Gathering Hits & Misses
Greg J. Schloesser
Gathering:
HITS
First and foremost, the people. What a superb bunch of folks. It is a
pure joy to meet all of the folks I have been corresponding with over
the internet, and to get together with all of these old and new
friends. It's not a cliché, but I'd attend even if games weren't
involved. The folks are just that nice.
Now, on to the "Hit" games:
DIE FURSTEN VON FLORENZ: Without a doubt, the hit of the show.
Fabulous. Played twice and taught a half dozen other groups how to
play. Buy it!
Jay ... are you listening? Is it to late to release this one in
English?
Initial rating: 9
KARDINAL & KONIG: I played once at Gulf Games and twice more at the
Gathering. Very good game which plays in less than an hour (unless you
have Bruce Whitehill and Clark King involved!). It will hit the table
often for that reason alone.
Initial rating: 7.5
DIE KAUFLEUTE VON AMSTERDAM: First playing left me cold, but it was
accurately pointed out that it was due to the presence of one particular
gamer. Fortunately, I played two more times and my opinion greatly
improved. This isn't great, but it's good. Fun auction element which
can actually be quite tense, but the meat of the game is in the choices
of where to allocate the tokens. I still don't know why some folks
didn't like the clock mechanism.
Initial rating: 7
LA CITTA: What a gorgeous game this is, but the board does get a bit
cluttered and busy as the game progresses. The biggest complaint
against the game is that it is LONG. Our first game took 3 - 4 hours.
Our second game didn't shave off any time. It's fun, but it probably
won't be played often.
Initial rating: 7
OHNE FURCHT UND ADEL: Wonderful fun, especially if played with the
Huber/Tsuk/Berg/Schloesser pig variant, which will be posted soon.
Kudos to Bruno Faiduti on this wonderful game which is a joy to play.
Initial rating: 8
BATTLE CRY: This is one I shouldn't like. I don't like miniatures
games. Richard Irving correctly pointed out that this isn't a
miniatures game ... it is a game which uses miniatures. Still, I had to
try it as it is simply gorgeous and it has been getting rave reviews for
several years. Well, it is finally released and I sat down to a game.
I had a BLAST! This game rocks. It's BattleMasters without the flaws.
In 30 minutes or so, Ralph Anderson and I fought the Battle of
Chickamauga. I managed to slip Jeb Stuart's cavalry around his right
flank and completely annihilated three of his regiments to capture the
victory. This isn't deep, fellas, but it is tremendous fun!
Initial rating (for what it is): 8
ESCHNAPUR: Ferdinand de Cassin taught us how to play this pleasant
little game. It is a bit prone to luck concerning the draw of the 'key'
cards, but it was fun and short.
Initial rating: 6
SILBERZWERG: This game received mostly mediocre responses, including
from Al Newman. I, however, rather enjoyed it, as did several
others. It involves gem-collecting mechanism similar to that used in Sid
Sackson's Bazaar, but also has some other nasty elements you can
incorporate. There are a few problems which can be easily fixed.
Initial rating: 6.5
SCHWEINES GALLOP: Racing pigs. Need I say more? Played in the right,
light-hearted spirit, this game is a hoot. Fortunately, I played with
the right group and had a rollicking good time. It is certainly light,
family fair, but so what? We need games just like this for that forum.
Initial rating (for family game): 6
(Of course, Taj Mahal and Carolus Magnus are in this category, but they
were out before the Gathering)
THE MISSES:
PORT ROYALE: Trick taking game where players compete for one card at a
time, which is then loaded onto a ship. Get too many points of cards on
a ship and the ship goes under. Would be OK if the game played in 30
minutes, but it takes 1 1/2 - 2 hours. Just WAY too long for what you
get out of it.
Initial rating: 5
LAGUNA: Puzzle-like game where you try to maneuver your ship across the
seas without having a reef appear through the holes in the boat. You
must move the marbles in the boat before moving to cover these holes.
My wife would like this one, but I found it rather bland.
Initial rating: 5
DIE WEISSE LOTUS: I had tremendously high hopes for this game from
Martin Wallace, which was billed as a great negotiation style game. The
rules sounded cool, too. Unfortunately, it used the exact same card
play mechanism for each and every turn. Each battle had several card
play rounds, and there were often 5 or more battles to resolve each
turn. Can you spell 'repetitive'? After one round, Ty Douds and Craig
Berg were begging to quit. Craig said I should return the game to the
company complaining that the 'fun' was missing from the box. We stuck
with it for three rounds when we all finally threw in the towel. I just
HAVE to give this game another play ... I really, really want to like
it.
