Home

Who are we?

Contact us

Ted’s Turkey Swap

Charlie’s Turkey Swap

Video Reviews

Audio Reviews

Free Games

3/27/07

Again with 8 players we were back to two tables of 4 on our new Monday night schedule for a few weeks.  And, welcome to the new addition to the group, Steve.

Table 1.

Reef Encounter

Citadels

Table 2.

Goa

Last Monday the Appalachian gamers met for their weekly get-together.  We gave Kris the honor of picking games for the evening one of the game he pulled out was Goa.  This game turned out to be the second one played at our table (the first game was Beowulf but that’s a tale for another session report.)  The players were Ted, Kris, Tony and me (Dave.)

 

Both Ted and Kris had played Goa but it had been a long time between plays.  We got a quick rules summary to ground us all in the basics of the auction rounds and the production rounds and started to play.  We did get a few of the rules wrong (normal operating procedure for our group) which I will cover.  None were incredibly detrimental and we did discover some errors as play went on.  In some cases we opted to just continue playing incorrectly as playing this way didn’t appear to break the game.

 

I got the honor of being the start player and put the flag out on the board.  Each player then selected tiles for auction.  I can’t speak for everyone but I wasn’t entirely sure what I was trying to accomplish but it became clearer as the game went on.  It seemed to me that a possible strategy is to either pick things you know will a)go for a high price and which you don’t need or b)pick things you want that you may either get cheaply or get well paid for if you don’t decide to pay a high price…even if you do pay in this case you pay the bank rather than another player.  Another thing we learned as the game progressed is just how valuable extra actions are to progressing in the game.  Ted appeared to understand this already.  The rest of us were learning it as we went along.

 

One thing that was readily apparent from our understanding of the rules was how valuable the Red auction tiles were.  During the A round, I managed to pick up the tile that could be tapped for an extra ship during the production phase, Kris picked up the 4 ducat tile and Tony picked up the tile that provided a free colonist.  The fourth red tile wasn’t in the game this time around.  We all made full use of the tile’s powers.

 

As the game progressed all but Kris worked hard toward getting colonies but Kris did eventually join the three of us by gaining a fourth colony right toward the end of the game.  I’m sure there are strategies that don’t use colonies but we all seemed to think, hey I have to keep up with everyone else or I won’t have a chance…probably not true if we had tried to concentrate on different areas.

 

As far as production, we all progressed well down the track.  Ted ended up with boats at maximum, while I took a more balanced approach and ended with three of 5 in the 6 point spot and my other two in the three point spot.  Tony was also fairly well balanced as was Kris.  All of us managed to get a navigation card by being the first to the 6 spot in at least one production area.

 

It was a pretty close race to the finish.  The final winner was decided by matching card sets.  It struck me as odd that a game that was so oriented toward the luckless side of the gaming spectrum (with the exception of turning cards to found colonies and some of the card powers…the colony thing can be mitigated somewhat) had such a large luck component in getting points with cards.  Ted managed to draw two palm tree symbols on the last turn which, when matched with the one in his hand, gave him the win.  Tony, who also had two similar card symbols in hand before the last turn, also pulled a matching card and came in second.  All said, if they hadn’t played competently during the rest of the game it would hardly have mattered.  Without the cards the final scores would have been much tighter.  They were:

 

Ted – 38

Tony – 37

Dave – 34

Kris – 28

 

Some of the rules we got wrong included:

 

We got 2 colonists for a failed colonization attempt rather than 1 as the rules call for.  No big deal since we all got the same advantage.  We discovered our error during play but continued with this method (turned out we didn’t have too many failed expeditions in any case.)

 

On at least a few occasions we forgot you could add the production level of the colonist track to the card totals when attempting colonization.  This made us stock up on more colonist cards than we needed to and may have slowed us down a bit.  Just have to remember this next time.

 

We didn’t understand the card scoring until near the end of the game when we actually decided to read the rules.  Turns out that understanding this is fairly important!

