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 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.

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.

4th Aug 2009 Session Report: Battling For Supremacy On A Foreign Moon

Nexus Ops (Me-13, Van-6, Ben-5)

It has been awhile since the last gaming session and I was raring to have a go at the newly acquired Nexus Ops. Verdict? I liked it - short playtime, good fun, beautiful pieces to boot. There is a degree of luck with the exploration tiles, the card draws and of course, the battles that are seemingly dice fests BUT I exceptionally enjoyed the fact is determined by the player who pursues his/her mission objectives more relentlessly and that the energizer cards offer an added element when conserved for crucial battles. I took the win convincingly as it took Van and Ben awhile to realize that the game rewarded aggressiveness and while they were taking a conservative Risk-like approach, I was picking my battles in accordance to the Secret Mission cards drawn.

Glory to Rome (Me-35, Van-27, Ben-23)

Van picked GtR which was no surprise considering how it has become a favourite at our sessions. An early Gate set me on track early as I proceeded build a series of incomplete Marble buildings to tap on their powers. I gained multiple actions easily per turn with my combination of the Palace and Circus Maximus. Coupled with my Basilica, I loaded my vault early and proceeded to end the game quickly as I saw Van catching up with an impressive haul of influence points from her completed buildings.

Citadels (Ben-40, Me-36, Van-26)

Ben had the last pick of the day and I suggested Citadels considering the time remaining and that I have always liked it with 3. In fact, I think these days, I would only play it with 3 which is clearly the best number with each player taking 2 roles per round. I got killed multiple times by Van and despite my lost turns, I still racked up an impressive score, reaching 8 buildings first and obtaining the colour bonus. However, Ben wasn't far behind and had a much more impressive series of buildings including School of Magic and Dragon Gate. He too reached 8 buildings on the last round and got the 3 bonus points for having a building of each colour. Van's progress was slowed due to getting 3 buildings destroyed by the Warlord. As usual, single gold buildings proved to be unwise options as they got picked off one by one by the player with the Warlord.

7th April 2009: The One Where I Tried Harry Wu's New Game

Trying a new format for session reports. Played a couple of games with various ones today:

The Settlers of Catan Card Game (Van 13, Me 8)

Played with the Politics and Intrigue expansion theme. I started well and for once, managed to rush to 5 settlements before Van. What cost me were the 2 Arsonist cards that Van played against me, uprooting 2 valuable red buildings and giving her the commerce advantage. Also had a few untimely hits by the brigades which Van escaped thanks to her Garrison. Van also played 2 Excommunication action cards, preventing me from assessing the 2 expansion decks available. This game can seriously be rather cut-throat but that appeals to me. Still waiting for my 1st win against Van, will be sure to pay more attention to the attack action cards the next time round.

Glory to Rome x 2 (1st game: Me 47, Van 22, Mun 13; 2nd game: Me 25(4), Van 25(3), Mun 17)

In the first game, I ran away with the game thanks to a Aqueduct (allows you to additionally add a client from hand when Patron is played) and a Basilica (In addition when playing Merchant, player may add card to vault from hand). My vault was stocked while the other 2 struggled to keep up. Ended the game by taking the last in-town site.

In the second, I managed to get up to 3 craftsman clients. Coupled with my Circus Maximus (Doubles your client actions), I had a slew of building actions. Was going to end the game by taking the last 2 in-town sites with my 6 craftsman action but drew a Catacombs thanks to my Temple (+4 max hand size) and ended the game by completing it with the special ability of my Road (use any material for stone buildings). The 3 influence points proved critical as I was unaware Van had completed her Wall (1VP for every 2 material in stockpile) and scored heavily for the bunch of materials in her stockpile. Checked the rules for the tiebreaker and apparently it boiled down to remaining cards in hand which I pipped her by 1.

Citadels (Me 26, Van 16, Mun 9)

Hadn't pulled this out for awhile which was nice since this was one of the first games I bought when I got into the hobby, plus the oldest player gets to start first! I find Citadels best with 3 as each player gets 2 roles per turn and the game doesn't drag out like it does with 5-7. We played the shorter game to 7 buildings as Mun needed to leave. I took the Assassin for the first 2 turns and avoided missing a turn throughout the game, which allowed me to rush to 7 to end the game.

Prussian Eastern Railroad (Van 734, Me 618, Marcus 574)

Marcus brought over a new Harry Wu game for us to try. I have been hearing good things about his other game, Chicago Express and thus was intrigued to have a first go at one of his games. The rules were sufficiently easy to grasp but it yet it was hard to figure out how to play it well. The difficulty playing new games with an auction element is not knowing how much to bid. In retrospect, we underbid for the railway shares, and Van who obtained the bulk of them acquired the upper hand. In addition, we allowed her to purchase shares in 7 out of the 8 railway companies which made it difficult to claw back the advantage. For whatever we tried to do in increasing railway income or triggering double dividends for certain companies, she would benefit too. 

With a fixed number of shares per company, I realized it made little sense to split up the shares 1:1:1 between us which was what we largely did. It seems like it makes more sense to buy additional shares in the company you already have a stake in unless you can force your opponent to overpay. There is some luck with the turn order mechanism but not enough that it makes the game flaky. Keen to try it again but doubt it will be something I'll be looking to own. The metagame element seems rather significant and there is some kingmaking element. Reminds me somewhat of El Grande where there can be a runaway leader issue unless everyone else works together to thwart the leader.