Playing with a new group of gamers

Last weekend we had a great opportunity to play some games with a new group of people.  I’m struck by how interesting it can be to play with new people rather than the same group you’re used to.  We played a great game of Shadows over Camelot that everyone thoroughly enjoyed.  Half of the people playing were familiar with the game, but half of them were new.  I’m always a bit nervous about playing with new people because there’s so much to keep track of in the game and it really does help to know what cards are in the deck.

There were a few times when people did something that we normally would never do.  For instance, playing cards early on that we usually save for when the need is more dire.  Special white cards were played by everyone much more frequently than normal.  We were getting more life points left and right from that, and it showed me that it really does pay to use those cards early on, let them get shuffled back in, and then use them again when the situation calls for it.  Divine favor was another one that was played early, which we usually save for the very end of the game.  In this case it didn’t matter because divine favor ended up not even being relevant at any point and was never used.

Not only did the experience teach me to be open to playing with new people (who turned out to be a ton of fun!), it also let me look at a game we’ve played many times from a different angle.  When we play at the future, I may experiment with some new strategies, such as using more special white cards.

Oh, and the enthusiasm of this group was great.  Perhaps it was because they were experiencing it for the first time, perhaps it was the alcohol, but they were really into it and played really well.  So the moral of the story is: don’t be afraid to branch out and play with new people every once in awhile!

We're on Facebook!

Do you prefer to get your updates on your facebook newsfeed rather than by email?  If so, you can now "like" Across the Board on facebook:
http://www.facebook.com/acrosstheboardgames

By the way, if you do want to get emails about updates, you can enter your email address in that bar over on the right.  You can also follow us with a yahoo or google account.

Thank you for your support!

Shadows over Camelot

In this cooperative board game, you take on the role of one of the knights of Camelot and are working together with the other players to earn white swords by winning quests.  Every turn, you must “progress evil” and then do a “heroic action.”  The progression of evil is the game taking its turn against you: you usually draw cards during this phase, and things will happen to hurt you or hinder you on your quests.  Then you do something good, such a making progress on a quest.  There are rewards for winning quests, such as white swords, but also penalties for losing them (black swords and/or siege engines).  You win when there are at least 12 swords on the round table and the majority of them are white.  You lose when there are 7 or more black swords on the table, when 12 siege engines have been placed, or when all of the knights are dead.

Most quests are completed by playing cards.  Explained simply, there are fight cards, with a value of 1-5, and grail cards.  There are wars, which are won by playing a straight (1-5, but only one card can be played at a time), and there are some quests where you fight by playing pairs or three of a kind.  And then Excalibur requires you to simply throw cards away, while the grail requires you to place a certain number of grail cards down.

The twist in the game is that there is the possibility of a traitor.  At the beginning of the game every player is given a loyalty card, which may tell them that they are “loyal” or the “traitor.”  It’s also possible for there to be no traitor.  The traitor plays hidden for at least the first half of the game, so it’s tricky for them to appear good buy actually hinder the group.  About halfway through the game knights can make accusations, which are rewarded for correct guesses and penalized for wrong ones as to who the traitor is.  If the traitor has been accused or reveals himself with the use of the “Fate” card, he can then play out in the open.  However, if the traitor goes undetected the entire game, then there is an end of game penalty that could very well mean the difference between victory and defeat.

There are some other minor but important rules, but this is the basics for Shadows over Camelot. We’re also doing the expansion, Merlin’s Company, in this review, as we really haven’t played the game without it.  The expansion adds a travel card deck, that requires you to draw a card and do what it says every time you want to move to a different quest.

3-7 players (8 with expansion).  Approximately 90 minutes.  Merlin’s Company expansion available.  Medium learning curve.

Becky says:

If you know me, you probably know that this is my favorite board game.  I love it for a million reasons.  I’m not sure I’ve ever had a bad time playing Shadows.  It’s always ridiculously fun, even if we lose by a landslide.

