP. On top, VP are gained for temples dependent on their completeness (3 stages to complete). But also cities on rivers are important, as they will gain each 3 camels (but no VP). But beware, each city has to be supplied with resources. Equivalent to the resource indicated on each region, the player has to discard resource cards - otherwise the concerned cities are removed after the expansion phase.

Camels can then be converted to temple extensions, used to buy extra resources or to support one of 3 statesmen (plus there are some additional other minor options).

Then the next round begins unless an era ends. In latter case, all cities from the rivers are removed. On top, the statesmen support is evaluated. The majority holder gains some additional VPs and bonuses.

The game is easily played and allows some limited planning. Decisions whether to go for river regions or in-between regions seem obvious. But they are often 100% dependent on the resources that were collected. On top, it is unlikely to collect the same resources in subsequent turns. Hence, the kingdom is always in flux and leaves the players with a strange game feeling.
The options for using the camels are vast compared to the limited number of camels gained each turn (remember also that the cities are removed with each flood). Especially at the beginning the players tend to use the camels for building pyramids (as they provide constant VP). In our game, some of the camel options were not used at all (or did we not understand their value ?). Hence, the last player prior to the flood was the lucky winner in the statesmen evaluation. The map seem to be unbalanced as some players have more land to expand to then others.
Overall, Assyria is a nicely designed game but finally it did not convince us in our trial game.

by whac3

1. Introduction

Full disclosure: I've played this game but only a relatively few times compared to other games I have reviewed.

Although this game is decidedly my least favorite of the GameMaster series of games, that should not be taken as too strongly negative comment on this game; all the other games in the series are classics which do contain an element of luck but for the most part depend on grand strategy at its finest-- factoring in the random element being part of the strategy. Those other games take hours to play and are well worth the investment of time. By contrast, this game is more of a filler game; it generally plays in about a half hour and while playing it does involve some strategy, that strategy is light rather than deep.

Judged as a filler, this game shines. I'm not talking about the components, even though these are great; I commented to my wife that I'm glad I didn't buy this as a boy because I would have just played with the ships. Rather, the game reflects relatively well ship to ship combat in the era of galleons. In essence, they pounded at each other with whatever cannon were in range while trying to outmaneuver the other ship. That is precisely what one does in this game. Thr only aspect that limits the strategy of this game is the luck-factor in hitting one's target or not, but again that aspect is probably realistic.

I grew up on sailing vessels, and indeed have sailed in the waters where a Spanish galleon was most likely to have encountered pirates a few centuries ago. So, my only major complaint as far as realism goes is the apparently omnidirectional wind. The unofficial Rules for Wind may help here, although one has to decide when cards are played if players use differing amounts of cards (something only relevant using those rules), but even so those rules do not involve the characteristic zigzag pattern of tacking against the wind. The fact is though, that when playing this game, I don't really care that this is the case. Instead, I take the elements of the game and try to maximize the probability of success. Therein lies the strategy of the game.

So, when I said it was my least favorite of the Gamemaster series titles, this merely says that I expected deep strategy games from the series, and that deep strategy games are generally what I prefer as games. Yet, once I realized that this is in fact a filler game, I enjoyed it for what it is. Thus, while not my favorite game overall, it is certainly a favorite filler. Moreover, every collection needs fillers-- games to play when short on time or tired but in the mood for a game.

2. Components

To give a better idea of what I'm talking about in terms of components, here are a couple of gratuitous shots of my own copy's ships beside the game box.



The image below shows how to fit the assembled ships in the box; I've tried it and it works.



Apart from the ships, the game comes with a rules booklet, a board, two sets of cards, two sets of men (including one captain and in my set one extra man of each color), tokens for use as damage markers and two small ships for use on the main part of the board-- along with a pair of dice. All are high quality.


This is a good overview of the components.


A closer view of the men, with captains in the middle, the small ships and cannon.along with damage markers.


A close-up of one of the small ships.


cards viewed against the board


bid's eye view of the game in play. Notice the gridded sections on each of the large ships.


a view of the side of the board without one of the large ships on it.

As one can see, the game components are beautiful. The rules are as well. Moreover, these latter are clearly and succinctly written with plenty of diagrams.

3. Rules summary

In principle, the game is played in two stages, although in most games only a single stage (termed Broadsides) will actually be played. A second stage (termed Boarding Parties) is only entered if at any point the two small ships being maneuvered on the grid of points and representing the larger ships ed up on the same grid point. This occurred quite accidentally in my second game shortly after I had purchased this game, but I do not believe it has occurred once since then.

In the Broadsides stage, players simultaneously play in order three cards to maneuver their respective ship. Each player reveals one card at a time until all three cards have been revealed, both players revealing their card simultaneously and the results of each card being dealt with before the next is revealed. The two ships enter from opposite sides of the grid and try to move within firing range of the opposite ship. Relative angles govern which cannon can fire. The actual fire is represented by a die roll for each shot and the results are determined according to the number rolled. One can hit a mast, cause hull damage of eliminate crew and cannon or of course one can miss. Hitting a mast of causing hull damage will force a player to play a damaged mast or hull card in lieu of something else each round, but hitting crew and cannon will both decrease a player's ability to fire and reduce the number of pieces the player has if the Boarding Parties stage becomes involved. Eliminating the captain will cause a player to lose a turn. One can win in this phase by incapacitating the enemy ship.

If those cases when a Boarding Parties stage is in fact played, each player makes three moves of crewmen and/or the captain. A move involves moving a piece from one space to an adjacent space. Rules are laid out for the relative position of the ships, and a player can for example move the same piece three times or move three different pieces once. After both sides have moved, combat ensues, with an advantage going to the player with a numerical advantage in any deck section. No retreat is allowed and numerical advantage is constantly re-evaluated. One wins in this portion by eliminating the opposing captain. Although the rules do not explicitly say so, my assumption is that if one enters the Boarding Parties stage of play while the other player has lost a turn due to the elimination of the captain but before the captain is replaced, that the playr with a captain wins by default.

4. Gameplay

The game is not Chess, but neither is it intended to be. For that matter, the game is also not Axis & Allies and also is not intended to be. That is not to say the game has no strategy. The first part of the strategy lies in trying to out-guess one's opponent so that one can fire at one's opponent with as many guns as possible, but one's opponent can fire with as few as possible. Naturally this is more easily said than done, but that is part of what makes the game interesting.

