Modern Art with 6 players?
Joseph Czapski
Has anyone ever tried Modern Art with 6 players? It plays so well with 5,
you would think 6 would be pretty good, too. Except that you wouldn't have
enough coins, but you could remedy that by ordering more coins from Mayfair
Games, which has an online parts department.
Maybe in playtesting they found that the bidding dynamics and the strategic
effects of putting a painting up for auction were degraded with 6 players.
Or was it another reason that it's a 3 to 5 player game?
There are 70 painting cards. For 5 players, the cards dealt to each player
are:
1st round: 8 cards
2nd: 3
3rd: 3
4th: 0
For six players, I think I'll try:
1st round: 6 cards
2nd: 3
3rd: 2
4th: 0
Joe Czapski
Boston, Mass., USA
cza...@mediaone.net
Ted Cheatham
problem. And, the money issue is easily solved with poker chips. Your
distribution of cards is a good choice. Give it a go and let us know how it
went.
--
Ted Cheatham
Joseph Czapski <cza...@mediaone.net> wrote in message
news:S2cV6.25512$_Y5.4...@typhoon.ne.mediaone.net...
Michael Shuck
you can do a search in Google and find the old posts. I've personally been
having a harder time navigating Google than Deja so I'm not sure I could
find the old posts.
As I recall from the previous conversation, there was something about the
game that didn't quite work with 6 players.
-Mike
David desJardins
> I've personally been having a harder time navigating Google than Deja
> so I'm not sure I could find the old posts.
The goal is to be easy to use. Searching for
[ modern art (six or 6) players group:rec.games.board ]
gave me lots of reasonable looking results.
David desJardins
Joseph Czapski
You're right! Thanks for suggesting that. A Google search shows at least 3
such questions posted in the past -- in early 2001, and in 2000 and 1999.
The general opinion of those who tried it was that 6 players works just
fine.
A card deal suggested over the 4 rounds was 6, 3, 3, 0. But that makes 72
cards and there are only 70 in the deck. That means you'd have to take 2
previously discarded cards. I think I'll stick with my plan of a 6, 3, 2, 0
card deal.
Joe Czapski
Boston, Mass., USA
cza...@mediaone.net
David desJardins
> The goal is to be easy to use. Searching for
>
> [ modern art (six or 6) players group:rec.games.board ]
I'm sorry; the actual query is:
[ modern art (six OR 6) players group:rec.games.board ]
You do have to type the "OR" operator in capital letters (which I knew
when I did the query, but mistyped in my posting here).
David desJardins
Michael Shuck
that I EVER would have come up with the string of characters you mentioned.
Did you take a graduate level class on web searching or do you design these
things for a living? Maybe I'm just stupid....
-Mike
Mike Herms
> Mike,
>
> You're right! Thanks for suggesting that. A Google search shows at least
3
> such questions posted in the past -- in early 2001, and in 2000 and 1999.
> The general opinion of those who tried it was that 6 players works just
> fine.
>
> A card deal suggested over the 4 rounds was 6, 3, 3, 0. But that makes 72
> cards and there are only 70 in the deck. That means you'd have to take 2
> previously discarded cards. I think I'll stick with my plan of a 6, 3, 2,
0
> card deal.
>
I looked into this a couple of years ago and came up with 7/2/2/0 for the
card distribution.
See:
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=modern+art++group:rec.games.board+author:m
herms%40erols.com&hl=en&lr=&safe=off&rnum=2&ic=1&selm=38AEC658.4904CE20%40er
ols.com
Mike
Windopaene
No, actually he does design those things for a living.
He works for google...
David desJardins
I work at Google; I certainly have more experience in how to search.
But, if you have suggestions on how to make it easier to use, I'm always
happy to listen. You can also read the "Groups Help" at
http://groups.google.com/googlegroups/help.html
and the "Search Tips" at
In this case, even if you just type
[ modern art six players ]
you get very good results, I think.
David desJardins
Geenius at Wrok
> I work at Google ...
This would have been an excellent thing to disclose back when you were
urging people to use Google rather than ask questions on the
newsgroup. :-]
--
"Respectful disagreement between people of goodwill is of
course democratically natural and healthy and, when you come
right down to it, kind of fun." -- David Foster Wallace
=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+
Live with honor, endure with grace "I notice you have a cloud of doom.
Keith Ammann is gee...@enteract.com I must admit it makes you seem
www.enteract.com/~geenius * Lun Yu 2:24 dangerous and sexy."
David desJardins
>> I work at Google ...
>
> This would have been an excellent thing to disclose
You mean like this?
http://groups.google.com/groups?ic=1&selm=vohk86lrq0q.fsf%40math.berkeley.edu
> back when you were urging people to use Google rather than ask
> questions on the newsgroup. :-]
I've sometimes suggested ways that people can use Google, or other
search engines, to find information. I hope that my experience helps me
to give useful advice. But I've never said that people should refrain
from asking questions here.
David desJardins
Geenius at Wrok
> Geenius at Wrok <gee...@enteract.com> writes:
>
> >> I work at Google ...
> >
> > This would have been an excellent thing to disclose
>
> You mean like this?
>
> http://groups.google.com/groups?ic=1&selm=vohk86lrq0q.fsf%40math.berkeley.edu
I was thinking more of this --
-- after Orwell asked whether anybody knew Amigo Spiele's URL.
> > back when you were urging people to use Google rather than ask
> > questions on the newsgroup. :-]
>
> I've sometimes suggested ways that people can use Google, or other
> search engines, to find information. I hope that my experience helps me
> to give useful advice. But I've never said that people should refrain
> from asking questions here.
No, just pointed out that "search engines" obviate the need.
(Credit where it's due: Google did make it real easy to find that post!)
Michael Shuck
-Mike
David Vander Ark
Anyone care to comment on the relative merits of the two suggested card
distributions? We've got 6, 3, 2, 0 and 7, 2, 2, 0. (I suppose you
could also go 7, 3, 1, 0). Any preferences, and why? Any other
variants out there, there aren't any listed on the Geek.
Thanks,
David
Remove "no spam" to email me, it's hiding in my address