Gaming For The Week 22nd - 29th May 2010

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

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

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

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

Gaming For The Week 9th-15th May 2010

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

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

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

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

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

Gaming For the Week 18th-24th April 2010

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

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

Gaming For The Week 11th-17th April 2010

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

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

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

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




- Posted using BlogPress from my iPhone

Gaming For The Week 4th - 10th April 2010

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

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

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

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

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

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

- Posted using BlogPress from my iPhone

Gaming For the Week 14th - 20th March 2010

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

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

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

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

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

Gaming For The Week 7th - 13th March 2010

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

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

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

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

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

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


- Posted using BlogPress from my iPhone

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Gaming For The Week 21st - 27th Feb 2010

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

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

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

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

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

Gaming For The Week 14th - 20th Feb 2010

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Finally! My First F2F Game Of Dominion

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Gaming For The Week 7th - 13th Feb 2010

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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


- Posted using BlogPress from my iPhone

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

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

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

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




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

- Posted using BlogPress from my iPhone

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Gaming For The Week 10th - 16th Jan 2010

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

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

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

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

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

Battlestar Galactica

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Princes of Florence

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

Hansa Teutonica

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

Christmas Season Gaming

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

Liar's Dice

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

Monopoly Deal Card Game

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

Time's Up: Title Recall

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

14th Dec 2009 Session Report: Fans of AGoT LCG

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

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

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

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

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

8th Dec 2009 Session Report: Hansa Teutonica

Battle Line

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

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

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

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

Hansa Teutonica

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

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

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

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

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

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

Le Havre

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

3rd Dec 2009 Session Report: Greed, Incorporated

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

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

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

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

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

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

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