After a rough week of work, with an all-day sales trip to Memphis on Friday, I got a reprieve from wedding planning on Saturday to hang out and play some games. Editor's note: Did I ever mention that I'm getting married? March 17th to Christina. I'm registered at Thought Hammer. Okay, not really - but that would be awesome. I called up Jay and we met up with a group that plays every other Saturday in Allen, TX. The other players were Allen, Quinn, another Jeff, and Mark. I got to play four games I had never played before, which is always a lot of fun. Here's a quick session report, along with a quick review of the first game.
Attila
http://www.boardgamegeek.com/game/827
Allen suggested we play Attila first - a game I had never heard of. My first impression was "direct conflict", which isn't my favorite mechanic. My expectations were low. Fortunately, my experience was much like going to see a movie I don't think I'll enjoy, when the movie turns out to be pretty good. It turns out, Attila is a wonderful little game with some investment and hand management mechanics.
Review:
The board depicts Southern Europe and surrounding areas, broken into various regions. The players play as the barbarian invaders, moving down from Northern Europe. The barbarian pieces are broken into 6 different tribes, represented by 6 colors. Players do not play individual tribes. Instead, players can invest in any tribe by playing cards (and subsequently pieces) for that tribe, and moving up an influence track in that color. Generally, players want to have the most or second-most influence in as many tribes as possible when scoring rounds occur.
The mechanics are as follows. Each player is dealt a starting hand of 6 cards. The cards have a single color on them, and have no other purpose. On your turn, you play a card and place either 1 or 2 barbarian pieces matching that color onto the board. If the tribe is already on the board, a piece may be played into the same region, or an adjacent region to any existing pieces. Alternatively, pieces may always be played on any of the Northern-most regions, from where the tribes are invading. If you chose to place only a single piece, you may move up a number of spaces on the influence track in that color, depending on the current century. In 4th century (the starting turn), players move up 1 influence. In 5th century, 2 influence points, in 6th, 3 influence points, and 4 influence points in the 7th century. If you chose to place 2 pieces, you gain no influence with the tribe.
Generally, players are jockeying for the lead in influence with as many tribes as possible, and trying to expand the tribes where they lead. The regions begin to fill up with tribe pieces until 5 pieces occupy a single space, at which point a conflict occurs. During a conflict, players play a number of cards face down to support one or more of the tribes in that region. Cards are shown simultaneously, and the number of cards played is added to the number of pieces in the region. The tribe with the least total gets eliminated from the space. Regardless of the outcome, a peace token is placed into the region, and no other tribe markers may be placed there for the rest of the game. The peace tokens act as a timer for the game, with 10 tokens distributed on the century track. (1 on 4th century, 2 on 5th, 3 on 6th and 4 on the 7th century) If the last peace token is removed from a century, a scoring round occurs. After that, the next century begins, with more influence awarded for each piece played.
During scoring rounds, points are awarded for each tribe. For the players with the most and second-most influence with that tribe, points are awarded as follows. First place gets a number of points equal to the number of tribe pieces on the board. Second place gets points equal to the number of territories that tribe inhabits. So with tribes that are widely dispersed, second place can score as much as first. But for tribes that are consolidated in a central location, second place may not be worth much.
Play continues until one of three conditions is met. Either a) the last peace token is placed after 10 conflicts, b) all the barbarian pieces get played to the board, or c) one player maxes out their influence in a single tribe. After one of those conditions is met, the game is over and the player with the most points wins.
The only other rules involve the use of 3 special tiles given to the players at the start of the game. The tiles may only be used once, and let the player either immediately gain 2 influence, discard and redraw any number of cards, or play a second turn immediately after the first. Managing the timing of the special tiles is important, especially with the extra-turn card. Most of us found it was important to play the extra turn card just before initiating a scoring round, to jump into the lead and immediately score.