Another part of the strategy is picking one's targets. One both wants to maximize the probability of hitting something worthwhile, and one also wants to reduce an opponent's ability to fire back. Thus for example areas with either fore or aft cannon are prime targets, because one can render an opponent unable to fire back in positions where otherwise both ships would be shooting. True enough, luck plays a big factor in this game, but again the game is not intended to be a brain-burner.

I won't comment on the Boarding Parties stage of play because I don't have enough experience with it. I've just not had to play that portion enough enough to say how well it works, but it sounds good enough and was good enough in my one experience of it.

This game is just plain fun. Take it for what it's meant to be, and one will almost certainly enjoy it.

by TomVasel

Youtube Video

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oJYzI-w3G4w

by TomVasel

Youtube Video

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m1jbx8pXiCU

by TomVasel

Youtube Video

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m1jbx8pXiCU

by TomVasel

Youtube Video

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oJYzI-w3G4w

by NateStraight

Caveat

I was given a free copy of Say Anything by NorthStar Games in exchange for my review [it was not specified that my review need be positive, only that it be completed before holiday time passes by]. Let that poison or enhance your reading of the following review as it may.

Overview

I love [thing=20100][/thing] and have a written a vocal and laudatory review thereof, and this is probably why I was selected to receive a review copy of Say Anything. [company=2164][/company], I can say with certainty, is a force to be reckoned with in the Party Game genre.

If Wits & Wagers was your uber-nerdy, online-poker-playing, presidential history buff of an older brother, Say Anything is your fun-loving, rock-concert-going, fashion conscious socialite of a younger sister. In fact, that tells you almost everything you need to know.

Gameplay

Say Anything takes the general "guess what I'm thinking" approach of a growing sub-genre of party games that includes [thing=74][/thing], [thing=2750][/thing], [thing=677][/thing], [thing=2838][/thing], etc, and throws it into a blender with the unique bidding mechanic of Wits & Wagers.

The result is something of a mash-up of the best of what's up and coming in the genre. If you like party games, you will almost certainly like this game. That isn't necessarily the case with its sibling, Wits & Wagers, which can fall into the Trivial Pursuit trap of being too brainy.

Let's make this review about "gamer" gamers, then, rather than just party gamers.

The way Say Anything works is that each player will have a turn [or turns, if you play more rounds] to pick a card, select a question off of it [all start with "In my opinion..."], and then ask the other players to write down how they think the question-reader would respond.

The unique bit is that Say Anything reverses the secrecy element found in Apples To Apples' similar guessing mechanic: In A2A, ownership of the answers is secret and the reader picks among them; here, ownership is open, but the reader's selection is secret [more on that later].

This means that every player will be equally involved in every round of the game. You can't just throw out your answer and be done with it, hoping that the judge picks yours. This is the fatal flaw of Apples To Apples as a party game: A lot of times, the players aren't doing anything.

Say Anything solves that problem in a very nice way with its clever signature twist.

The "judge" in Say Anything will pick their favorite answer, but before it is revealed, the other players will all have the chance to guess [using two bidding chips] which of all of the players' answers the judge has chosen.

The judge gets points if they pick the answer everyone guesses they would [which won't necessarily be the answer they liked best]; other players get points if the answer they write or bid on is the one the judge picks.

Everyone [including the judge] has something to do, and a chance to score, every turn.

Game End

Unlike Wits & Wagers, scoring is a little unintuitive, but it works well. Compared to other party games of this genre [Apples To Apples, Imaginiff], though, it works exceptionally well. This is where NorthStar Games really seems to shine--adding an actual game on top of a party.

Say Anything doesn't outstay its welcome [games of Imaginiff and even Apples To Apples can run very long], and the winner will be the person who played the best. In other party games, the winner is basically arbitrarily decided, and the experience is only about the party aspect.

That said, along a game-party spectrum, Say Anything is much more of a party than a game.

If I compare it to Wits & Wagers [or even to other party-game-ish stuff like [thing=6830][/thing] or [thing=1234][/thing]], it falls short, as the gameplay just isn't all that strong [more on that later]. If I compare it to Apples To Apples or Imaginiff, however, it comes out pretty far ahead.

I would recommend Wits & Wagers without reservation to almost any type of gamer: party / social gamer, casual gamer, hardcore gamer. I can't give such a broad recommendation for Say Anything, but I would recommend it strongly for a gamer looking specifically for a "party game".

What Works

There are a lot of things that work really well in Say Anything.

The game gets people talking and laughing and interacting together, like any decent party game should. It also has enough interest to keep most non-party-gamers satisfied, as there is room for some clever play.

The game offers you the ability to be much more creative than most other party games, which is nice. Rather than throwing out an arbitrary answer from the choices dictated to you, you must rack your brain for one.

The scoring will generally reward those who play the game well, which can't be said for Apples To Apples [too many judge selections end up being all but random] or Imaginiff [too much group-think / inside-joke knowledge].

The experience will help you learn more about people, possibly more about yourself, and help you to create new and interesting associations that you otherwise would never have thought of [Why couldn't that be on my headstone?]

There are some drawbacks, though, when it gets right down to it.

What Doesn't

Don't buy this game if you don't listen to plenty of music or watch plenty of movies / TV. Just don't. Just say no.

Of the five questions on any given 1 of the 80 cards in the box, an average of 2 will be about music / movies / TV.

Not all of these are interesting questions either:

- Who's the most overrated band of all time?
- Who's the greatest musician of band of all time?
- What would be the worst song for a wedding dance?
- What song would make the coolest cell phone ringtone?
- What famous person should never be allowed to rap?
- What's the best band name?
- What's the worst song of all time?
- What's the best song of the last 10 years?
- What's the best classic rock song?
- What's the most overrated song of all time?
- Who was the best 70's band?
- What's the most annoying song on the radio?
- What's the best Michael Jackson song?
- What would be the coolest name for a band?
- What's the best pop song?
- What song is most likely to pack a dance floor?
- What's the best musical of all time?
- What's the best rap song of all time?
- What's the cheesiest pop song ever?
- Who's the best R&B musician or group?
- What would be the best song for a wedding first dance?
- Which band puts on the most entertaining concerts?
- What's the best Madonna song?
- Who's the best pop musician or band?
- What's the best song name?
- Who was the best 80's band?

And those are just from the first 40 of 80 total cards.

Remember that these repeat, in basically the same format, for both movies/actors and TV/celebrities, at least 2 per card.

It's a shame a game that asks you to "say anything" has so many uncreative questions. The decision space is too limited for these.

