December 06
November 06
October 06
September 06
August 06
July 06
June 06
May 06
April 06
March 06
February 06
January 06

December 05
November 05
October 05
September 05
August 05
July 05
June 05
May 05
April 05
March 05
February 05
January 05

December 04
November 04
October 04
September 04
August 04
July 04
June 04
May 04
April 04
March 04

Rosliston 06
B&P 06
Midcon 05
Midcon 04

Talislanta
 

1st March 06.....................................................10 Players

I can offer little more than a collection of stats this week. Time is pressing.

Railroad Tycoon - 150 minutes

Dave had his work cut out as the host of this game with 3 new players and 2 who had only played once. Chris fair ran away with the lead from the beginning. He got two early cards “first to deliver a good 3 stations” and the “first to get a level 4 train”. I was entwined with Dave around the New York area. Luke made up a nice central network. Chris cut a line north to south through the middle of the map. Steve G had two networks south east and central west. Steve P dominated the south west and did ok from an early hotel in New York. Dave did not take out a single loan all game. I liked his idea of using the “build 4 bits of track in the clear for free” card in the first round.

Tigris & Euphrates – 90 minutes

I really need to get to play this game again. It is so praised on the Geek yet I have failed to see what there is to rave about.

Setters – 60 minutes

8th March 06.....................................................9 Players

We just got 2 games played tonight. It was good to have Duncan and Matt back with us. I deliberately avoid commenting on trophy points, except at the end of the month, so as not to big the system up beyond its station but tonight saw a couple of point issues so I have addressed these below.

Antike - 150 minutes

For me this was one of the best gaming experiences I have ever had and we did not even finish the game! Starting in the centre of the board probably helped my enjoyment because I was in the thick of it. I was discussing the game with Steve Paget on the way home and we concluded that it was unfair to call the result. For example there could be an argument put forward that Luke would likely win and Steve H and I were the least likely to have made it to 8. Any of us could have won had we had another 30 minutes to see the game to a conclusion. I have averaged out the total number of trophy points between us.

The individual approaches to this game probably reflected our general personal playing styles:

Mike built himself up nicely in the corner.

Luke cranked out military units and spread out rapidly

Steve P did a clever dance in the centre of the board

Steve H started off the war, upping the aggression in the game

Gordon. I took a city or two off each of the 4 other players.

Steve’s comment:

The Wisdom of Solomon as usual – I certainly didn’t feel like the joint winner with virtually nothing left on the board. Mike also pointed out in the car afterwards that a 7-7-7-7-7 tie was possible in our game (there are 35 cards apparently). I hope Antike won’t give us a problem with time in the future, although the rules explanation did take a while and that won’t always be an issue. Like Powergrid, we just need to make sure we start promptly. I think 5 players might be best for this game (although I haven’t yet done it with 4 or less).

 

Mike’s comment:

Yes, I really enjoyed it too.  Still not wholly convinced about the VP victory conditions, after all with only 35VP's available I think the 7-7-7-7-7 5-way draw was a real possibility for our game!  Definitely want to play again soon.

 

Gordon’s comment:

In the case of all the cards being taken before anyone has the required victory points then the win goes to the next person to destroy a temple.

 

Mike:

Yes, I think I've seen that somewhere but had forgotten it - could end up a very long game!

Fury of Dracula – 130 minutes bgg

There were some complaints about the way the points have been awarded on this one. I have checked back and I have been consistent on this, in team games the “team” counts as a single player each getting the same points. This means points were awarded in this game as if it was between 2 players. So if Dave had lost the rest would each have got 260 points. This works on the assumption that the team is about 50% likely to win against the individual. I am sorry if that undermines Dave’s victory.

Dave’s comment:

I introduced Dave C to FoD on Saturday and he is keen to play Wednesday, I know Mike is keen as well providing he doesn’t get seduced by wanton hussies like Antike, so I’m hoping to have another play then.

Update:

I re-evaluated the trophy points on this game following discussion with Dave D. The game was scored as a normal 4 player game with the winner getting the first place points and the others having an average of the points that would normally be assigned to 2nd, 3rd and 4th.