I found Attila to be a fantastic light investment game. You may start out with a lot of cards for one tribe, and that tribe may grow in the first century, scoring you a few points. But later in the game, you may run out of those cards, or no other player may be helping you grow that tribe. So you have to know when to bail on a tribe that you think might do poorly, and try to get in on tribes you think will do well later. Since more influence is given in later centuries, that 3-point influence lead that seemed so big in the 4th century might evaporate in the 5th or 6th century. I found it useful to save up a single color for a later century, and play them in rapid succession to stage a coup to take over first place.
Since the non-conflict turns are so quick (play a card, place pieces, draw a card), the game flows very quickly with very little downtime. The rules were easy to explain, and contained no ambiguities or exceptions. Attila is an excellent "light conflict" game that can be played in under an hour. I expect I'll be on the lookout for a copy to add to my collection.
Session notes:
Attila is a hard game to narrate, since players aren't tied to a particular tribe. In our game, Allen jumped out to a very early lead, thanks to a large concentration of a green tribe which scored few points for second place. The rest of us spread between multiple tribes. Jay and I cooperated on a gray tribe which scored points, but didn't grow much in the 5th or 6th centuries.
In the 6th century, I was in second place in 3 different tribes, and first in another. Knowing this was the best board position I would have for a while, I made a move that setup Quinn (playing to my left) with a good scoring opportunity. Fortunately for me, he went for it and I jumped into first place. I had also been holding onto 4 green cards and played them one after another in the 7th century to take away Allen's lead in the impressive green tribe. When Quinn decided to end the game, I had enough to hold onto first, with Quinn and Jay tied for 2nd. Allen, our early game leader, couldn't come back from the rest of us ganging up on him in the 5th century, and trailed behind. Everyone seemed to enjoy the game.
Shogun
http://www.boardgamegeek.com/game/20551
Shogun is the English remake of a German classic, Wallenstein. Fresh off my first play-by-web game of Wallenstein on Spiel By Web, I was anxious to give the game a try in person. I was pretty happy with how it played, although I was unprepared for the game length. I think we clocked in at 3 hours, or maybe a little more. We had 1 first-time player and 2 players who have only played the online version (me and Jay), so that may have slowed us down a little. There were some notable differences between Shogun and Wallenstein, including:
- A bid for turn order. Players bid money cards rather than a random turn order. This tended to slow down the game a little, adding yet another decision to the planning process.
- Turn order also included selecting one of 5 special powers for the turn. Each player got either 1 extra gold during gold-taking, 1 extra rice during rice-taking, 1 extra cube for any attacks that turn, 1 extra cube on defense that turn, or an extra army for the 5-army supply card.
- The map is substantially different. The geography of Japan is narrow and long. For us, this meant players tried to consolidate their empire on the end of the island if possible, meaning 3 of the players had zero interaction for the entire game. I've only played each game once, but I may prefer the Wallenstein map more.
During setup, Mark occupied one extreme end of the island all to himself, with Jay and I clashing at the other end. Allen and Quinn occupied the center, with Allen a little more centralized to start. On the very first turn, Jay and I immediately collided. The supply actions turned up before the battles, meaning we had some 8- and 9-sized armies available for battle. I was the aggressor, and got lucky with the cube tower, taking two of his provinces on the first turn. This set the stage for the rest of the game. Although I didn't intend to invade any further (they were key border territories), Jay's building of a palace adjacent to one of the territories I took meant that he had to counter-attack and defend. Neither of us could afford to leave the borders unguarded, leaving us locked in a border war that lasted the rest of the game. I ultimately came out the victor, only because I attacked first and had extra provinces on turn 2. However, due to our bitter war, we both wound up losing. In hindsight, I think we could have prevented the situation. (Jay will argue that he offered a first-turn alliance, but I argue that it was a better move for me to attack. If he would have just rolled over and let me keep the territories, we wouldn't have had this problem!) :)
In the end, Mark's isolation on the extreme tip of the island let him build enough buildings to score the most points, and he cruised to an easy victory. Quinn gave him a nice run, and may have been able to overtake him had the game lasted another year. Allen was squeezed from both sides, and had trouble knowing which front to press, but still came in third.