In contrast, here are some of the really interesting questions:

- If I could have a "big" anything, what would it be?
- What should always be done by experts?
- An alien ship landed on earth. What should we do?
- I just got fired. Why?
- What really ticks people off?
- What would be the dumbest thing to say in a job interview?
- What would be the weirdest fortune to find in a fortune cookie?
- What would be the weirdest thing to collect?
- What should my gravestone say?
- What would be the weirdest thing to find written on a bathroom stall?

These are great "say anything" questions, allowing full creativity.

The cards should, it seems to me, be filled with nothing but these types of questions, and yet there are many bland ones mixed in.

In general, the game seems at times to be in conflict with itself. The boring questions work best for the judging/scoring mechanic.

But, the interesting questions work best with the creative "say anything" theme / premise behind the game itself. There’s the rub.

To make questions where anyone can stand a chance at guessing what the judge picks, they need to be limited, but those are boring.

But, to make questions where the answer-generating process is interesting, it’s almost impossible for the judge to matter at all.

It doesn’t matter who the judge is, "fingernail clippings" is a weird thing to collect and "mooning the interviewer" would be dumb.

Similarly, creativity doesn’t matter if the judge is a big Rush fan and "greatest musician," "best 80’s band," or "most entertaining" comes up.

This is one of the other fatal flaws of Apples To Apples, and Say Anything almost falls into it [it is saved by a unique scoring system].

You can’t be creative if you’re trying to guess someone’s thoughts.

You also can’t guess someone’s thoughts if the question is open-ended.

In the end, I fear Say Anything will eventually devolve into the kind of random association game that Apples to Apples turns into after a dozen or so playings. I hope not.

It doesn’t solve the central problem of being able to give creative answers to questions about your friends and family, despite having a really nifty system for asking you to.

Questions like "If I could have a big anything, what would it be?", "I just got fired. Why?", and "What should my gravestone say?" are both personal enough and open-ended enough.

But, these are few and far between. The rest of the questions are either too personal to be creative, or too open-ended to be personal. You’re either guessing correct or guessing blind.

There isn’t enough "say anything" / guessing creatively for me, in the end.

Final Thoughts

I still enjoyed the game and give it a recommendation over almost any other party game. For my money [if I were paying], I would still pick Wits & Wagers in the genre.

But, if you’re going to be playing with folks who want more fun and less brain [Wits & Wagers is billed as "brainless trivia," but it really isn’t], pick Say Anything.

Anyone who enjoys games like Apples To Apples or Imaginiff will enjoy Say Anything.

In the end, Say Anything accomplishes what it sets out to do pretty well. I was just hoping for more, seeing as Wits & Wagers [for me] accomplishes more than it sets out to.

Wits & Wagers is, to me, the better choice among NorthStar's offerings. Say Anything is, however, the best choice of the crop of games in its party-game sub-genre of "guessing games".

by alexd

[thing=12002][/thing] is one of my favorite games (if you're not familiar with Jambo, or curious as to why I like it so much, see http://boardgamegeek.com/thread/396160). Two expansions for [thing=12002][/thing] have been released. The nature of the expansions makes it at best difficult to play with only the 2nd expansion, so this review assumes the use of both expansions. I'm basing this review on about 15 games with the expansion, played with several of the possible options (this is a modular expansion).



Images courtesy fsumarc

The 2nd Jambo expansion comes in a small "deck pack", and contains:

- Instructions
- 1 hut (to be described)
- 3 carpet cards
- New cards:
--- 4 new utility cards
--- 10 new people cards
--- 9 new animal cards
--- 32 new ware cards

The meat of the expansion is the new cards. Perhaps most importantly, the 2nd expansion contains 32 ware cards, which means that when mixed with the first expansion and added to the original game's deck, there is the proper mix of ware and non-ware cards. The first Jambo expansion did not include ware cards, forcing players to remove some cards (usually both old and new) in order to maintain the correct ratios. This was at least mildly annoying, and I'm glad to no longer have to bother with it.

The 1st Jambo expansion introduced huts, additional cards each player gets that provide new possible actions during your turn. The first three huts provided the ability to specialize in a good (profiting more from selling, spending less to purchase it), the ability to two wares for one of another kind, and the ability to "draw 3, keep 1", at an increasing cost of actions (1 + a ware moved to the card, 2, and 3 respectively). The new hut extends the sequence, by costing no actions but requiring a ware. It provides the ability to stop one people or animal card played on an opponent's turn, at the cost of the ware on the hut. Wares moved to this hut can never be reclaimed! Presumably, Dorn added this ability to address the relatively small number of Guard and Spirit of the Ancestors cards relative to size of the new unified Jambo deck.


Image courtesy caesarbgg
The new hut, and the carpets

Note: the new deck is HUGE. Jambo setup now takes a bit longer, due to the need to shuffle this monster!

The other new component is the carpet cards. These sit in the center of the table, with one side facing each player. Players can use "their side" of the carpet as an additional market stand space, except that goods can only be placed and removed from these spots by ware cards (not utilities, animals, or people), and you can't place the same good on both sides of a carpet. At the cost of one action, a player may flip a carpet with both sides used to trade goods with the opponent. At the end of each turn, if you have the most goods on the carpets, you get a gold.

In my view, if you like Jambo, you should run out and get both expansions, and add them to your games. In particular, Jambo is at its best with all the cards from all expansions + the base game, and (I think) the four huts. The carpets are fun to play with sometimes, though I wouldn't want to add them to every game. I would ignore the relics from the 1st expansion.

I didn't play enough games with just the 1st expansion to rate play with it alone, but I'm fairly certain it's not nearly as good as with both.

What's so great about Jambo with both expansions, as opposed to plain old Jambo?

1. There is more variety. The new deck is, as noted, huge. Even with repeats of many of the cards, you'll see different enough people/animal/utility cards each game to make the game feel very different (and require different strategic and tactical evaluations), but (surprisingly)

2. The game seems considerably more skill-based than before. Out of many Jambo games played with my wife before the expansion, I won several, and for a time had nearly a 50/50 win ratio. This happened after my first review, when we both discovered that simply taking the gold for using less actions was often an effective thing to do. Scores became closer, and luck-of-the-draw seemed to be a more important element in victory with this change in play style. The new cards seem to have lessened this problem: I've only won one of the many games we've played including both expansions. We both do the "three actions and a gold" move considerably less often. Somehow, even with a larger variance, the game is considerably less luck-based than the original Jambo. My suspicion is that the new cards (including the wares) + huts give players better options, making "stalls" where you don't draw anything that really helps you make a profit over several turns less likely. In our experience, the way to lose Jambo without playing badly is to "stall."