15th March 06.....................................................12 Players

First off it was nice to have Richard Crawshaw back for a second visit and Julian back after several weeks off. We were up to a respectable turnout of 12 allowing us to run a game on each of the 3 tables.

Caylus - 140 minutes

Last years Essen saw the release of 3 fantastic games; Caylus, Railroad Tycoon and Antike. I have been raving about Caylus for some time, then I was caught up with the lush Railroad Tycoon but Antike has been occupying my thoughts for the last few weeks, now my mind is back on Caylus. There is so much re-play value in this game, each game plays differently.

Steve H picked his way through the individual turns in a better way than the rest of us and won as a consequence. Simple as that. He had longer than his share of time in the pub and at the head of the turn order. He built 4 batches at the castle in the last turn.

Julian was the only person not to have played before. Fortunately I don’t know anyone who can take in a new set of rules quiet as quickly as he can so there was little hold up for the rest of us. Julian built the most buildings and I think I am right in saying he contributed least to the castle.

Matt had the most residence. He did not pull in many favours over the game.

Duncan was keeping me company at the back for most the game but pull away over the last couple of turns with some worthy castle building.

Gordon. I went for the building track on the favour table but gained no benefit when the stone builder and residence builder both got placed early.

Nobody built a blue bonus building. Overall there were only a couple of turns that the Provost went on 2 spaces, most the time he has only going on one. This was a low resource game with a lot of bribing going on in the early stages disabling many workers. At one point the Provost was sent all the way back to the bridge. Duncan and I were probably worst hit by savage early Provost movement. 

Matt’s comments:

I only sent 2 batches in, and I’m not sure if I should have sent those in. In the coldest sense it's 3 goods to gain: 2, 3 or 4 points at the end of each phase. Most times, 2 of those goods would net you more points than that if you used them for building. I don't think I was extreme enough in my play- I should have ignored the king totally. I didn't pull in any favours at all. I built my way to victory. There was a difference in building strategy though: I just built the high scoring buildings, which are less popular. Julian built the ones most likely to be used. I think he got a better return over the whole game. I really liked his plan to control stone production and stone buildings.

 

Gordon’s waffle:

In round figures I think you get about 30 coins over the course of an entire game and you should be looking to get an end score of say 60 vp’s. This gives us a bench mark. Each coin needs to be gaining us 2 vp’s.

 

Eg If you place a building that might gain you 8 vp’s over the course of the game I suggest this would have been a good purchase if you managed to achieve it for the use of 4 coins or less.

Eg You spent 3 cubes at the castle to gain 4 vps and a favour which gave you another 2. Did you manage to generate the cubes and pay for placements for a cost of 3 coins? If so you are on line for your 60vp’s.

 

………………several minutes worth of waffle has been cut. I stand by my opening sentence and the eg’s but I will leave it to other to develop the hypothesis. Actually I can do the waffle ok it is the backing it up with coherent facts that I am struggling with.

 

Julian’s comments:

My view on the correct strategy is that it will change every game, similar but not quite the same as Puerto Rico. In PR you are looking for the game plan that is similar but more effective than the opposition's i.e. it's difficult to be a producer if nobody else is. In Caylus, you gain most by providing a unique counter point to the opposition, i.e. you want to use the buildings that are unpopular that turn. For the game I took my usual approach to a new game, which is finding a monopoly and seeing how strong that monopoly is, there are only 2 stone production buildings to build so it seemed the easy thing to go for. It helped massively in holding the first turn order for 3 vital turns, maybe with Steve's easy win while turn order hogging in the early game, this shows turn order to be vital for a top score. What surprised me was that money was more important in the later game than the early game, I was too poor in the final 3 turns.

 

Gordon:

I think Steve being in the pub for so long was of greater consequence to his success than the time he spent at the head of the turn order. I agree that being out of phase with the requirements of the other players is good eg you have the blocks to go into the castle when others don’t then when other have blocks they want to take to the castle you have less competition collecting blocks.