 

In regard to plantations, we had mistakenly been told by James (a fellow gamer) that you could have unlimited plantations…or we misinterpreted what he was trying to explain.  Turns out you can buy more than four plantations (which is all you have slots for) but you swap out ones you don’t want for ones you just bought.  Kris had been working on a plantation strategy and had five going when we discovered the error.  We decided each player could have five up but would need to swap out additional ones.

 

Having now played the game, I can see why it is as highly regarded as it is.  There is player interaction with the auctions, there are critical decisions to make in what path to take and which upgrades to work toward.  There is some luck but not an overabundance so good play is rewarded.  All said, a very good game and one I would like to play again some time, with all the right rules!

 Beowulf

I submit to you Kris Hall's blog on both Goa and Beowulf. 

The Head and the Heart

The other night at the Appalachian Gamers meeting, I played just two games: Beowulf: the Legend and Goa. I had never played Beowulf before, but I remembered Chris Farrell raving about Knizia’s game on his blog, and I had been wanting to try it. I had tried Goa just once a year or more ago, and I had only vague memories of it. It was time to give this well-regarded game another go.

It wasn’t until I was reflecting on the evening that I realized that the two games appealed to different parts of my anatomy: the head and the heart. Or maybe I should say, the head and the gut. I mean that although Beowulf required thought, it seemed to be primarily a suspenseful emotional experience. Goa, on the other hand, seemed to be a very cerebral game which touched my emotions little or not at all.

It’s easy to see why Goa appeals to the head rather than the heart. After the auction phase at the beginning of the turn, the game is multi-player solitaire. Also, players steadily advance toward victory; there are no major catastrophes in the game to inspire nervousness. And it is difficult to tell who is winning. Progress often seems to come in small incremental steps, and dramatic upswings of fortune seem to be almost as rare as disasters. All of these factors make Goa a game in which players constantly ponder how to advance their cause most efficiently—and feel little suspense about the process.

If there is a problem with the game, it is that the strategies seem so subtle that I’m not sure how to improve my game. Other than trying to be a bit more economical during the auction phase, I don’t know what I would do differently next time to improve my score. If Goa has limited appeal, it may be because the game’s very virtues make it more brainy than some gamers enjoy.

In contrast, Beowulf is a surprisingly suspenseful auction and hand-management game that could be mistaken for a skill-less luck-fest. The major luck element comes into play when players arrive at Risk spaces and draw the appropriate required cards or receive a minor injury token. This card-drawing Risk event can also take place during auctions when desperate players try a last-ditch maneuver to get the cards they need and stay in the auction.

In our game, most players proved to be surprisingly lucky most of the time, and remarkably lucky once in a while. In one memorable auction, player after player drew cards to stay in the auction, and time after time they were rewarded with the correct cards. This surreal experience generated lots of stunned laughter after creating tense suspense. These auctions can wear on a player’s nerves because the losers may suffer severe penalties even as the winners reap rich rewards.

It seems to me that lots of games appeal primarily to either the head or the heart. In many cases this can be an over-simplification, of course, but it can also be a useful tool when deciding what kind of game will appeal to certain players. If you notice that a particular player avoids abstract cerebral games, you might try offering an emotion-laden game and seeing if that will appeal.

Some games that I think of as primarily cerebral are Puerto Rico, Caylus, Reef Encounter, Silk Road, Taj Mahal, Die Macher, and Power Grid.

Some games that I think of as offering more adventure, suspense, and emotion than strategy are Lord of the Rings, War of the Ring, Descent, Arkham Horror, Fury of Dracula, Railroad Tycoon, Ticket to Ride, Around the World in 80 Days, and Shadows over Camelot.