3. The new ware cards actually add something. Dorn could have easily just duplicated old ware cards to bring the ratios up, but instead he added some very nice variety to ware cards. First off, there are new sets of goods that did not "sell together" previously. Second, there are ware cards with only two goods, including a few "wild cards" selling or buying any two goods for 5. The increased flexibility of these cards, combined dwith the decreased efficiency (expensive to buy, sold cheap) ads some new and difficult decisions to choosing ware cards (for example, with the Explorer).

4. The new people and animal cards are good, but not "too good." In general, these cards are probably better than the 1st expansion set, though none really stand out as exceptional -- but this is one of the strengths of Jambo in general. While there are a few losers (the Snake, the auction cards), every card has some use, but there are no really killer cards, particularly when you consider that the strongest cards are likely to be stopped by a Guard or Spirit of the Ancestor or the new hut. Using weaker cards to "draw out" the opponent's defenses is now a nice sub-game, but can be ignored in favor of tossing attacks for less-likely-to-be-stopped cards that benefit your own side. The news cards simply fit well with what we already had, which is great.

5. It all fits in the original box! Carefully packed, the new cards + all the pieces just fit, though if you want to add some nice glass tokens or something to use for the new cards that need counters, it's going to be a tight squeeze.

by Dinosaw

This is my first review of a game so hopefully I'll manage to get through it without rambling too much.

I wont say too much about whats in the box as you can see for yourself from the many uploads on this page, suffice to say that the quality of the components are high. The rules come in at 16 concise pages which I found easy to read and unambiguous. The learning curve on the game is mild for anyone with previous wargaming experience.

LR is at its heart a hex and counter game with some nice innovations which take it to another level in terms of gameplay and replay value.
Combat is handled via two dice cross referenced to CRT, supply is sensible with HQs drawing supply via the road network from supply sources and then passing it onto divisions within their command radius. Suppply is calculated for all active units at the start of the turn while defending units check supply at the point of being attacked. Air power, a vital feature of the campaign is projected by the placement of support markers which give variable column shifts on the CRT, artillery support is handled similarly. Many other support markers are available which give various advantages to the side deploying them. Support markers are placed before movement so you must plan accordingly, after movement and combat a player may have the oportunity to exploit and attack again. Replacements can be assigned at the end of the turn and reinforcements are recieved according to their historical appearance.

Some of the features that are not so familiar are as follows.

No ZOC For Movement

This is a positive for me as it gives the allied player the chance to exploit the superior mobility of his forces and makes the German think hard about his defensive deployment. Effectively the German must form a solid front line or risk being outflanked and encircled, reserves are a pretty good idea too in case of an allied breakthrough.The allies on the other hand can't get too carried away due to supply rules, the axis of advance must generally follow roads as HQs are road bound and as a HQ command radius can't cross a major river those hexes containing river crossings become extremely important.

The Fuhrer Approval Track

The Germans recieve replacements and support markers depending on how pleased the Fuhrer is on a scale of 1-10. As both supports and RPs are needed to rebuild precious panzer steps this is very important to both sides. The track is lowered by the allies capturing cities, V1 sites etc and raised by the germans recapturing them or by launching armoured counterattacks. It gives the german a reason not to sit on his hands and also to look for vulnerable targets which tend to occur most often during allied breakthroughs, another reason to keep those panzer reserves!.

Invasion Phase

The very best thing about the game is the chance to launch an invasion anywhere. Want to launch D-Day on the Dutch coast or the Atlantic Coast, no problem, or see what might have happened with an attack on the Pas De Calais. Every beach on the map from the South of France to Holland is colour coded which equates to a defense value used to determine the forces opposing a landing, the allied player then decides what to throw against it within set limits for that area. For example you get less units and support for an invasion of Bordeaux than Normandy but on the other hand the beaches arent as well defended. The invasion landing procedure is fairly simple and resolves quickly. With so many options the replay value is huge and it is also fascinating as you realise while playing just why the allies didnt choose a certain area for landing. On my first play I landed around Bordeaux, captured it quickly and started to drive inland, but as the game progressed the slower rate at which I could transport units from England along with the German line which formed on the Rhone served to stall my advance. I think for anyone who likes what-if scenarios in wargames you will love this aspect of the game.

Elite Units

May prove to be controversial as they are pretty much all German armour but they provide the player with the opportunity to change his tactical result to a more favourable one (DR3 to DR for example) by taking the first of any losses with his elite unit. This can be very handy for stopping alied breakthroughs. It works the other way too often allowing more units to exploit during a succesful attack.

Pluto Markers

This simulates the giant oil pipeline which supplied the allied war machine. It is vital for the placement of many of your support markers and most importantly air support (must be within 3 hexes) so placing it correctly initially and then spending support to move it to keep up with your armies is of great importance.It also has an effect on repairing major ports which play a part in how many supports you recieve each turn

So far I have played this game four times against an opponent, twice on the 4 turn Cobra scenario (2 allied victories), twice on the 9 turn D-Day (1 marginal victory each) , I then solo played on from turn 9 to 24 to complete the campaign (2 German victories). A turn is now taking around 40 minutes so the D-Day scenario is easily doable in a day and if you are hardcore you could probably finish the campaign in a weekend I suppose, 16 hours would probably do it.

My observations so far based on my play are that the game is pretty well balanced, the D-Day scenario probably favours the Allies if they choose sensible objectives in relation to where they land. The campaign seemed to favour the Germans slightly, though this could be because the allied played had been chasing the D-Day objectives such as U-boat bases rather than driving on to the reich. After turn 9 the allies stop recieving a free air support which hithertoo allowed them to beat up on the germans and the weather worsens too. The germans recieve a lot of reinforcements mid game plus the rail points to move them which can help to slow the allied charge. The siegfried line is incredibly tough to attack and I found myself chanelling the allied effort through Belgium and Holland. In the final four turns though the withdrawal of pretty much all german armour to the east can leave huge holes in the german defenses. I found that making major ports operational is very important for the allies (I didn't!) as you reap the rewards long term in support markers recieved. The allies really need to drive hard and give the germans no chance to regroup. Paratroops are useful in helping invasion landings and when used en masse behind enemy lines, using single divisions leaves them easy prey.