Hollywood Blockbuster
http://www.boardgamegeek.com/game/904
Yet another English remake of a German classic - this time Traumfabrik. This time, the rules appear to be unchanged (although I haven't played the original). Traumfabrik has been one of my grail games for a while, and I've been unable to secure a copy. After playing the English version, I think I'll still try to find the German original. Although there's nothing really wrong with the English game, I didn't appreciate the "parody" actors and movies ("Spikely", "Gopher Shack", etc.) What I'd really like to do is get a copy of Traumfabrik, and use some modern actor paste-ups, like Morgan Freeman, Jodie Foster, etc. But I digress.
Truthfully, as much as I want a copy of Traumfabrik, I knew surprisingly little about the game itself. Read: the collector in me wanted it more than the gamer. The game is a nice little bidding game where each player has a set of movies that needs actors & actresses, directors, special effects, sound editing, and cinematography. It's played over 4 rounds, with each round having 6 auctions and 2 "parties" where each player collects one item. The items up for bid are the various actors, directors, sound editing pieces, etc. Each piece has a ranking of 0-4 stars, and when added to a movie, increases the worth of that movie. The goal is to complete movies with as many stars as possible, with points being awarded for good movies. Bonus points are awarded for things like Best Comedy, Drama and Action movie, along with Worst Movie, etc.
In the first round of our game, I was pretty lost, but wound up with a couple of actors. When the "party" spaces are reached, the players each get to choose a single piece from the ones offered, with first choice going to the players with the most actors. I wound up with the most actors for much of the game, and was able to select just the right pieces that I needed, knowing what I would need to win during the auctions. The "strategy" worked surprisingly well, and I wound up winning by a ridiculous margin, almost doubling the last place points. It was through little skill of my own, since I practically stumbled onto what turned out to be a good strategy.
Again, everyone really enjoyed this game. It wasn't quite as good as its legendary status imparts, but it was a quick-playing solid bidding game. I'll definitely keep trying to find the original.
Clash of the Gladiators
http://www.boardgamegeek.com/game/3242
For our last game of the evening (for me and Jay, anyway), we chose something light, fun and quick. Ranked 1861 on the Geek, it's not going to win any awards. The board is a rough hex grid where each player places his "trays" - little plastic sleds that hold up to 4 gladiators. During setup, players draft little gladiators that impart particular abilities. The simplest just give 1 die of attack, while others give special abilities like a shield to block wounds, a net to cancel the power of an opposing gladiator, a "Bi-dent" gladiator that lets you re-roll attacks, or a spearman to give you initiative. Once each player fills up his sleds, the carnage begins.
On your turn, you select a sled and attack a neighboring gladiator. The person who has the initiative rolls his attack dice, eliminates opponents, and then the opponent battles back. The dice show either misses (3 sides), wounds (2 sides) or kills (1 side). Two wounds = one kill. Any gladiators you eliminate you take as victory points, where 1 gladiator = 1 point. That's nearly the whole of the game.
Once you're eliminated, you get to bring in animals to the arena, like a bull or lion. On your turn, you get to select an animal on the board to maul some gladiators, again taking trophies for any you kill. This gives something to do for eliminated players, and lets them continue to score points even after they're eliminated. Play continues until only 1 player remains, and then points are counted.
It's not a great game, but since we were all having fun and treating it like the light carnage dice-fest that it is, everyone had a fantastic time. My arch nemesis in the game was Jeff's net sled, which had 2 net-wielding gladiators that would cancel two of my attack dice. Although I lost horribly, I take consolation that I was able to eliminate one of the netters before I died.
It was a successful Saturday of gaming. Not only did I get to play 4 games, but I got to play 4 new games. The group was made up of really great guys, and I look forward to playing with them again soon.