2007.06.11
Posted in Board Games, Friends at 7:31 pm by Jeremiah Wittevrongel
Jason and I tried Dungeon Twister for the first time last night. The rules are well laid out, if a bit lengthy, but we still got started reasonably quickly. Since neither of us had played before, we did the game setup completely randomly, just picking characters for our starting line at random and distributing the other tokens randomly into the rooms.
As we figured out the game a bit more, I started to enjoy it a bit more. Jason took an early lead, getting his wizard safely out of the dungeon, and I started to figure out my initial priorities. I had the Thief and the Goblin together on my starting line, and there was a rope in the first room, so I used the thief to run and grab the rope then gave it to the goblin so he could progress on his own without the thief helping him over pits.
Things slowly started to click for me as I shifted a couple of rooms around and made some more progress into the middle of the board with my thief and goblin. I had my goblin make a run for it and get the hell out of the dungeon as fast as he could, earning me 2 points and bringing the game to 3-1 since I had slipped another character out a few turns earlier. My Thief stuck around to support my other characters, notably my Mechanork. Jason uncovered some treasure and grabbed it, starting a run for my end of the board with it. He also started advancing his goblin up the board towards my end. I managed to give his cleric a good thumping in the mean time, earning a fourth point, and then had my troll smash his goblin right before the finish line to end the game.
Even though it was our first time and I had very little grasp on the strategy of the game, I still enjoyed it a lot and want to play again. A couple of things stuck me as being very interesting features of the game:
1. The ability to rotate rooms, even (in some cases) rooms that you do not currently have any characters in. This proved key to my success as I managed to trap a couple of Jason’s characters in such a way that it would have taken him ages to rotate them out.
2. The way that you place your opponents pieces when rooms are revealed. This is very key, as it’s also how I managed to trap some of Jason’s characters – I simply started them out in a bad position.
3. The need for judicious combat. My Cleric was surrounded by a number of Jason’s characters, yet he didn’t attack my Cleric. In my mind, he should have – it would have been an easy point. I wouldn’t have even tried to put up a fight, so hopeless was the situation.
Jason also made the observation that the game feels a little like RoboRally. The games do have similarities in that you have to pay attention to the board and the way your characters can maneuver around it, although for me at least the games feel different. When I play RoboRally I spend a lot of time focusing on small details of the board layout, since they make a huge difference. In Dungeon Twister, the board is somewhat more benign (though there’s still lots going on), and I’m able to look a little further ahead than the current turn. For a two-player game, I would prefer Dungeon Twister to RoboRally, although I have trouble imagining how chaotic a 3 or 4-player game of Dungeon Twister would be. RoboRally works well with 4 people, with an appropriate amount of chaos.
I’ll have to play Dungeon Twister at least a couple of more times to get a better feel for the game, but so far I like it.
Permalink
2007.05.17
Posted in Board Games, Friends at 10:41 pm by Jeremiah Wittevrongel
Jason recently posted an article on his weblog about tactical games. While I agree that Wizard Kings is a more tactical game than many Eurogames are, I don’t entirely agree that Eurogames don’t focus on tactics.
As examples, consider two of Dr. Reiner Knizia’s games, Blue Moon City and Samurai. With their tile-driven wooden-block-pushing mechanics, I can’t imagine anyone would doubt their Eurogame provenance, yet they’re both almost purely tactical games in my experience.
Many of Knizia’s other designs also feel quite tactical to me – Kingdoms and Through the Desert come to mind, as do Lost Cities and the Blue Moon card game, and the list goes on. Dr. Knizia certainly does not have a monopoly on tactical Eurogames, either. Tikal and Java by Kramer and Kiesling are quite tactical, as are Wrede’s Carcassonne and Rauscher’s Tongiaki.
There are also eurogames with deeper tactics and heavier strategy such as Caylus and Tigris & Euphrates, though they both play longer than the more family-oriented Eurogames as a side effect.
One thing most of these tactical Eurogames have in common, and this is perhaps what Jason was picking up on, is that their tactical palette is sometimes a little limited. When I’m playing Blue Moon City, for example, there are only a limited number of single-turn and two- or three-turn tactics I can use. The choices aren’t usually easy, but there aren’t all that many options, either. On the other hand, Wizard Kings gives players a wide range of tactical options, owing a lot to the variety of terrain and units. The strategic framework present in the game also provides a richer environment in which to explore those tactics (or just make them up as you go like I do).