In summary I would say that LR is an excellent game, the best I have bought this year. A Victory Lost, Berlin to Barbarossa and Unhappy King Charles were the others and I liked all of them too, so high praise!

by philosopher66g

The following is a review by David Smith, editor of ToyTalk magazine, and is reproduced with permission.

Score: 93%

Summary: A clever and original dice-and-card game that draws on the enduring appeal of dinosaurs.

Imagine having your own private army of dinosaurs, and controlling them in battle with other prehistoric beasts, and you’ve gone a long way to understanding the appeal of Jurassic Wars. This card-and-dice game features some of the best-known dinos, presented with stunning computer-generated imagery.

Combat is resolved using dice - green for the herbivores and red for the carnivores. Depending on how strong your dinosaur is you will throw between one and three dice (for the carnivores) and one and four dice (for the herbivores).

Each dice has stars denoting hits. Red dice each have three stars and three blank faces, while green dice have two stars and four blank faces. After each roll of the dice, the hits are added up and the loser of that round must sacrifice one or more dice for the next round. When a dinosaur loses all of its dice, it has been defeated.

The red and green dice cleverly take into account the different characteristics of the dinosaurs. The red dice are more likely to inflict damage (as you would expect when it’s Tyrannosaurus rex and Utahraptor going into battle), but the herbivores are bigger and are able to withstand more punishment - hence the heavily armoured Ankylosaurus having a four-dice rating.

Gameplay is enhanced by Combat cards. These cards allow a weak dinosaur to match up against a tougher opponent, by adding the ability to throw dice twice in a single round, add an extra hit point or remove a die from the opponent.

Timeline cards also give a bonus to any dinosaur from the corresponding time period, so if you can field a Late Cretaceous dinosaur during a Late Cretaceous battle, you’ll receive a one-die bonus. Exploiting the Combat and Timeline cards can mean the difference between victory and defeat.

In action, the game proves easy to pick up. Although aimed at ages eight and up, we found that even a four-year-old was able to get to grips with the basic gameplay. Leaving out the Combat and Timeline cards makes it easier for very young children to join in and is probably a good way to introduce the game even for older kids, adding the strategy cards in later.

The game stimulates the imagination, with each victory being accompanied by enthusiastic roars. Battles that are over in one roll are hailed as particularly impressive ("He killed him with one bite!" was the delighted cry on one occasion), while drawn-out affairs generate increasing tension as the dinosaurs thrash it out.

The game can be played with two to five people, and the ability to tailor the length of the game by limiting the number of cards dealt out (two players can enjoy a very quick game with three dino cards each), means that Jurassic Wars can be enjoyed when you have just a few minutes to spare, or can be stretched out into a gruelling war of attrition.

The compact box makes it perfect for use as a travel game or for taking on holiday, and longevity is helped by the provision of alternate game rules for when you fancy a different challenge.

A simple concept that results in a lively, action-packed game, Jurassic Wars deserves to be a big hit.

ToyTalk.co.uk is an online toy and game website that primarily covers the UK market.

by Tstefan

Witam

Zapraszam do zapoznania się z krótką, ale treściwą recenzją gry Times Square (niemiecki tytuł: Auf der Reeperbahn nachts um halb Zwei) autorstwa Reinera Knizia – lekkiej, prostej, przyjemnej, a ponadto dość taniej dwuosobowej gry o ciekawej mechanice.

*

Krótki opis:



Gra „przedstawia” konflikt dwojga właścicieli modnych lokali, którzy rywalizują między sobą o przyciągnięcie do swego lokalu pewnych znanych postaci: Szampańskiego Charliego i Brylantowej Lilly (załóżmy, że on jest aktorem, zaś ona piosenkarką). Podczas swojej tury każdy z uczestników tej dwuosobowej zabawy wykonuje ruchy, które mają przybliżyć którąkolwiek z tychże postaci (zielone figurki na planszy) do drzwi własnego lokalu.


Co w pudełku:



Mała, ale estetyczna i w dobrze spełniająca swą rolę plansza, na której zgodnie z pewnymi zasadami przemieszczają się postaci: wspomniane gwiazdy kina i estrady (zielone figurki), a także właściciele obu restauracji (figurki żółta i czerwona) oraz dwóch ochroniarzy Brylantowej Lilly (reprezentują ich figurki szare). Dodatkowo mamy talię; zagrywanie kartami - choć nie tylko to - umożliwia przesuwanie figurek na planszy. Elementy gry są wykonane zupełnie przyzwoicie, do niczego nie można się przyczepić.


Jak się gra w Times Square?



Całkiem fajnie... Mechanika gry jest typowo błyskotliwa, jak to w grach Reinera Knizia. Oczywiście, jak to jego grach często bywa, „przedstawiona” w grze sytuacja (rywalizacja właścicieli restauracji) stanowi wyłącznie pretekst dla abstrakcyjnej (numerycznej, można by wręcz powiedzieć) gry. Dokładny opis mechaniki znajdziecie w instrukcji, której nie ma sensu przepisywać. Dość powiedzieć, że można zagrywać kartami, z których część to jockery; ponadto jeden z właścicieli ma możliwość przyciągania na swoje pole jednej postaci w swej turze. Zasady gry są dość proste, choć przynajmniej raz warto przećwiczyć je „na sucho”. Generalnie nauczenie się podstaw gry nie powinno zająć więcej niż 10 minut. Ogólnie zabawa polega na „przeciąganiu liny”: korzystając z posiadanych kart oraz ogólnych zasad gry usiłujemy w swej turze jak najbardziej przyciągnąć do swojej restauracji czy to Brylantową Lilly (Brili-Lilly) czy to Szampańskiego Charliego. Występująca tu mechanika jest bardzo oryginalna, nie znajdziecie tego w innych grach; chciażby dlatego warto.


Stosunek jakość/cena:



W pudełku znajdziemy talię kart, 6 drewnianych figurek,a także niewielką planszę. Zważywszy na samą „materialną” zawartość gra nie powinna być droga; i rzeczywiście, mi udało się ją nabyć za około 40 złotych. Taka lub niewiele wyższa cena jest moim zdaniem w pełni akceptowalna.


Fusy, plusy i minusy:



Fusy:
Dzisiaj akurat bez fusów…

Minusy:
Mała, lekka gra (jeśli ktoś szuka wielkich tytułów).
Element losowy - dla niektórych to feler (o wygranej współdecydują ciągnięte ze stosu karty).

