Dear Peter,
I tried a little experiment with Plague and Pestilence the other night. I played against an imaginary opponent who could only play the card he drew. Thus, he had one choice to my five. If he drew a Counter card, I let him retain it and draw another in its place. These simple rules of behavior should have crippled my imaginary opponent. Instead, I lost. He had 40 PPs remaining at that point.
After this, I noticed that the "Major War" and "Minor War" cards are played against a pair of opponents, rather than singling out one opponent to take part in the war with. This would definitely make a significant difference in a multi-player game. I'll admit that I should take a somewhat closer look at the game (and the optional rules) before I rule it out completely. For now, I'll hold off on my "scathing letter to the editor".
I was going over your RoboRally review and thought I'd suggest a variant that we tried that went really well. Take the same board (we chose the Pit Maze) from two sets and arrange one at 180 degrees with respect to the other. Start two teams of three players each from opposing ends of the board; thus, both teams start from an identical position. Each board has 3 flags owned by the team starting on that board. The object is retrieve your opponent's flags and get them home.
A few house rules are required. Players may not pick up their own flags (this would result in a game of keep-away) and a robot may only carry one flag at a time. Flags are affected by board elements, and if moved (or carried) into a pit or off the board, are returned to their original location. If a robot is destroyed, it drops any flag it is carrying, and robots may voluntarily drop flags (so a teammate can pick it up). This variant is a great deal of fun and improves the player interaction (at least on the same team) substantially. Give it a shot!
I put Plague and Pestilence on a par with Nuclear War and Family Business, which are similar in feel. All are strictly beer and pretzels games, not to be taken seriously. If played as such, they can be a hoot.
Our RoboRally play has slacked off recently (hell, our play of just about everything has slacked off lately, thanks to Siedler), but this sounds like a fun variation. The next time we play, I'll have to suggest trying this.
Dear Peter,
A few comments in detail : On page 7 of issue 3:2, you claim that The Great Dalmuti is nearly identical to Karriere Poker. This simply isn't true -- the pyramid-structured deck (1 card ranked 1 -- highest, 2 2's, etc.) gives the game a different feel from any other version I've played. (I haven't actually seen Karriere Poker, but the review in Games International made no mention of an unusual deck). I first encountered the game as Trouduc in David Parlett's A Dictionary of Card Games. He also wrote it up as "The Bum Game" in a later book and in Games & Puzzles. I have the MB version Zillionaire, but it's pretty gimmicky. I think TGD is the best version so far, because of the unusual deck, and it cannot be easily played with ordinary cards. True, you could make up a deck by stripping three standard decks, but at the current cost of a decent Bicycle pack you're up to nearly the same price anyway. Zillionaire didn't give any credit to antecedents, and I bet Karriere Poker didn't either, so why should Wizards of the Coast? It isn't common practice in the games industry to do this anyway -- Uno doesn't come out and say that it is a (poorly-done) version of a game which existed beforehand.
I also think you were way off base in your response to Darwin Bromley in the letter column of 2:4. Just because you're an experienced game player doesn't mean that every game system is going to appeal to you. I felt you came off a bit egocentric when you said : "If I don't get it, perhaps that points out a flaw in the system." Naturally, you're entitled to your opinion, but a lot of people (me included) like the British Rails family a lot, and you can't assume something is flawed just because it doesn't do anything for you. [If this were true, then Adel Verplichtet would have to be a bad game, because Mike Siggins doesn't like it.]
Anyway, I like the magazine a lot. Naturally I don't agree with all the reviews (I didn't care much for Trumpet or Rette Sich Wer Kann, for example), but that's only natural. My favorite part is Eulogy -- the Eon one in 2:2 put me on the lookout for a copy of Hoax, which I finally got through the Internet earlier this year. I've sporadically done a similar column in WGR called Lost and Little Known Games (I've covered Mem (a rare pattern-matching game with colored stones), Morra-Board (board game version of the Italian finger-matching game, by Piet Hein of Hex and Soma fame), Orion (unusual Parker Brothers game system using rotors), and Realm (unusual abstract board game by A Gamut of Games)). Sometime I want to do Top Banana, a charming offshoot of Monopoly created as a promotional item by United Fruit (of Chiquita banana fame)!