I’ll start with the themeing.  The artwork is great.  Even the little knight figurines are well detailed, instead of just wooden tokens or something like that. All of the little details to the legends of King Arthur are wonderful.  Everyone gets to be a specific knight from legend, and many of the cards in the black and white deck reference things from Arthurian legend.  I have to say that playing this game made me much more intrigued about Arthurian legend, to the point where I’ve now done tons of research and am a bit of a “knights of the round table” dork.  I’m even currently working on a children’s novel with a King Arthur theme, and it’s all thanks to this game that I got into it.

But on to the game itself!  It’s cooperative, which I definitely enjoy, because I like working together.  But with the possibility of a traitor, it also creates tons of suspense.  Let me talk about that – the suspense factor in this game, especially if you’re not sure if there’s a traitor and it’s getting towards the end, is huge!  There have been moments where I literally can’t sit in my seat because I’m so on edge about what is going to happen.  Sometimes I have to pace the room.

And the strategy.  I’ve heard a complaint on other reviews that you end up using the same strategy every time after you’ve played it awhile.  I’m not sure why, but for me this couldn’t be further from the truth.  We tend to play with many different people and different amounts of players, so that may be why, but it’s always tough to decide based on your cards where you should go first.  Is it better to win the big quests in the beginning, like the grail or Excalibur?  That gets them out of the way, but then all those black cards turn into siege engines – not good.  Should you stick together as team and all finish a quest, or spread out to hold off the evil in every area?  We do it different ways every time, and no one way seems to be better than the other.  The only thing that seems to be pretty consistent is if you want Lancelot’s armor, you’d better go right in the beginning.  And don’t be surprised if you get some suspicious looks, as the armor is a traitor’s best friend.

Speaking of the traitor, here’s my thoughts on playing that role.  I don’t generally like being the traitor because I hate to be so secretive about everything.  It’s just not in my personality.  I will usually choose to play the traitor in either one of two ways.  1. Be as secretive as possible and do nothing suspicious so that I go undetected the whole game, and then hope that the penalty for not detecting the traitor is enough to turn things my way, or 2.  Once the 6th sword or siege engine gets placed, immediately accuse any random person so they suffer that penalty.  This then leads them to know I’m definitely the traitor and I get accused, but that way I can play out in the open and do more damage.  Of course, even though I don’t usually like being the traitor, I have to admit it felt pretty good that one time when I was able to make a false accusation and then also use the “Fate” card to reveal myself!

Merlin’s company is a good expansion.  Those travel cards can be a pain in the butt, but Merlin’s awfully helpful sometimes.  Some of those travel cards are nasty.  If you’re playing with me you’d better know that you’re sure as heck not traveling anywhere without a pair of fight cards, because if you get charged and have to add that extra black sword I will not be a happy camper.  The expansion also adds the 8^th knight, which can make for some epic 8 player games.

Sorry this was such a long review, but I really love this game.  10 out of 10.  Maybe no game is perfect, but for me Shadows is as close as it comes so it deserves that elite rating.

Jason says:

Shadows is a piece of board game art.  Unlike other games, which convey their entertainment through strategy and competition, Shadows plays perfectly to draw on the power of cooperation and anticipation, then shatters the comfort of cooperation by turning friends and comrades against each other.  In Shadows, you feel the tension in the room as your mind warps every player's moves into acts of treachery and deceit.

I mean it, too, I'm not just trying to be ridiculous.  Art.  This game makes you feel things, and it does it so smartly and skillfully.  To start, I will discuss the mechanics themselves, since this is really the only part of the game to which I can draw comparisons to other, lesser games.

It's a cooperative game, so I'll compare to Pandemic.  In Pandemic, a team doing sufficiently well never has to worry about problems.  In Shadows, completing a big quest adds faster-approaching dangers, so endgame should always be a riveting experience (even moreso with the Merlin's Company expansion).  Furthermore, each player feels like they are contributing to the quest in some way, particularly because they aren't allowed to discuss plans in detail because of the traitor game mechanic.

Yes, the traitor mechanic.  This is how the game turns from a cooperative game into a social experiment on trust and paranoia.  Tension flows through everything because of the traitor.  And most fascinatingly of all, there isn't always a traitor, but because the game incorporates even the chance of a traitor, suspicions often boil over and irreparably rend the team, destroying the forces of good from the inside out.