 

Steve’s Comments:

Might as well add my two penny worth on this excellent game. I think the variety of views shows there is no right answer in this game, and with that in mind I play entirely reactively. The first thing I had to react to last week was going last on the first turn – that can actually help because by the time your turn comes, your options begin to be dictated for you. Obviously last time I majored on the castle and favours and it worked but it might not next time. The pub seemed very important in our game but it hasn’t been at other times. Certainly if you get booted out after 1 turn it feels like a wasted worker.

 

I think the importance of money can be underestimated – Matt played the bribes very well early and destabilised at least two strategies by doing so. But I think I disagree with Matt’s analysis – there’s something psychologically damaging about losing VPs for not building castle bits, not to mention the solid VPs you actually gain for each castle bit you build.

 

Matt:

Yes, you're absolutely right. The first batch you send each phase gets you 7vps (5-(-2); 4-(-3);3-(-4)). I'd forgotten that. So it terms of block/vp effect it's always going to worth shipping at least 1 batch. The possible exception would be to hoard blocks in the first phase and stay on 0vp then use the blocks to build in the second phase- that could net you more building vps/block than shipping. It only works in that situation because you can avoid the penalty.

Fury of Dracula – 135 minutes bgg

There has been a lavish production job done on this game. Games like this that don’t fit the modern euro mould generate mixed feelings in the group. Dave enjoys it and Matt certainly does not. I am interested to hear Mike and Richard’s take. 

Dave D’s comment:

The game seemed better received this week, possibly due to all players having played and liked the original version. Richard says he is definitely buying the game.

 

Mike’s comments:

I always enjoyed the original and enjoyed this revamped (no pun intended...) Fury of Dracula, and the 2 1/2 hours seemed to fly by.  The change to the Dracula movement system I like, the day/night mechanism adds more skill, the production is superb, but......somehow all the changes seem to add up to an easier time for old Drac, and some of the stuff which makes his job easier, which seemed okay when he was constantly struggling in the old version, now look a bit game-wrecking. Massive 'reset buttons' in games just seem a bit old-fashioned now, perhaps?  I really don't know.  I'd be interested in Dave C's comments after he plays, for we were of course the hunters all those years ago when good three player games were so hard to find.

 

Richard’s comments:

I always enjoyed playing the original GW FoD; the people I played with were always the same two plus occasionally one other.  It was only a handful of games that we played, maybe half-a-dozen; the same person was always Drac and he usually won, which was interesting because he didn't usually win any of the other games we played (Kingmaker, Civilization, etc.). I like the combined tactical and strategic aspects of games like FoD.

 

I really liked the play of this game, there was good tension in the early search.  Mina almost caught him in Ireland (I should have twigged that strategy having read all the stuff on BGG), but he managed to get away and get his first vampire matured:  a bit of a blow. Then after a bit of a protracted search we eventually had Drac cornered in Eastern Europe and all his train exposed.  Unfortunately most of the fights occurred at night which didn't give the hunters sufficient of an advantage to pull off any notable wins.  Dracula on the other hand managed to bite both Dr. Seward and Godalming.  And then he got away!  I forget the name of the card, but it was the criticised "teleport" one. We quickly discovered that it was back to Ireland, a lucky guess on Hired Scouts.  The hunters started to move in again, but we ran out of time.

 

I am really looking forward to playing this again, and the sooner the better.

 

Back to Dave D:

With regard to the massive reset button (evasion card) I'd make the following points. It is a single card in a deck of 75 which must be used immediately and may turn up at a time which is not particularly useful. Also the hunters have a deck littered with cards to help then to find Dracula plus two cards corresponding to Evasion (sense of Emergency) which can be used at a time to suit themselves. These powers are also available using resolve (the hunters never used this in this game) so it is not even necessary to draw the card. It is true that it costs health for the hunters to use their "teleport" power, but if Dracula is near winning this cost has been reduced to a low value. Add to this the fact that the new secret movement system in itself makes it easier to track the Vampire and the card is hardly game wrecking as Richard's comments show.

 

I find it interesting that in Richard's experience Dracula usually won the old game, since the old victory condition of get 6 vampires on the board at the same time always seemed next to impossible, requiring first to get them in hand and then for the hunter's not to destroy 1 or more before 6 were in position. The other alternative to go after the hunters was also a dodgy option as the combat system meant that you never be sure if it would be night (good) or day (a big problem). I agree with Mike that the overall effects of the changes make it easier for Dracula but would argue that this was needed for game balance.