Initial rating: 4
WONGAR: Rich Borg taught us much of the game, and even he wasn't happy
with the changes the company had made. We played with the 'company'
rules and, for the most part, were disappointed. Joe Huber was on the
verge of upchucking. I've never seen him that aggravated with a game.
We convinced him to play a few more rounds before aborting. With the
rules of being able to move pieces into a territory from neighboring
areas, the game seems to eliminate careful planning and strategy. It is
far too random. I'll try it again, but only with Rich's original rules.
Initial rating: 4
THE CHICAGO WAY: This is a brand new release from Jolly Roger Games and
is designed by John Haley, a new Dallas Metrogamers member. The game
was Fed-X'ed in and he immediately recruited several of us into playing
it. We should have sensed trouble when the box didn't have all the
correct pieces in it and the designer himself wasn't sure of the rules
and board changes which had been made by the publisher. Still, we hung
in for a few rounds when it became clear that the print run was simply
not correct and the game was simply awful. John was clearly distraught
and hopes to convince the publisher to make corrections before it is
actually released.
Initial rating: 1
DEMOCRAZY: If you enjoy Fluff or Das Regeln Wir Schon (sp?), you'll
adore this Bruno Faiduti title. Unfortunately, I'm not a fan of either
of these, so I wasn't too keen on Democrazy. I tend not to enjoy games
where there is no real point and no strategy at all involved. That
doesn't make Democrazy a bad game ... it's just not my cup of tea at
all. I'll stick with Bruno's other release, Ohne Furcht und Adel.
Initial rating: 3
DIE WEINHANDLER: I should have listed to Peter Sarrett who informed me
earlier that this game 'worked' and had solid mechanics, but it simply
wasn't fun. Still, I just had to try it. Peter was right. There's no
obvious holes or flaws in the game, but it isn't fun to play. Boring.
Initial rating: 4
--
Greg J. Schloesser
The Westbank Gamers: http://home.earthlink.net/~gschloesser/
Strategy Gaming Society: http://pages.about.com/strategygames
Patrick O'Brien
to this game, based on Mik's reviews on brett and board, and hoping for
another good game from Moon, do the original rules change the game that
much? has Mik been playing with the company rules? Also, how do you feel
about the amount of german in Florenz, would it be daunting for the
uninitiated?
pat obrien
>
> WONGAR: Rich Borg taught us much of the game, and even he wasn't happy
> with the changes the company had made. We played with the 'company'
> rules and, for the most part, were disappointed. Joe Huber was on the
> verge of upchucking. I've never seen him that aggravated with a game.
> We convinced him to play a few more rounds before aborting. With the
> rules of being able to move pieces into a territory from neighboring
> areas, the game seems to eliminate careful planning and strategy. It is
> far too random. I'll try it again, but only with Rich's original rules.
> Initial rating: 4
>
Gaming Society: http://pages.about.com/strategygames
Mik Svellov
Patrick O'Brien asked:
>wow, was Wongar really that bad? i'm stunned, i was really looking forward
>to this game, based on Mik's reviews on brett and board, and hoping for
>another good game from Moon, do the original rules change the game that
>much? has Mik been playing with the company rules?
I have. A few weeks ago I played the the shop version with 5 players, 3 of
which didn't know the game. We played one game to get acquainted with the
rules and another one directly after that. Everybody loved the game and
several of us will buy our own copy of the game. The only change I have
noticed is cosmetic: the black markers have been exchanged for naural wood,
making them easier to spot on the stunningly beautiful board.
I am not sure what it is the Americans don't like about the game, but it
comes with two sets of rules: basic and strategic. I have only played the
*basic* rules, and while there is a certain element of luck (as in all Moon
games) I don't agree with Greg. You may not be able to carefully plan a
perfect strategy, but as with so many other games of this ilk you will have
to adapt your play to the everchanging conditions. The two central spaces
are adjacent to 6 neiboring areas and thus especially good to place your
tokens in to aid you in whatever competions that will take place in those
areas, and like in Taj Mahal you will have to decide whether you will stand
and fight or conceed to keep your cards for a better day.
Maybe Richard Borg's rules will make the game even better, but it surely is
good enough as it is.