While I don’t agree that Eurogames lack tactics, I do think that in many cases they limit the tactical options. This is not necessarily a bad thing, as they can create tension and interest in many other ways. I can think of dozens of games of Ingenious where I could easily agonize over a single tile placement for more than a minute (a long time in a 20-30 minute 2-player game), even though Ingenious really doesn’t have that many tactical options.
Wizard Kings produces tension more on the tactical and strategic side of things, and this kind of variety is the reason I play (and own) such a large number of different board games.
Permalink
2007.04.24
Posted in Board Games, Friends at 9:13 pm by Jeremiah Wittevrongel
This past weekend Jason and I ventured into a new game as well as dusted off an old favourite. First up was the newly published second edition of Columbia Games‘ Wizard Kings. The rules could have been written a little more clearly, as they required some deciphering, but we managed. Glossing over the rules that didn’t apply to the scenario we were trying out (the first scenario in the rule book), we got down to business as quickly as possible.
By random chance I ended up with the elves, while Jason commanded the evil army of the undead. Since the elves only have ten turns to win the game in this scenario, I decided to strike straight out of the gate. I moved all three of my flying elven characters (which were at full strength) to the nearest city on the Island, and proceeded to roll so brutally I was wondering if the dice were fixed. In three rounds of combat I failed to score even a single hit, while Jason’s zombies ripped me to shreds. That setback was so severe I already knew I had lost the game, though we played it out just to get a better feel for the rules.
I did wind up losing rather badly in the end, as expected, and Jason and I were both questioning the game at that point. I enjoyed the mechanics but really didn’t like the way the scenario was constructed. Jason wasn’t sure he liked the combat system, but we both agreed to give it another shot (though with a different scenario). We were, however, both pleased that the game played quickly once we got started.
After supper, we played a second game of Wizard Kings, this time with my Amazons defending their noble land against Jason’s invading Barbarian horde. I got lucky enough to destroy Jason’s only naval unit early on. This gave me an advantage since several of my cities were difficult to reach over land, and the land offered some natural choke points through which Jason had no choice but to pass. Even still, there was a point on turn 4 where I thought I had lost for certain.
The way the scenario was constructed, the Amazons can win by attrition, but only if they survive beyond turn 6. Since I spent most of the first few turns running away from the barbarians as fast as I could, enough of my units survived into the mid-game that I stood a fighting chance. I managed to turn things around enough in turns 6 and 7 to actually come out victorious by wearing Jason down slowly over the following turns.
We both agreed that the second scenario played a lot better, and we both enjoyed the game. Having played it twice, I’d be interested in playing again for sure. Columbia did a great job with the maps and the game plays well.
Following Wizard Kings, we decided that it was time to play an abstract strategy game, something we haven’t been doing much lately. Several games were proposed, but we settled on Sid Sackson’s Realm. This blast from the past is well worth digging up, or alternatively, it would be fairly straightforward to make your own set out of wood if you’re so inclined. Realm is all about territory control, but there’s also a bit of a race aspect to the game that adds an interesting dimension. The rules allow for some interesting self-sacrifice plays that can be rather devastating since your “dead” pieces stay on the board, immobilized, and block movement.
This time around, I managed to box Jason into a corner, and edged out a victory during the final few turns. It was a very tense game, and it definitely made me think.
I think I’ll have to try getting some of the Gipf project games back to the table soon, since it’s been a while since I played any of those. Maybe this coming weekend…
Permalink
2007.04.05
Posted in Board Games, Friends at 7:47 pm by Jeremiah Wittevrongel
Last weekend, Jason, Dave, and I played the Fury of Dracula for the second time. Once again, Dracula won (this time played by Jason). It was very close, but I’m still not convinced that Dracula is at as large a disadvantage as the comments on The Geek seem to indicate. Mind you, if it wasn’t for a raft of terrible rolls on my part, I suspect Dave and I would have vanquished the count, but that’s not what happened.
It was refreshing to play the game as two of the hunters this time. It’s a very different game than when you play as Dracula.
It was also interesting to see how Jason played as Dracula. He kept using Bats encounters (much to my annoyance), which is something I never really used when I played Dracula. We also had very different styles of play, though I don’t think either style was more or less effective – just different. I’ll have to play more often and see how my impressions change over time.
Permalink
« Newer Posts
Subscriptions