Plusy:
Mała, lekka gra doskonała do krótkiego pogrania sobie wieczorem po pracy lub szkole.
Kolejna dobra i w miarę tania dwuosobówka.
Dość szybka do nauczenia się, a zatem dobra również dla początkujących, młodszych graczy etc.
Ciekawe mechanizmy rządzące grą (efekt „przeciągania liny”, możliwość rozmaitych zagrań etc.) powodują, że niemal każda rozgrywka jest inna.


Konkluzja – dla kogo jest Times Square?



Przede wszystkim dla graczy, którzy najczęściej grają w układzie dwuosobowym (jest to gra tylko dla dwojga): za stosunkową niewysoką cenę dostajemy grę bardzo sympatycznie wykonaną, a ponadto odznaczającą się ciekawą mechaniką „przeciągania liny”. Mistrzostwo świata to może nie jest, ale jeśli masz ochotę na lżejszy tytuł dla dwojga, który miło zaskoczy Cię swą mechaniką – kupuj w ciemno; jest to po prostu dobry średniak. Ode mnie Times Square dostaje na BBG 7 pkt.; będę do niego wracał dość często – właśnie jako do fajnego średniaka z błyskotliwą mechaniką (- thanks Reiner, again...).



PS. Jeżeli w tekście znalazły się błędy literowe, najmocniej pzrszeprszam ;-)

by valpocarnie

So, at GenCon last year, I saw some friends playing this game in the hotel. After trying it, I decided to pick it up as well.

First impression: Being a fan of dice games, I was quickly interested in this game, especially one as simple and quick as this. The components looked good, if not great, and effective at what they were there for. I was also surprised at the ease of learning to play.

Time required: I have a tendency to gravitate towards larger and longer games, so a faster game like this is something I don't do much. In about an hour, you can play a few smaller games of God Dice.
God Dice can be adjusted to whatever time you want to put into it. There are a total of 12 character cards (2 each of 6 different characters). These can be divided however you wish. We have played 3 player games with one card each that took about 8 minutes, and then played 2 player games where we each have one of each character. This took about 30-45 minutes. This is probably one of the only games in my closet that we can bust out for a few minute game, and then play it the next day for over an hour.

Components: While the components aren't the greatest thing you will ever see, they definitely don't fall into the worthless category. The character cards are on Ok stock and the dice are pretty solid, but the life markers and symbol markers leave a little bit to be desired, being little cardboard circles with images on them. They are also small enough to worry about small children or animals getting hold of them, at which point, you will probably never seem the marker again.

Layout: This is really only about the cards, the dice and markers get laid out however you wanna set them. The cards are set up in a straightforward manner. Players who are all about the art will be rather disappointed, as the art is facedown until the character dies, at which point, you are probably too mad to care. The side of the card with the game play information is set up neatly and is very organized and easy to read. It is clear what symbols are required and what happens when those symbols come up. The only complaint I have here is that when 5 wilds are rolled, some people don't realize that they can only choose one of the solid color attacks, and not the special one, but that is very minor.

Game play: This is the meat of the game. First, players choose how many characters each person will get. Then dice are rolled to determine order (each player rolls the pile once and the player with the most yellow symbols goes first). The first player picks one character, then the next, and so on, until each player has the correct number of characters.
Now for actual combat. It starts with the player attacking the player to their left (this can change, and often does). The attacker picks the attacking character, while the defender picks the character to take the damage (hopefully). The "God Dice" are rolled, to see if either character is favored. This mechanic is a good idea, but maybe wasn't implemented in the best way possible. There are 7 different things that could happen, assuming that the attacking and defending characters are different, otherwise, these dice have very little meaning, but some.
1. Dice are rolled and both are showing the defending character. Attacker loses their turn. This works, unlucky, but it works.
2. Dice both show attacking character. This is my only complaint. This is too overpowered. It is rare, but it's caused games to last 5 seconds before. I'm not kidding, 1 vs 1 game and the other guy didn't even have his character set up yet.
3. Dice both show a dead character the attacker controls. The attacker may give up his attacking turn to bring back the character from the dead at full health. This mechanic works sometimes. When the cleric or hero come back at full, it's rather annoying for everyone, but if it's the assassin, the attacker often doesn't even bother losing the turn. It does allow players to come back at a critical time if they are lucky though.
4. Both dice show one character not involved. Play reverses. I like this part. It often gets annoying attacking the same player over and over. It also allows you to get revenge on the person who was beating your guy to death.
5. One die shows attacker, none show defender. Attacker may re-roll the combat dice once at the beginning. In the little time this comes up, probably only a few times per game, it has only helped the game feel fun. The player may not like the original roll, but then re-roll and get stuck with something worse.
6. Reverse of #5. Defender may force the attacker to re-roll the combat dice after the initial roll. This part works beautifully. I have seen throws where the defender just smiles and tells the attacker to keep the roll, and I have seem times where the attacker just happened to roll maximum damage with his first roll and be told that he has to roll again.
7. Dice show different characters, but neither are involved. Nothing happens.
These "God Dice" are actually a very small part of the game, but often have a very large impact. Personally, I think these help make the game more varied and enjoyable.
Next is the main dice rolling. I won't go into as much detail about these. Players roll the 9 combat dice to try and attack. Characters each have 5 different attacks. 3 of which require 5 of the same attack symbols, wild, red, blue or yellow. They also have a basic attack and a special attack. Specials always require 5 dice of specific symbols, while basic attacks vary from 1 to 4 specific dice. Each six-sided die shows each attack symbol once and the number 5 twice. The 5's represent the amount of damage the attack will do. A basic attack, for example, will deal damage equal to the number of 5s showing. Others will deal that damage with special things added, such as healing or attacking extra characters, or they can add to the damage or multiply it.
Once the dice have been roll, or re-rolled if the "God Dice" decree, the attacker may re-roll each symbol once. The goal is to have dice showing to allow an attack of some kind. The balance is to try and decide if you want the easier basic attack, or the harder to hit attack that will hurt the other guys worse.

Characters (Balance): This is where God Dice starts to fall apart. The characters are creative, but with enough play, it is easy to see that some characters are far better than others. From our play, the six characters fall into 3 tiers. Top tier is the Cleric and Hero, middle is the Bowman and Monk, bottom is the Assassin and Sage.

