Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [Unity_Games] B&N Gaming - July 31, 2000

Expand Messages
  • AndAgainMA@aol.com
    To add my two gem s worth on Aladdin s dragon... I liked the game. Although each turn is a journey up from the caves through the city to the palace, the
    Message 1 of 9 , Aug 1, 2000
    • 0 Attachment
      To add my two gem's worth on Aladdin's dragon...

      I liked the game. Although each turn is a journey up from the caves through the city to the palace, the journey changes as the game goes on. It has an opening, a middle game, and an endgame, with the focus of the game gradually shifting up the board.

      It was me who discovered towards the end of the game that we should have taken out some of the artefact tiles, since we were playing with 4, rather than the maximum of 5. Disdainful hoots of "rules lawyer" were my reward.

      But I think it did make a difference to the game. First, it went on a bit longer than the designer intended. Second, it meant that there were more counterspell tiles out than there should have been; that's probably why very few spells succeeded.

      I can see that it might have a runaway leader problem. The artefact tiles are not only the victory points, they are provide you with extra options. When you play one, you get it back and so can play it next turn. So the first person to get a decent selection of tiles might find themself benefitting from a positive feedback loop.

      Apart from that, I like this game a lot. The bits are great. There are multiple mechanisms, but they are well integrated. I stand by my 8!

      Andrew.

      ps, Dave, feel free to include this if you'd like.
    • Dave Bernazzani
      ... Excellent. I hope everyone realizes that they can add something to any of the reports I post on my site. I also accept game related articles/reviews
      Message 2 of 9 , Aug 1, 2000
      • 0 Attachment
        Dan Cashmore wrote:
        > > Good comments (can I include them in the report on my site?)
        >
        > Certainly. It does my ego good :-] (Feel free to use my session
        > comments any time you like)

        Excellent. I hope everyone realizes that they can add something to any of
        the reports I post on my site. I also accept game related articles/reviews
        (which I'm behind on posting) to my site - so far most are from me but Eddie
        has contributed and Jenn has written something.

        I don't necessarily want the sessions to be a one-mans view - but they tend
        to be that way. I know Pete takes exception to some of my commentary as
        will happen when a person's views about something are made public. I hope
        people realize that when I write a session report, it's just trying to
        capture some sense of what went on during the game - mostly from my own
        viewpoint - but I welcome balancing viewpoints as well. If I've said
        something to offend anyone (Pete - speak up now since I can't remember what
        in particular you were unhappy with since the list has gotten long) I'll try
        to amend it on my website.

        To have another view is always nice - and tends to rounds out and balance
        the reports. Andrew, Craig and Eddie (did I miss someone?) have all added
        commentary in the past which is great.

        Maybe I should put in a disclaimer to state that any errors or omissions are
        my responsibility during the editing process when adding additional
        commentary. I wouldn't want the Mark-types to blast other contributors for
        grammar or spelling errors ;) I've spent plenty of school-years getting
        drilled on my lack of skill in both these areas...

        --
        Dave Bernazzani
        dber@...
        http://www.gis.net/~dber (South Shore Gamers)
      • pldr
        ... on me, ... your ... Interesting comment. I think the face down tokens make the game. It adds bluffing, planning, guessing, uncertainty, etc., to the game.
        Message 3 of 9 , Aug 2, 2000
        • 0 Attachment
          ----------
          > From: Dave Bernazzani <dber@...>
          > To: Unity_Games@egroups.com
          > Subject: Re: [Unity_Games] B&N Gaming - July 31, 2000
          > Date: Tuesday, August 01, 2000 2:44 PM
          >
          >

          > Yes, my rating actually went up on this play. It's staring to grow
          on me,
          > but I'm still not a big fan of the central mechanism of allocating
          your
          > tokens face down.

          Interesting comment. I think the face down tokens make the game.
          It adds bluffing, planning, guessing, uncertainty, etc., to the game.
          AL seems to have an interesting mix of mechanisms which makes
          it a part skill, part luck, type of game. ...my favorite kind.

          Pete
        • pldr
          ... they tend ... commentary as ... I hope ... to ... own ... said ... remember what ... I ll try ... It was a bidding game...had some kind of clock.
          Message 4 of 9 , Aug 2, 2000
          • 0 Attachment
            ----------
            > From: Dave Bernazzani <dber@...>
            > To: Unity_Games@egroups.com
            > Subject: Re: [Unity_Games] B&N Gaming - July 31, 2000
            > Date: Tuesday, August 01, 2000 3:17 PM
            > I don't necessarily want the sessions to be a one-mans view - but
            they tend
            > to be that way. I know Pete takes exception to some of my
            commentary as
            > will happen when a person's views about something are made public.
            I hope
            > people realize that when I write a session report, it's just trying
            to
            > capture some sense of what went on during the game - mostly from my
            own
            > viewpoint - but I welcome balancing viewpoints as well. If I've
            said
            > something to offend anyone (Pete - speak up now since I can't
            remember what
            > in particular you were unhappy with since the list has gotten long)
            I'll try
            > to amend it on my website.

            It was a bidding game...had some kind of clock. Merchants of
            Amsterdam?
            You wrote that I consistently way overbid. As I pointed out, near
            the end of
            the game I bid 160,000 several times for things that other people
            were bidding
            150,000 for---hardly overspending, especially when the 160 bids
            ensured that
            I would get the items, which in turn generated about 500,000 more
            than
            my total bids.

            Since I finished in 2nd, only 40 points behind you, (1230-1190)
            who has played the game several times, and 70 ahead of Jenn,
            also a MOA veteran, I think my strategy
            worked fairly well. Keep in mind that you rely on experience with a
            particular
            game in SSG meets, while I'm usually playing for the first time, and
            I have to
            rely more on ability, skill, intelligence, and of course, humility.
            After one has played a game a few times, you tend to think a certain
            approach is best. It's always annoying to find out that someone
            taking a fresh look at a game can come up with another reasonably
            valid approach.

            Pete
          • Dave Bernazzani
            ... Yes, I remember. The point should have been made that most people were overpaying. In my 6+ games and reading lots of commentary there is a break-even
            Message 5 of 9 , Aug 2, 2000
            • 0 Attachment
              "pldr" <pldr@...> wrote:
              >It was a bidding game...had some kind of clock.
              >Merchants of Amsterdam?
              >You wrote that I consistently way overbid.

              Yes, I remember. The point should have been made that most
              people were overpaying. In my 6+ games and reading lots of
              commentary there is a break-even point which is much lower than
              $150 - because the best any one area can generate for you is $100
              except at the end when it's $200. If you take a tile for $160
              and only get $100 for it, you lost money (yes, there are bonuses,
              but overall there are other ways to get those). Of course if
              everyone is bidding $150 then you can do well at that price
              range. I have won more than half my games by only taking one or
              two auctions for $130 (which again is too much except that
              everyone else is paying $150). The last game I played at the
              North Shore Group, I won by $10 and I *never* won a single
              auction - not once. And I didn't play particular well - but
              everyone else was simply paying too much for the auctions and
              they were losing ground (in the $150 range).

              But you are right, since everyone (except me) was bidding high,
              your strategy was fine. It assured you 2nd place.

              --
              Dave Bernazzani
              dber@...
              http://www.gis.net/~dber (South Shore Gamers)
            Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.