Just because something isn't standard practice doesn't mean it shouldn't be. The analogy between The Great Dalmuti and Uno is a flawed one— nowhere on the Uno rules or packaging does anyone claim design credit for it. The Great Dalmuti, on the other hand, is "A Richard Garfield game," a claim which not only takes some chutzpah, but is rather deceiving. The game may have its own innovations, but it is far more a "classic" or "standard" game than a new one, and buyers expecting the latter may be justifiably upset. I have nothing against Richard Garfield, but it seems he's taking a tad too much credit for this one.
I did not mean to imply, in my response to Darwin Bromley, that any game I dislike is de facto a bad game. There are games I dislike for which I can nevertheless understand the appeal to others. With nRails, I just don't see the attraction. It's not a case of it not being my cup of tea, but rather my not understanding why a group of people would choose to spend their time that way instead of with a more interactive game. nRails seems like a fine solitaire system. It would work well computerized. But it strikes me as a crashing bore as a group endeavor. Clearly, many other people do like it, so perhaps my bafflement is due to some personal flaw of my own. I guess I just don't have the nRails gene.
I don't expect everyone to agree with my reviews. I'd be stunned if they did. But I do hope I hit the mark more often than I miss. Actually, going back and rereading some old reviews (Trumpet being a fine example), it's interesting to see how some of my opinions have changed over time. I'm thinking of doing a column in the future where I revisit some of them and set the record straight with my current thoughts.
Dear Peter,
I don't really have a game review for you this time. I'm slowly packing [in preparation for a move] and I'm very impressed with the amount of games I own. I've probably packed 4-5 boxes of games, and I've only packed the games I don't play much (pack the important games last, of course). Some quick notes, though...
Castle of Magic (which is also called "The Permutation Game" around here) is a made in the USA game! Players get randomly dealt characters and have goals that they want to accomplish (rule a country, control the outcome of a mystic ritual, prevent people from certain clans from living, etc.). Everyone starts with only knowledge of what they want. You wander around a castle map, gaining magic spells (or mastery of said spells, really), trying to gain control over the royal items from three different countries, and trying to force the game ending ritual to take the correct permutation (there are three components, each with two states, yielding eight possible outcomes). The ritual decides if the monster will rampage, be banished, be controlled, or eat someone and then be banished.
The game is mainly luck, but there are two cute items. One is a deck of secrets. When you find out a secret, you hand the deck to the person you want to know more about. The tops of the cards have a bunch of numbers. The player flips through the deck until he finds a card with his character number. Then, without looking at it, he hands that card to the other player, who looks at the other side (getting a secret).
The second bit is that you can say whatever you want, but only at the table. However, each player has a chit which allows a 5-10 minute break for secret negotiations, information exchanges, etc. So there is some diplomacy.
I'm not terribly fond of the game as a challenge (but I traded a few Magic cards for it) but it seems to have been quite well received by various members of the CMU gaming club. Luck and negotiations play the leading role, but I see strategies. Multiple winners possible (each character gets a + or - score for any particular event, and the highest (+) score wins, with anyone with half or more of the highest score also winning) so alliances can definitely occur... if players can figure out who they want to ally with. A bit too long for my tastes (~3 hours) for what it is, but OK otherwise.
Fugger, Welser, Medici is a long Eurogame by Doris and Frank. I'm picking up a copy (burning the last little bit of my Magic cards for that and Medici). The "trading game" version takes a few hours and deals with different houses running around Europe buying and selling goods. All buying and selling involves everyone writing down a bid and the best bid gets it. For multuple lots, you can do a bid like 6@700 or 1@700, 2@720, 3@740. There are some random events, but the game is really tight. In the last game we played, only one player made a clear profit (you start with 9000 florins and about 2-3 thousand worth of materials, but you have to pay tolls, taxes, wages, and travel unless you go slowly).