Hero: Probably the most broken of the characters. First, he has the most HP in the game. Unless he's getting hit by a really lucky player, he isn't going down anytime soon. Also, he is the only character with a basic attack requiring only 1 die. He can roll dice all he wants and as long as at least one of the 9 dice is showing blue, he hits. This also allows him to keep rolling the other 8 dice to get 5s and have high damage output.

Cleric: Cleric has a large amount of HP, making it an absolute pain to kill. The Cleric also has two abilities to heal the party, making it happen a bit more often than it should. The only downside to the cleric is that he does not have a very high damage output. Although his basic attack is only 2 dice, making it pretty easy to hit.

Monk: This character is good, but not great. He has HP comparable to the Cleric, only a bit lower, and has healing abilities. However, these heals can only work on himself. Since he can't be used to keep the Hero alive, his usefulness drops. He does have a bit better damage output than the Cleric though.

Bowman: This is my personally favorite. She has lower HP than the 3 above, but it's not to the point of getting killed in one hit. The attacks are average in terms of damage, but the Bowman is able to attack multiple characters at once. In multi-player games or 2-player games where each person has 3 or more characters, her attacks can really throw someone off. Her basic attack requires 3 dice, so it can be hard to get as a last ditch effort, but not impossible.

Sage: The Sage is almost at the bottom. Her HP is dangerously low, with the very real chance of getting taken out in one hit. Her attacks are brutal, one attack dealing x3 damage, and her special hitting all opponents. However, since attacks are often hard to pull off, you would expect to have the basic attack as a backup plan, but with a basic attack requiring 4 dice, that is often not an option. The Sage hits hard if she hits... IF she hits.

Assassin: This is pretty much bottom of the barrel. Just about anyone can drop him in one hit. Monk and Hero easily, the rest with Ok rolls. He has insane damage output, with a x4 special and other attacks with the ability to pick the target, but like the Sage, the attacks often do not hit. He also has the basic attack of 4 dice, so if it doesn't hit, there is likely no damage being done.

Result: Games usually end up with people going for the Clerics and Heros first, then based on preference, usually the Monks and Bowmen next. 2 player games are usually Cleric, Hero and something vs. Cleric, Hero and something else.

Conclusion: God Dice is a great game if you like dice rolling and are looking for something short and simple. The mechanics do work great, the only issue is the balance. And even that usually isn't a problem in the games, it just leaves little variety in the games played. The flexibility in the time also helps this game make it on to our table a lot.

Note: This is my first review, so please let me know if I can improve on this anywhere.

by cymric

1. INTRODUCTION

Jaipur is a fast cardgame for 2 players by Sébastien Pauchon, published in 2009 by GameWorks. The game is about a fictive match between two salesmen in India vying for the honour to supply the Maharaja's court. In a best out of three match, the players will trade cards in their hand against cards being drawn from the draw deck in order to create sets of similar type. These sets are then subsequently sold for victory points. To make things interesting the point value obtained by selling sets diminishes as more cards are sold; but an ever growing bonus is awarded to the selling player the larger the set is. After a hand has been completed, the player with the highest amount of points is awarded a seal of the Maharaja; and the first player to gain two wins the game.


2. GAME MATERIAL

In the small box we find rule booklets in three languages (English, French, and German), a deck of Magic-sized playing cards, and a large number of round carboard chips. The cards have a pleasant and durable coating which makes handling them a joy. The chips have already been punched, obviously to keep the size of the box down to its present size. Unusual is the inlay which for once has been specifically made for this game: it even has the emblem of the game embossed in it. The inlay holds the components in place very well, so there is no need to take it out and/or bag the components. All in all, very high production quality.

The rule booklets are very clear in describing the game, although if I wanted I could complain about one or two very minor issues. These have to do with the organisation of a few rules which have been moved to an addendum of sorts instead of being incorporated in the main text, but it's no big deal. All the information you need to understand and play the game is there. Tiebreaker rules have been provided up to a certain point, but in my experience they have not been necessary yet. I suspect they very rarely are, in any case.


3. GAME MECHANICS

Both players control two 'hands' of cards: one is literally in their hand and contains up to 7 merchandise cards, the other is open in front of them and contains an arbitrary number of camel cards. A players is not obliged to share the exact number of camels with his opponent, so it is recommended to form a neat stack.

Between the players is the market: a set of five open cards, accessible to both players. It may contain any combination of resources; a resource being either a camel or one of the six types of merchandise.

Also between the players are the victory point chips, which are arranged per type of merchandise into neat rows of descending value every time a new hand starts. There are 'expensive' chips such as gems which are valued between 7 and 5, and 'cheap' chips such as hides which are valued between 4 and 1. The speed at which the value of chips decreases also varies from type to type: metals always have the same value, but hides rapidly decrease to 1 to the point where a large majority has this value.

Then there are the bonus chips, arranged in three different stacks. These are awarded when a player sells a specific number of identical merchandise cards: 3, 4, or 5 or more. Each stack has a basic value which is augmented by a small random amount of at most 2 points.

The game mechanics can be split up into two groups: those dealing with purchases and trades with the market, and those dealing with selling merchandise. A player wishing to spend his turn with the market can either

— take one merchandise card from the market, add it to his hand, and replace it with a card from the draw deck; or
— take several merchandise cards from the market, add them to his hand, and replace them with a mixture of his own camels and/or different merchandise cards from his hand; or
— take all the camels from the market, add them to his 'stable', and replace them with cards from the draw deck.

The player should take care not to exceed his hand limit of 7 cards after his turn is complete. A common source of confusion is the fact that no action 'trade one card from the market against a camel or other hand card' exists, and is thus not allowed.

A player wishing to spend his turn by selling merchandise shows any number of merchandise cards in one type and one type only to his opponent, then discards them. He takes an equal amount of victory point chips from the correspondig row, starting at the end with the highest value showing. Should he discard 3 or more cards, he takes a corresponding bonus chip. For the three most expensive types of merchandise there is an extra restriction: a sale must consist of at least two cards. Camels cannot be 'sold' this way and remain without value until the end of a hand, when a bonus is awarded to the player having the highest amount of camels in his 'stable'. In case of a tie this bonus is not handed out.


4. GAME PLAY

The cards are shuffled, and then the market is formed by taking three camels and two random cards from the draw deck. The players get five cards each, and immediately place any camels from their hand in front of them. (Camels are never placed in the hand, and do not count against the 7 card-limit.) No replacement cards are drawn.