Last of all, the flow of the game is masterful.  The whole game is sedate in the beginning, but the whole game works slowly, allowing people's suspicions to stew into healthy unfounded accusations.  By the end of the game, everyone is so exasperated that even the most rational person must fight against irrational reflexes.  Finally, when the possible traitor is revealed, the game explodes into a logical race against the machinations of a revealed threat.  Here, people jump out of their seats and furiously count cards, hoping for a ghost of a chance to make up lost ground.  Merlin's Company shines best here, where the travel cards are the element of chance that could mean success and failure.  Wait, did we draw the last Charged! card or might traveling get that last black sword?  Soon, I have to move!  What, Captured!?  We can't deal with this!

Of course, when you can't deal with it, but somehow you come out victorious, those are the best of victories.  Unlike lots of games, Shadows is crafted to supply this last-stand scenario pretty much most of the time, and many times it will end in failure.  This serves to supplement the victories, but it is still fun for me, even if I lose.

The more I thought about this game's review, the more I realized that, either by phenomenal coincidence or by excellent design, this game does everything right for a longer, intense game.  No jokes, no math: 9.9/10 and possibly the highest recommendation I may ever give on this website.

First Thoughts: The Castle of the Devil

Note: Jason and I try to play a game at least 4-5 times before writing a full review of it.  However, I thought it would be a good idea to share some initial thoughts after we've tried a game for the first time.

Castle of the Devil is a "hidden roles" type of game, where you're working with a team to achieve a goal, but you don't start off the game knowing who's who.  It sounded like a it might be similar to Bang!, a favorite around here.  It's also supposed to be a bit shorter, with the box claiming 20-40 minutes (though it took us over an hour, but it was our first time).

My initial impression is that this game is a lot tougher than it seems.  It was really hard for me to figure out a strategy.  Jason and I were on the same team, and there were several times that he was trying to do something and I wasn't really catching on.  Of course, this might change after we've played a few times, but it seems to me that it's still the type of game that I will probably never be very good at.  It will probably be better once we're familiar with the cards as well - there were some nasty ones in there that I wasn't expecting!  I also got into a bit of a rut, unable to really do anything useful on any of my turns for the first half of the game.  I'm not sure why this is and if it could have been preventable.

We also played with four people, the minimum amount required.  It seems that it would be more interesting with more, as we were able to figure out who was on our team pretty quickly.  I also think more people will much it much more difficult, and it seemed hard to me already!  Overall I'm intrigued by this game and want to play it more to see if I can develop a good strategy, but I don't think it's going to be one of my favorites.

Settlers of Catan Pick-up Lines

Thanks to my brother Tom for sending the link to these.  So - going to try any of these out?

To see the rest of them, view the original link here.

What's your favorite?

Battle Line

This two player card game is a competition to see who can win the most “flags” in this war.  You start out with a row of 9 flags, and players take turn laying down cards on their side of the table.  The cards range from 1-10 each in 6 different colors.  Once three cards have been laid by each player on one flag, that flag is complete and you see who won.  The best combination of cards you can get is a straight (8,9,10) all of the same color.  Then three cards of the same number but different colors, a straight of different colors, and so on.  Whoever has the better set of cards claims the flag.  You can also claim a flag on your turn if you can prove the other person can’t possibly win it no matter what cards they play because of what is already out on the table.    The game is over once one player has claimed 5 flags, or if they claim three flags that are next to each other.

What makes the game a little more interesting is the tactics cards.  These can be played on a turn instead of a regular card and have special effects, such as being a wild card or requiring a flag to have 4 cards on each side. 

2 players.  Approximately 30 minutes.  Easy-Medium learning curve.

Becky says:
It’s nice to have some good two player games for when our friends and family aren’t around and it’s just Jason and me.  Previously the only two player game that I had which I really enjoyed was Lost Cities.  Battle Line has a similar feel to Lost Cities but it’s a bit more complex, which I like.  It’s by the same designer, Reiner Knizia, who I’m a really big fan of.  I didn’t think much about designers/companies before, but now that I have experience playing  a wide variety of games I am starting to notice that I favor some designers over others.