Mik
BRETT & BOARD
http://hjem.get2net.dk/Svellov/
a danish site with news in english on german games
Dan Luxenberg
<39051975...@earthlink.net>:
>Just a quick run-down of the 'hits' and 'misses' at this year's
>Gathering:
>
>HITS
>
>First and foremost, the people. What a superb bunch of folks. It is a
>pure joy to meet all of the folks I have been corresponding with over
>the internet, and to get together with all of these old and new
>friends. It's not a cliché, but I'd attend even if games weren't
>involved. The folks are just that nice.
I agree wholeheartedly. It's the people that make the Gathering a
fantastic event!
>Now, on to the "Hit" games:
>
>DIE FURSTEN VON FLORENZ:
An EXCELLENT game. A little heavy on the german text on the cards, it
would VERY much benefit from an english edition (*hint* *hint* Jay)
>KARDINAL & KONIG:
Definately a quick game, and while it was a lot of fun, there was nothing
about it that 'grabbed' me. A nice 'piece laying' game.
>DIE KAUFLEUTE VON AMSTERDAM:
Actually, I thought this was one of the better games I played at the
Gathering. I enjoyed the multiple ways of scoring as well as the cute
auction mechanic. The most enjoyable part of the game is the fact that
there are a lot of decisions that need to be made, especially when you are
the Mayor for the round (do I trash this card, give it to myself, or put it
up for auction....and if I auction it, should I try and uy it..and for what
price?)
>BATTLE CRY: This is one I shouldn't like. I don't like miniatures
>games. Richard Irving correctly pointed out that this isn't a
>miniatures game ... it is a game which uses miniatures.
Exactly my initial thoughts...but when I played it I LOVED it. This is one
of my must buys (another 2 playter game that rocks!).
One game that Greg failed to mention was Morgenland (to be published by Rio
Grande Games as Aladdin's Dragons). As I was told by many people, this is
the game Keydom re done, with the rough spots smoothed out and the good
parts enhanced. I thought it was the best game I played at the Gathering
and I can't wait for the english editon to come out! The game involves
players placing their bid tokens (from 1-10 minus the 3) one at a time on
various spaces on the board. Once all tokens are placed, they are revealed
space by space, with the player with the highest total 'winning' that space
(and the second and third place players sometimes winning something as
well). The caverns provide gems (which are used to buy artifacts in the
palace spaces), the city spaces provide different advantages (going first,
getting 'spells', etc.) and the palace spaces are where you gain artifacts
(which are both victory points as well as 'special ability' items). It's a
ton of fun and I highly recommend it!
Steffan O'Sullivan
Yep, always has been. First thing I noticed at my first Gathering in
1994.
>DIE FURSTEN VON FLORENZ:
>KARDINAL & KONIG:
>DIE KAUFLEUTE VON AMSTERDAM:
>LA CITTA:
>OHNE FURCHT UND ADEL:
>BATTLE CRY:
>ESCHNAPUR:
>SILBERZWERG:
>SCHWEINES GALLOP:
What I find odd about Greg's list is that I only one of the above! The
other games were always too busy, or the timing was wrong, for me to
get to play, though I wanted to try all of the above except maybe La
Citta, which looked too long for my tastes. Maybe I'm just not as good
at weaseling my way into games as Greg is.
>(Of course, Taj Mahal and Carolus Magnus are in this category, but they
>were out before the Gathering)
Well, these two I *did* manage to play at the Gathering, and it was a
first time for both of them for me. I don't think I'll be buying
Carolus Magnus, but I'll probably buy Taj Mahal, but will play with
only nine provinces, skipping the three east-most ones. It was a good
game, but a bit repetitive for my tastes. Nine turns rather than
twelve should fix that. Besides, that puts the last province, Agra, in
the center of the board where it logically belongs ...
>THE MISSES:
>
>PORT ROYALE:
>LAGUNA:
>DIE WEISSE LOTUS:
>WONGAR:
>THE CHICAGO WAY:
>DEMOCRAZY:
>DIE WEINHANDLER:
And I didn't play *any* of these ...
Despite only playing one game from the 16 Greg listed, I really did
play a lot of new games (well, new to me: I had never played Torres
before, for example - not bad, though not as good as Tikal), and a few
old favorites.
The new one I liked the most was probably Morgenland, which will be
published soon by Rio Grande as Aladdin's Dragons. It's a bit long
with five players, but we played a four-player game that worked very
well and was a good length. I'm not sure it'll have a long life,
though - will I still be playing it two years from now? I don't know -
but I'll buy it and find out! And I also enjoyed Honeybears, awwwww...
I also played three prototypes, all of which have great potential,
though all still need a bit of work. But work on 'em, guys - they're
worth the effort!