It is possible for a game to move from one category to another. When I first started playing War of the Ring and Railroad Tycoon, they were strategy games that required a lot of thought. But lots of experience with these games has reduced the difficulty in decision-making because the best move now often seems obvious (whether the seemingly-best move really is the best is another matter; it may be that familiarity breeds over-confidence). Once familiarity with a game makes decision-making seem easy, the experience of playing the game for me is often less about the strategy and more about the fun of the journey.

Some games are in transition for me. I’ve played Union Pacific enough to have a good grasp of the game, but I regularly lose when playing against the other Appalachian Gamers. Maybe if I played Union Pacific another dozen times or so it would seem more emotional than cerebral. But right now, for me, it straddles the categories.

There’s no reason you have to dissect your emotional/intellectual experience of playing games. But doing so can yield surprising results. If someone asked me if I enjoyed brainy games more than emotional ones, I probably would have answered with an energetic yes. But if I ask myself which game I enjoyed more, Goa or Beowulf, the answer is not so clear. Thank goodness there is time enough in most gaming evenings for both types of games.

That's Life

As people cleared out there was time for one last game for the stragglers.

On Monday evening, the Appalachian gamers decided to wrap up the evening with a quick game of That’s Life.  The die-hards who were left after playing weightier games like Reef Encounter and Goa were: Ted, Charlie, Tony, Travis and me (Dave.)  All had played before except Travis so Ted quickly went over the rules and true to form missed out on one important one…

 

Travis: So, what are those neutral colored pieces on the tiles for?

 

Charlie: Oh, those are guards.  They can only be moved if someone is on the tile and if you leave a tile with a guard you don’t get the tile.

 

Travis: Oh, so if you are on the tile you can move the guard.

 

Dave: No, if anyone is on the tile you can move the guard; otherwise you can’t move the guard…

 

Charlie: I think he gets it.

 

I didn’t think he did but we started anyway.

 

The setup was random and there was a lucky tile in the very first slot.  Of course nobody was able to roll a one and land on it, for a while.  Otherwise it was a fairly typical game with a few people landing on some reds, a couple hitting a few closer lucky tiles and Ted somehow managing to jump way out front and with some really lucky rolls, landing his pawn on green tile after green tile.

 

At that point, Travis attempted to move one of the guards on a tile with no players on it.

 

Everyone but Travis: You can’t do that!

 

Ted: No wonder you stink at this game.  You don’t even know what you’re doing!

 

Travis: Yeah, whatever…

 

Ted’s turn came around, he picked up the die and “rolled” it, coming up with a 6 and conveniently landing on yet another uncontested green tile.

 

Travis:  What do you call that?  You didn’t roll that die.  You just set it down on the six.

 

Ted: No, I didn’t.

 

Travis: Yes you did.  It didn’t even roll.  You just slid it across the table.

 

Dave, Charlie and Tony (to varying degrees): Yeah, that’s exactly what you did.

 

Ted: The die is just a mechanism for moving…

 

Everyone else: grumble, grumble, grumble.

 

We let Ted have his “roll” and carried on.  It wasn’t shortly thereafter that Ted finally rolled the one he needed to get his pawn to that first lucky tile, uncontested of course.  The problem was it was a cocked die.

 

Travis: That’s a leaner.  You’ll have to re-roll.

 

Everyone agreed, except Ted, who protested vehemently but to no avail.  I think if it had been anyone else we would have let them keep the roll but we couldn’t let Ted keep it, just as a matter of principle.  He re-rolled and didn’t get the one he needed (but eventually he did…so we just slowed him down a little.)

 

The banter continued for the rest of the game and when the final scores were tallied Ted won with 21 points, I was second with 18 and Charlie, Tony and Travis came in with scores ranging from 13-16 (I think…we don’t really care about the losers and I only know my score because I had to add it up.)

 

Ted: See, that’s how its done.  This game is all skill, baby!  You have to know where to put your piece and when to move it.  All skill! Blah, blah, blah…

 

Thus ended another successful night of gaming!

 

 

 


             Appalachian Gamers
               Charleston, WV