Bohnanza : Amigo or Rio Grande Games?
aerich
I plan to buy this game, but most of the time we are only two
people to play. I know that the Rio Grande version supports 2-7
players, but it's more expansive than the Amigo version, since there
are extra cards. My question is the following : can I manage to play a
2-player game with Amigo cards, using Rio Grande rules. I understand
that some cards would be missing, but does it really matters? Is it
playable?
Thank you for your answers :)
- Eric -
Brent Ross
aerich <aer...@webmails.com> wrote:
// My question is the following : can I manage to play a
// 2-player game with Amigo cards, using Rio Grande rules. I understand
// that some cards would be missing, but does it really matters? Is it
// playable?
It should work, although you'll be using a much smaller deck (98 cards
as opposed to 144). You can always play an additional time through the
deck if that makes the game feel to short.
Brent Ross
aerich
Thank you for your answer, Brent. To fix the "98 vs 144 cards
problem", maybe I could turn 2 cards face up instead of 3, making the
deck lasting longer. Unless it would affect the game too much...?
- Eric -
Michael Abramowski
I haven't played with 2 players yet, but I do have the basic game and
the expansion (both from Amigo). I remember some "special mission" cards
from the expansion that presumably are used in the 2-player game, as
there won't be much trading going on with 2 players. If you just buy the
basic game, you won't have the "special mission" cards. That may be a
serious detriment to the game with 2.
In addition, you never (well, maybe with 7) use all 144 cards of the
combined game. There are instructions in the rules on which cards to
leave out, depending on the number of players. I would expect 98 cards
to be in principle enough (maybe even too much) for a 2-player game.
However, these "mission cards" may pose a problem. Can anyone with
"mission experience" comment on that?
As fas as I remember from browsing the rules on missions, they give you
extra points wneh you receive a certain exact size of bean fields.
Regards,
Michael
Peter Clinch
> Thank you for your answer, Brent. To fix the "98 vs 144 cards
> problem", maybe I could turn 2 cards face up instead of 3, making the
> deck lasting longer. Unless it would affect the game too much...?
I think that the RG version is just the original Amigo plus the first
expansion. I have Amigo + Exp 1, and only mix in the extra deck for
more players: it works fine with the RG rules as they are with the
smaller deck IMHO.
Pete.
--
Peter Clinch University of Dundee
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Medical Physics, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net p.j.c...@dundee.ac.uk http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/
Brent Ross
Michael Abramowski <michael.a...@nokia.com> wrote:
// aerich wrote:
// >
// > Hi!
// >
// > I plan to buy this game, but most of the time we are only two
// > people to play. I know that the Rio Grande version supports 2-7
// > players, but it's more expansive than the Amigo version, since there
// > are extra cards. My question is the following : can I manage to play a
// > 2-player game with Amigo cards, using Rio Grande rules. I understand
// > that some cards would be missing, but does it really matters? Is it
// > playable?
// >
// > Thank you for your answers :)
// >
// > - Eric -
//
// I haven't played with 2 players yet, but I do have the basic game and
// the expansion (both from Amigo). I remember some "special mission" cards
// from the expansion that presumably are used in the 2-player game, as
// there won't be much trading going on with 2 players. If you just buy the
// basic game, you won't have the "special mission" cards. That may be a
// serious detriment to the game with 2.
I don't have the mission cards and have played the RG 2-player version a
few times. Its passing mechanism makes up for the missing trading quite
well.
// In addition, you never (well, maybe with 7) use all 144 cards of the
// combined game. There are instructions in the rules on which cards to
// leave out, depending on the number of players. I would expect 98 cards
// to be in principle enough (maybe even too much) for a 2-player game.
Actually, the 144 was calculated with the Cocoa (4) and Garden (6) removed,
and the 98 from that with the Coffee (24) and Weinbrand/Wax (22) removed.
The expansion was Cocoa, Coffee, and Weinbrand (RG replaced the 22s
with the Wax from another expansion).
So the Garden beans are in both sets, and it's probably best to not
play them with 2 players since they're just a bit too rare (and thus
are either useless or random winfalls). Not having the expansion/RG
set essentially cuts the deck by removing the two most common, lowest
payoff beans... which will shorten the game a bit (but that might be a
good thing if you prefer a faster game).
I certainly wouldn't bother with changing the number of flip cards to
lengthen it (to answer another post)... it's important that there be
enough of these to make sure that there is enough interaction. With
three (plus matches from the discards) you're regularly forced into
either "trading" them to the other player or planting them yourself...
with two flips you get less matches (both with the discard pile and the
opponent's fields), and I suspect that this will make it more of a two
player solitare.
Going through a second time should be pretty quick and give about the
same length as a RG pass (a fair number of cards will be out of the deck
the second time). Although, I suppose the only reason I'd really consider
going 2-pass is that I partially miss the multiple passes from the regular
game, but that's a bit too long with 144 cards between two players.
I see the 98 card deck as an opportunity to reintroduce the carryover
strategy, but the shorter 98-card/one-pass game also has some appeal.
Brent Ross
L. Tuxbury
new expansion pack (beyond the original expansion that's already included
with his version) that includes a bunch of other ways of playing. Also, it's
nice to support Jay for all he's done to bring these games to the
English-speaking market.
Thomas Helvard
"L. Tuxbury" <lt...@NOSPAMearthlink.net> skrev i en meddelelse
news:dKUjb.408$Uz6...@newsread1.news.atl.earthlink.net...
However, be aware of the other expansions. I've played High Bohn, La Isla
Bonita and Mutabohn and they were crap!
- Thomas
aerich
Brent.
Brent wrote :
"I certainly wouldn't bother with changing the number of flip cards to
lengthen it (to answer another post)... it's important that there be
enough of these to make sure that there is enough interaction."
If I suggested that, it's not only to lengthen the game. Since
beans variety is less important when playing the Amigo version, I
thought that flipping 3 cards would create too much matches with the
discard pile This is why I suggested 2 flipped cards instead. But
maybe it's just a bad idea...
- Eric -
---------------------------------------------------
claw...@kanga.nu
Do we know yet which of the seven Bohnanza extensions and variants
Jay is going to package?
Al Cabohne
Bohnanza - Erweiterungs-Set (Revised Edition cards missing from the RGG set)
Bohnaparte
High Bohn
La Isla Bohnita
Ladybohn
Mutabohn
--
J C Lawrence
---------(*) Satan, oscillate my metallic sonatas.
cl...@kanga.nu He lived as a devil, eh?
http://www.kanga.nu/~claw/ Evil is a name of a foeman, as I live.