--
Steffan O'Sullivan |
gr...@groo.com | "Life is a jest; and all things show it.
Plymouth, NH, USA | I thought so once: but now I know it."
http://www.io.com/~sos | -John Gay's epitaph
Bob Scherer-Hoock
I'd like to chime in with an opposing view (to the original post) from the
American side. Granted I've only played the game once, with three people (no
designers present), with the company rules. So far it's the most enjoyable of
new games I've played recently and the one I would most eagerly play again (have
played Carolus and Taj Mahal - both also good by the way; have not played
Florence or Merchants of Amsterdam, just to offer some context).
While I would agree that Wongar is not chess in that you can't be particularly
certain of the effect of each play nor can you see several turns down the
highway. But you certainly can apply strategy to each turn with certainty of its
immediate effect, and, as Mik said, you need to adapt to the changing
conditions.
Most of the comments in the initial post about this game struck me as wholly
destructive and certainly did not match my reaction to Wongar. Obviously
different people will have different tastes in games, so you need to take any
one reaction with substantial grains of salt (mine included).
The only actual comments on game play were that, "With the rules of being able
to move pieces into a territory from neighboring areas, the game seems to
eliminate careful planning and strategy. It is far too random." I found that
being able to move pieces in and out, either by way of reinforcement or retreat,
increased the strategy level immensely. Taking the possibility of an opponents
reinforcements into consideration before initiating a battle is a strategic
decision. And using pieces from a neighboring region only weakens that other
region and opens it up for attack, so you may not want to do that. Another
element of strategy is a decision to turn and run to preserve pieces on the
board or to preserve the scarce supply of battle cards (here I fully agree with
Mik's analogy with my other favorite new game - so far - Taj Mahal). Saying that
planning and strategy are eliminated by being able to move pieces in and out of
a region is like saying a general can't plan strategy for a battle because
there's a possibility his opponent might get some reinforcements. C'mon - that's
part of the planning, and in Wongar you can see the calvary waiting to come over
the hill..
As for the dreaded "random" label, there are only two random elements that I can
see. One is drawing cards, but if we're going condemn a game to the closet on
the basis that you have to draw card, then Wongar is going to have a lot of
company. The other random element in it is the initial setup, which is quite
random. But that operates as just the initial "changing condition" to which
players must adapt.
Possibly our respective experiences with Wongar are colored by a 3-player
experience versus a 5-player experience - I don't know. I can see where a
5-player game would likely be more chaotic in the sense that, on the average,
there will be two more turns made to change board conditions between any one
player's turn (I say "on the average" because players have the ability to some
extent in Wongar to manipulate who the starting player is each turn by their
strategic play, and it's possible to both get two consecutive turns and be
screwed by an opponent and end up with 8 other turns taking place between two of
yours). I suppose it won't be everyone's cup of tea. But how can you plan El
Grande any better? You may easily have eight turns between your turns in that
game as well, and you don't know what actions will be available from turn to
turn. How can you plan Taj Mahal any better? You have no idea what cards will be
available to you from turn to turn, and each card play and palace placement by
an opponent throws another curve at you to which you must adjust.
I'm only one person (well, maybe two with Mik), but I think Wongar is a really
fine game.
Bob Scherer-Hoock
Bruno Faidutti
Svellov" <m...@get2net.dk> wrote (écrivait) :
> Patrick O'Brien asked:
>
> >wow, was Wongar really that bad? i'm stunned, i was really looking forward
> >to this game, based on Mik's reviews on brett and board, and hoping for
> >another good game from Moon, do the original rules change the game that
> >much? has Mik been playing with the company rules?
>
>
> I have. A few weeks ago I played the the shop version with 5 players, 3 of
> which didn't know the game. We played one game to get acquainted with the
> rules and another one directly after that. Everybody loved the game and
> several of us will buy our own copy of the game. The only change I have
> noticed is cosmetic: the black markers have been exchanged for naural wood,
> making them easier to spot on the stunningly beautiful board.
>
> I am not sure what it is the Americans don't like about the game, but it
> comes with two sets of rules: basic and strategic. I have only played the
> *basic* rules, and while there is a certain element of luck (as in all Moon
> games) I don't agree with Greg. You may not be able to carefully plan a
> perfect strategy, but as with so many other games of this ilk you will have
> to adapt your play to the everchanging conditions. The two central spaces
> are adjacent to 6 neiboring areas and thus especially good to place your
> tokens in to aid you in whatever competions that will take place in those
> areas, and like in Taj Mahal you will have to decide whether you will stand
> and fight or conceed to keep your cards for a better day.