There is a bit of luck involved here, but it’s really a lot about the strategy.  If you have several 9’s or 10’s, do you lay them down for the three of a kind?  Or do you try to build up for the more powerful straight first?  The game can also turn very quickly.  You might start out with some good cards, but if you don’t play them right you’ll probably lose.  Another common mistake I’ve noticed is that you don’t want to commit yourself to one thing on one flag, so you spread out all of your cards on different flags.  Then, if you get something that doesn’t fit with what you’ve already played, you have nothing left to do with it.

I think the most complicated part of the game is flag claiming.  It’s up to you to figure out when you can claim a flag, which means you have to be aware of everything and watching like a hawk.  This makes the game more challenging, but in a way it’s frustrating too.  Since you have to watch everything and contemplate every move carefully, it can drag the game out – especially when it’s not your turn, it’s easy to get bored.  I am also too honest of a person sometimes.  I feel badly if I see that my opponent can claim a flag but they haven’t realized it.  Sometimes I tell them.  Maybe I am too honest for this game, but I rationalize it by saying, “It’s the first time they’ve played” or “the second time they’ve played.”  How many plays do they get until I stop feeling badly?  I’m sure there’s a cut-off somewhere, but this game is still too new for us to be there yet.  But that is more of my own personal flaw then the game’s!

Overall I really enjoy this as a two player option.  Although it can feel long depending on who you’re playing with, it actually doesn’t last that long and it involves some really good, complicated strategy, which many two player games seem to lack.  I give it an 8 out 10.

Jason says:

I am finding it difficult to rate Battle Line because I don’t categorize two-player games the same way I categorize group games.  For one, I don’t like two-player games as much.  For another, I like to think of group games as sort of special events; I would call up a group of friends to come play games like Carcassonne, Bang!, and Dominion, but I wouldn’t call up a friend to visit just to play Battle Line, or Lost Cities, or Balloon Cup, et cetera.  Maybe it’s just a mental block that I need to eventually get over, some hidden prejudice against two-player games.

It’s a good game with good gameplay.  I suspect that, much like Chess, there are good opening moves and there are bad opening moves, and these are things that a player just has to experience (or maybe read about) to get a feel for what works and what doesn’t.  As the game goes on, it becomes a lot clearer how the pieces have fallen, and it really comes down to seeing whether or not your early-game preparations will see you through to the end (with a little bit of luck drawing the cards).

The game is lots of strategy, but it is also some luck (the kind of luck that is still strategy because you can still pick the “more likely” lucky outcome).  I like that.  I also feel like this game is the spiritual relation to another game, Lost Cities.  It plays the same sort of way that Lost Cities does, with each player playing unique cards on their sides and sometimes being forced to play cards they don’t like.  Except Battle Line takes a longer time getting there and just seems generally harder to comprehend.

So I’ll suggest this: I am not fond of games that have a high level of “obfuscation.”  By that, I mean that if I’d rather read War and Peace or read Ulysses than read the rulebook, that’s bad.  If the rules are about as intuitive to my experiences as quantum physics is to the Classical Model, that’s bad.  If I liken the game to Rube Goldberg machines, that’s bad.

Why is this game a Quantum Rube Goldberg Machine with an instruction manual written by James Joyce?  Okay, that’s a gross exaggeration.  But even though it’s a good game, there are games out there that do more for me, and do it better.  Lost Cities plays the same sort of way but is far less confusing, goes faster, and is still skillful.  If I wanted a hyper-strategic game that makes even my brilliant brain itch, I’d go with Chess.  Lastly, if I wanted to make pretty matches of cards, I’d play Rummy.

For now, I’ll give two-player games a different rating system, until I can come to terms with two-player games and (n>2)-player games in the same space.  Battle Line gets a B grade from me.  I guess now is the appropriate time to say this: I’ve never once earned a victory in this game.  I did technically win once, but it’s because the other player was distracted.  And I failed to clarify a fairly pivotal rule before it became pertinent.  And it was a pity-rematch anyway.