 

Back to Richard:

Broadly speaking I agree with Dave D on the evasion card.  I didn't intend to imply it was game wrecking, it certainly wasn't in our game. In fact, if anything I think it probably improved that game -- our problem was that we ran out of time.  For me it is representative of what Dracula did:  you think you've got him corned then suddenly he's gone! (After re-reading Dave's final sentence, I'm not sure if I've interpreted its meaning correctly, but whatever, we both agree that the "teleport" card is not a game wrecker.) The hunters did use Resolve once:  I think it was Mina who used it to get from Eastern Europe back to Ireland after Dracula had escaped, but it might have been earlier in the chase to get her from Northern France to join in the hunt in Eastern Europe, I can't really remember. Some further thoughts on the "teleport" card:  if it is felt to be too powerful then perhaps limit it (and the hunter's similar abilities) to cities within a particular limit; say five or seven from the starting city.

 

Dave Cooper’s comments:

Having now played two games, I think this is an excellent game. As Mike said, we played the old version quite a bit; I think the movement rules for Drac are a vast improvement, the addition of Mina makes for more options for the Hunters, the Day/Night cycle makes things more strategic (before, it was 50/50 if you got Drac at night) and the whole production value makes the game a pleasure to play. In our first game (Me, Jen and Ben vs DD as Dracula), we actually clocked his position quite early, but no-one was equipped to take him on. Thus, Lord. G was tailing him whilst Dr Seward got tooled up to take him on. The other two were in Europe as a backup. It came down to a straight fight in the day and Dr Seward staked Drac.

 

The second game, Ben asked if he could play Dracula. DD and Jen played the Hunters whilst I kept an eye on Ben [he didn't need it; he really picked it up quickly and only made one error, and that was late on]. However, he did get himself backed into a corner and DD as Dr.Seward finally cornered him in Amsterdam and again it came down to a straight fight which Seward won!

Dracula scored 3 points when DD played him and 2 pts when Ben played him.

 

Overall, I give this 10/10 and won't hesitate to play a game if offered. It's like 'Scotland Yard' but with Mr X actually having to do something. Yes, he could just hide and eventually the game would be won for him; but to do this he would have to successfully hide for 36 turns; this would be quite an achievement and I think would be a deserved win.

Traders of Genoa – 110 minutes

This was the quietest game of Trader we have had at the club. I understand Luke got a run of 9 of the outer buildings connected and did well with the Cathedral. The other players must have been fulfilling plenty of orders to have kept in contention. Luke has been bringing the game along for some weeks now and it was due to get an airing, I had wanted to get in on the game myself, so little time and so many great games.

Through the Desert – 40 minutes

22nd March 06.....................................................11 Players

We started the evening with a heavy weight on each of the 3 tables; Amun Re, Power Grid and Traders of Genoa.

We do have the space to run three games in this room though we are bordering on the snug. We have got access to the bar downstairs where we can run another 2 or 3 games. I know we get many lurkers looking in on the web site, don’t be put off from visiting us because of concerns over where you might sit!

Amun Re - 100 minutes

Richard C brought this game along. He is the 3rd person in the group to own a copy. Steve has only played once before and that was a year ago, the rest of us are experienced players.

Only one of the camel provinces was in play which kept the sacrifices moderately high for a 4 player game. We hit the “3” once, the rest of the time we were in the 1 or 2 zones. I contributed the most to the offering every turn but one, that represents a lot of gifts.

The level of bids was kept modest because no territories were seen as particularly duff or as an absolute must buy. I don’t think anyone spent more than 6 on any territory throughout the game.

Steve P took the points for having the most end game money. He had a gold more than Richard B. Note this deprived Richard of victory. I had least money. I had 3 temples in the second epoch. I felt obliged to offer a generous sacrifice in the final bidding round to push up the value of my temples but in doing this I throw away any chance of bonus points for end of game gold.

Carcassonne Hunters & Gatherers – 40 minutes