>
> Maybe Richard Borg's rules will make the game even better, but it surely is
> good enough as it is.
>
Dear Mik.... have you an english translation of the rules??? I'm very
curious about it.
--
Bruno Faidutti
12 rue Armand de Pontmartin
30133 LES ANGLES
faid...@free.fr
http://faidutti.free.fr/
Brian Bankler
Well, after one playing my thoughts are that Wongar is an OK game.
However, it gets a demerit for setting off my pet peeve ... a board game
were you draw cards randomly (with no auction or choice) and some cards
are much better than others. And another demerit for pieces that roll
off
the board.
To be fair, Battle Cry also hit the card peeve. But battle cry is
good enough that I have magnanimously forgiven it it's flaws. (That
and we've already got house rules for some of the cards).
Brian
> I'd like to chime in with an opposing view (to the original post) from the
> American side. Granted I've only played the game once, with three people (no
> designers present), with the company rules. So far it's the most enjoyable of
> new games I've played recently and the one I would most eagerly play again (have
> played Carolus and Taj Mahal - both also good by the way; have not played
> Florence or Merchants of Amsterdam, just to offer some context).
> I'm only one person (well, maybe two with Mik), but I think Wongar is a really
> fine game.
>
> Bob Scherer-Hoock
A.S.Fischer
when I had a glimmer as to what I was doing.... and I generally dislike
abstract games!
Mark Johnson
<39061A7D...@mciworld.com>:
>To be fair, Battle Cry also hit the card peeve. But battle cry is
>good enough that I have magnanimously forgiven it it's flaws. (That
>and we've already got house rules for some of the cards).
Care to share those house rules?
-MJ
Mark Johnson
<8e3ds6$12j4$1...@lynx.unm.edu>:
>wow, was Wongar really that bad?
Well, keep in mind that these are opinions only, and highly variable.
We see this after Essen, Nuremburg, and the Gathering--some games are
lauded, others panned. Six months later we start to really see the
shakeout as to which are the better games! That's enough time for more
people to play, and for the games to be played multiple times.
And Greg, bless his heart, is not one to rate all games between 6 and
8--he really exercises the full 10-point scale and shouts it from the
e-mountaintop! :-)
-MJ
Brian Bankler
Mark Johnson wrote:
>
> Brian Bankler (me) wrote:
> >To be fair, Battle Cry also hit the card peeve. But battle cry is
> >good enough that I have magnanimously forgiven it it's flaws. (That
> >and we've already got house rules for some of the cards).
>
> Care to share those house rules?
I've added them to my review of the game on the web.
I'm still divided on the skirmish cards, but I won't have
time to make a decision on them for a while, as I have
a business trip this weekend. More games later...
http://website.mciworld.com/~brian....@mciworld.com/rev_battlecry.html
> -MJ
Brian Bankler
John A. Foley
> I've added them to my review of the game on the web.
> I'm still divided on the skirmish cards, but I won't have
> time to make a decision on them for a while, as I have
> a business trip this weekend. More games later...
> http://website.mciworld.com/~brian....@mciworld.com/rev_battlecry.html
While most of the feedback is highly positive (and there are no real
negatives AND I have already ordered this game), I wanted to ask about
the design choice regarding how "activating a unit" permits that unit
to BOTH move and fire. Was there consideration given to an approach
where "activation" permitted a unit to EITHER move OR FIRE? [ I know you
are not the designer, but your web page suggests that you have had
conversations with Richard Borg. ]
I am very eagerly looking forward to this game (and I will definitely
paint my units).
John Foley
dave...@bestspamfoiler.com
Mark Johnson <Mark.E....@pobox.com> wrote:
>We see this after Essen, Nuremburg, and the Gathering--some games are
>lauded, others panned. Six months later we start to really see the
>shakeout as to which are the better games!
I am so embarassed by all these riches that there's no opportunity for a
real shakeout based on quality.
There are so many good new designs coming out that with just a piddly 4
hour weekly SVB gaming session, I rarely get to play anything more than
twice before we move on to the "new new thing". I really liked Settlers of
Nuernberg and Ursuppe, but only got 1 crack at each of those. Even Tikal
and Starfarers only came out 3 times.
--
Dave Kohr <dave...@bestSPAMFOILER.com> Be sure to remove the SPAMFOILER!
Visit the Silicon Valley Boardgamers at http://www.best.com/~davekohr/svb
"Cleave the beast Micro$oft of Redmond in twain!"