Then players take alternating turns, selecting either a market or a sales action; they cannot do both in the same turn. The game ends when a player must draw a card from the closed deck to replace all cards taken from the market but is unable to do so for a lack of cards; or when 3 types of merchandise no longer have victory point chips available.

The players then discard any remaining cards in their hand and award the camel bonus chip. They count up the point value of all chips in their possession, and the player with the highest score wins this hand. He is awarded a seal of the Maharaja. A new hand commences, and the first player to gain his second seal wins the game.


5. DISCUSSION

Jaipur is a game with simple rules, but this is not the same as stating that the game itself is simple. Although the rules governing bartering and selling are not complex, they can lead to some unexpected interesting decisions.

For example, if the market is full of camels, then the active player can do one of two things. He can a) take all the camels or b) sell some of his merchandise. Having a large amount of camels is to some extent beneficial as they allow a player to minimise the impact on his own hand when trading with the open market cards. And, of course, as the end of the game nears, they increase the chance that the player is awarded the substantial camel bonus of 5 points. But since the cards are replaced by fresh specimens drawn from the deck, it gives the opponent the opportunity a completely new selection of resources to choose from. The alternative to this dilemma, selling merchandise, is also not without problems. If the player has one or two valuable sets which in addition would bring him a bonus chip, then selling is not a bad course of action. But if the remaining chips are worth little, then it might be better to try and enlarge the set so that a more valuable bonus chip can be claimed—and that means taking the camels.

Both players should be highly aware of the ways in which points can be obtained. At first, the urge to create sets of three or more cards is nearly Pavlovian. But this isn't the most efficient means to obtain points. During the fist stages of a hand, it can be very worthwhile to sell just one card to claim the not-too-shabby victory points of the first chip of the rows of the 'cheap' goods. It also makes sense from a strategic point of view to take this course of action: by allowing a high-valued chip to remain on the table, players run the ever increasing risk that the opponent can claim both it and a bonus chip. Since the row has then lost its valuable head, it will be difficult to make up for the resulting point difference with what remains. Following a similar line of reasoning it becomes obvious that expensive goods may definitely not be allowed to remain on the table for long. A point difference resulting from a player being able to sell 4 or even 3 gems is very difficult to close, so these types of merchandise tend to be sold in pairs—the minimum amount set by the rules.

The result is that players soon learn to keep track of what their opponents do. Apart from the cards given to the players at the start of the game, everything they do thereafter is public knowledge. Counting camels is therefore a must, as is counting gems and gold. It appears to be not absolutely necessary to count the number of regular merchandise cards taken up by the player, as long as a player has a general idea what merchandise his opponent is trying to collect. Based on that information he can then either attempt to lower the point value of the remaining point chips even further, or focus his efforts on a type he knows his opponent is not actively seeking out.

It then also becomes apparent why the bonus chips have a small random variation in their value: this is to keep the players from accurately calculating their opponent's score. Of course the score is known to within a small margin as both a lower and an upper bound can be computed. There is a darker side to this variation, however. If it is taken into account that a player usually scores between 2 and 4 bonus chips, it follows that at most 8 points can be awarded randomly. That is a significant amount, as the total scores between players usually vary between 60 and 80 points. Comparing the random variation to the difference in total scores, the validity of the preceding statement is readily seen. Viewed in that light, the guaranteed 5 point-bonus obtained via the camel cards is therefore much more important than would seem at first.

Adding all of the above together, Jaipur can become quite a tense game, especially when played against an opponent who is equally aware of the above facts. The game can be won or lost on very little, which keeps it fresh and exciting. In other words, in order for this game to 'work', the gamers should push themselves as far as they dare go, and then perhaps even further. There is a lot to keep track of, but not so much that it swamps the human brain. It gives Jaipur an air of a piece of delicate machinery, where the slightest miscalculation or jitter can cause problems which are difficult to resolve. Unfortunately, it is also here where the game's Achilles' heel becomes apparent. Due to sheer randomness, it is possible for a player to draw an extremely valuable set of cards from the draw deck. He can get these at the beginning of a hand, but he can also draw them in the course of a hand thus allowing his opponent first pick. Either way, for the player not having these cards it then becomes very difficult to remain in a competitive position. The effect is rather like jamming a screwdriver into that delicate machinery. Based on personal experience I estimate that such a situation occurs about once every six to seven hands, which in my opinion is rather often, perhaps uncomfortably so.

Subject-wise, the game doesn't have much to show for. There is no sense of a life-changing event which will see one of the players basking in the radiance of the Maharaja until death claims him, or something similar. It is a fairly abstract card game, although a lot of attention has gone into making it playable. This is shown best by the fact that the 'best out of three' has been cast in the setting of the competition: the winner is, after all, awarded 'a seal of the Maharaja'. That is, admittedly, not something Earth-shattering, but it is a nice touch nonetheless.

A hand of Jaipur lasts between 5 and 10 minutes, and the complete game usually takes about 15 to 25 minutes; setting up a new hand is a bit cumbersome as all the point victory chips must be sorted out and stacked in a precise order.


6. OPINION

Despite the fact that a hand of Jaipur can be lost infrequently due the capriciousness of Lady Luck, I rather like this game. It is fast, and it presents the players with an excellent array of choices, none of which overstay the game's welcome. The game is not particularly strategic as there is too much randomness in the cards to make such considerations worthwhile, but there is little wrong with the game's tactics. Against seasoned card players, this game is difficult to win: I lost the first dozen games in resounding 2 - 0 defeats against my partner until I 'got it' and was able to play significantly better as a result; and still the win/lost ratio isn't at precisely 1, meaning that there is more than sheer luck involved.

If you've thought about Lost Cities while reading the above, you are not the first nor the last to do so. There are many similarities between the two titles, if not in the actual game then in what the games attempt to achieve. Although I haven't touched Lost Cities in many moons (I've simply finished with it) and it is very likely that Jaipur's newness is still rubbing of on me, I easily prefer the latter to the former. The reason is that the choices in Jaipur are somewhat more involved, and that the game demands more of me as a player. I have now played both games about the same number of times (+/- 25), but I do not detect any waning of interest in me at this point when it comes to Jaipur. I cannot say with absolute certainty whether that will remain to be the case, but given the number of times I've played it to date and the enjoyment I've gotten out of it, it certainly was €16 well spent, and for the time being will continue to be €16 well spent. A very warmly recommended game for 2, doubly so if the old Kosmos titles are beginning to show their age for you.



Some images will be added at a later stage as my camera has decided to act up for the time being.