In the "full" game, your goal is actually to buy a noble title, and there are auctions for those as well. It supposedly takes 6-9 hours, and we haven't played that yet.
I have a copy of Das Regeln Wir Schon by Jon Ferro (the best German speaker around here) hasn't translated the rules yet. He just finished Kohle, Kies, Knete (and our variant rules) and gave them to Ken Tidwell, so check out the Game Cabinet.
Auf Achse is another recent acquisition. I am surprised that nobody I know of has ever played this, as it was a Spiel Des Jahres winner (1987, I think). Ray [Pfeifer] has copies and it's only $35-40 or so. It's another of the "Eurorails-type games that are actually fun." You have to truck around Germany picking up and delivering manufactured goods. Some differences: 1) You don't build the roads. 2) Except for your starting hand, everyone has to bid to see which contracts they get. 3) All contracts have a definite start and end (you can't just pick up the goods from wherever). You can, of course, pick up multiple contracts. Unlike Eurorails, you can get hosed for rolling badly (for movement). Players interact a little: 1) Bidding. 2) You can't end your movement on the same space as someone else. 3) When you roll a 1, you get to move the "Road Closed" sign around the board. 4) Many of the cards give you a benefit, but you must choose another player to receive it as well. It's a cute little game.
Got Volle Lotte. Pretty good game for $12. It lets you kill a variable amount of time while you wait for other people to show up to the gaming club. Apparently it's a Cosmic Wimpout variant.
Rage (the latest collectible trading card game) has some of the poorest rules of any of them. Lots of card errata, too (the Frequently Asked Questions list is at 400K or so). Meanwhile, it happens to be loads of fun. Most of the turn is simultaneous, so there is little waiting around, and there are a lot of reasonable strategies. The idea of ultra rares is mildly bothersome (especially since the rules say you can start with them in play instead of having to draw them) but at least there are rare cards, even for people who buy three boxes or so. If you can't get a copy of the FAQ, don't bother. But if you can, and you can find some opponents (who aren't rules lawyers) it's a fun little game. Right now I'd have to say that Jyhad and Rage are the most interesting of the collectible trading cards games. Very different, too. I saw, but didn't play, Sim City. It has a lot of bookkeeping, and apparently everyone plays from the same deck— which begs the question, "Why is it collectible? Why not sell it as a regular card game?" The obvious answer is, of course, The Bandwagon.
Still waiting to see if Cosmic Encounter gets transformed. Don't know if that would be good or bad. 1856 is out, but I haven't gotten it yet I happen to like [18xx] games, so I probably will.
Castle of Magic didn't excite me enough to get a copy, although if I saw it discounted I'd probably pick it up. As you say, it's pretty random and the play gets repetitive. Fifteen minutes is also way too long for negotiation sessions, especially since everyone can call one during the game.
I've heard of Auf Achse, but never actually seen it. The sharing of benefits is a nice little twist. But— Eurorails without building the routes? Isn't that the fun part?
Volle Lotte is very similar to Cosmic Wimpout. It's almost identical to Fill or Bust, which you can probably find at your local game store for about five bucks.
The Sim City card game is a big mystery to me. Not only do players use the same deck, but the cards have photos of buildings on them. Who would want to collect those? As a regular card game, it might be a hit. But I think someone really missed the boat here.
I've heard good things about Rage, but frankly I'm a little tired of the collectible trading card game thing. I just don't have the energy to get involved with another one. If it's good, perhaps I'd consider getting a boxed set and then splitting that up among a group to play with. Meanwhile, if anyone wants to buy my Magic cards (all of 'em limited, from alphas through Fallen Empires), lemme know.