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

Invitation to Games - 6 January

Expand Messages
  • Richard Pardoe
    Happy New Year! I was considering summarizing all the games we played last year, but found no easy way to get a list together without going piecemeal through a
    Message 1 of 4 , Jan 3, 2010
    • 0 Attachment
      Invitation to Games - 6 January

      Happy New Year!

      I was considering summarizing all the games we played last year, but found no easy way to get a list together without going piecemeal through a lot of data be it prior mails here or my own stats on BGG.  Lets just say it was a lot of games.  The y ear ended with.

      LAST WEEK:

      A full house as one Dave couldnt make it, but other Dave (and Kern) did make it.  In addition, Jeff and Ricardo made it as did Tim for a 6 player game of The BoardGameGeek Game.  Players are publishers of games (representing one of 6 actual publishers) trying to sell games while collecting sets of the other players games.  Published in honor of BGGs 10th anniversary, the board is full of game references for visual appeal, but the heart of the game is moving ones geeks (buyers represented by dice) to the various shops to purchase games.   While there is the possibility to purchase 3 games each turn, there is a bit of luck and skill necessary to purchase the necessary 5 games to make a set especially as the game lasts only 6 turns.  But in the end we each did manage at least one set, so it would come down to the other games to see who was the winner.  Points = GG for selling games (during the game) + Points for Set # 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6 respectively:

      Rich   :  56 + 30 +  2 + 12 + 16 +  0 + 18 = 134

      Jeff   :  58 +  3 +  0 +  3 + 30 + 20 + 18 = 132

      Dave   :  63 +  0 +  8 +  9 +  4 + 30 + 18 = 132

      Ricardo:  61 + 30 +  4 +  0 +  0 +  0 + 30 = 125

      Tim    :  48 +  1 + 30 + 12 + 16 + 15 +  0 = 122

      Kern   :  57 +  0 +  2 + 12 +  8 +  5 + 18 = 103

      The game had its fair share of decisions.  In the last turn, Rich needed Kerns 1 game and Kerns 4 game to complete both those sets.  The 1 game was visible and available in the first shop, but Kern had also played a new game (hence face-down) in the forth shop as well.  Was this the necessary 4 game?  Though tempted, Rich opted to stay at the sixth shop for a certain 6 game (and 6 VPs with it).  A good move also as the forth shop was revealed to have several bluff counters including Kerns, which meant a lot of buyers would not end up with games.

      Looking at the scores, I do find it interesting that the player who did complete 2 sets (to the exclusion of all other sets) and did generate the second most income finished behind the leaders.  But of course, it was our first play and the first few turns were spent feeling out the system.  It appeared to me that we were more deliberate in our moves in the later rounds, and perhaps the players with the best overall balance managed to lead this game.

      Aside speaking of balance, I was watching Scotts Stuff Scott Nicholsons video blog on YouTube about his 10 best gaming experiences of the year and discovered (belatedly) a minor error in our play of Peloponnes.  It doesnt affect the results, but the final game end score is not the sum of prestige and population but rather the lower of the two.  While it doesnt affect our game, it might have made a difference in strategy for the last few turns as those behind in prestige points might have tried to increase their population to win by that metric.  Perhaps we can try that gain this year with the proper rules.

      THIS WEEK:

      And from that aside, we are at the heart of the matter games for this Wednesday.  I am happy to host again and have a punched copy of Homesteaders we could try, thought it does appear to be an auction heavy game but one that feeds into an economic engine development type of game.  As always, I monitor the replies and adjust the game for the anticipated head count so lets start counting some heads.

      Who is up for the first gaming of 2010.

          GAMES:

          ***************************************

          Wednesday Night, 18:30 to ~21:00
          My house in San Ramon
          (Contact me off-list if you need directions)

          ***************************************

      Rich

    • Timothy Henson
      I ll be there -Tim ... From: Richard Pardoe Subject: [trivalleygamers] Invitation to Games - 6 January To:
      Message 2 of 4 , Jan 4, 2010
      • 0 Attachment
        I'll be there

        -Tim

        --- On Sun, 1/3/10, Richard Pardoe <RPardoe@...> wrote:

        From: Richard Pardoe <RPardoe@...>
        Subject: [trivalleygamers] Invitation to Games - 6 January
        To: trivalleygamers@yahoogroups.com
        Date: Sunday, January 3, 2010, 10:52 PM

         

        Happy New Year!

        I was considering summarizing all the games we played last year, but found no easy way to get a list together without going piecemeal through a lot of data be it prior mails here or my own stats on BGG.  Lets just say it was a lot of games.  The y ear ended with.

        LAST WEEK:

        A full house as one Dave couldnt make it, but other Dave (and Kern) did make it.  In addition, Jeff and Ricardo made it as did Tim for a 6 player game of The BoardGameGeek Game.  Players are publishers of games (representing one of 6 actual publishers) trying to sell games while collecting sets of the other players games.  Published in honor of BGGs 10th anniversary, the board is full of game references for visual appeal, but the heart of the game is moving ones geeks (buyers represented by dice) to the various shops to purchase games.   While there is the possibility to purchase 3 games each turn, there is a bit of luck and skill necessary to purchase the necessary 5 games to make a set especially as the game lasts only 6 turns.  But in the end we each did manage at least one set, so it would come down to the other games to see who was the winner.  Points = GG for selling games (during the game) + Points for Set # 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6 respectively:

        Rich   :  56 + 30 +  2 + 12 + 16 +  0 + 18 = 134

        Jeff   :  58 +  3 +  0 +  3 + 30 + 20 + 18 = 132

        Dave   :  63 +  0 +  8 +  9 +  4 + 30 + 18 = 132

        Ricardo:  61 + 30 +  4 +  0 +  0 +  0 + 30 = 125

        Tim    :  48 +  1 + 30 + 12 + 16 + 15 +  0 = 122

        Kern   :  57 +  0 +  2 + 12 +  8 +  5 + 18 = 103

        The game had its fair share of decisions.  In the last turn, Rich needed Kerns 1 game and Kerns 4 game to complete both those sets.  The 1 game was visible and available in the first shop, but Kern had also played a new game (hence face-down) in the forth shop as well.  Was this the necessary 4 game?  Though tempted, Rich opted to stay at the sixth shop for a certain 6 game (and 6 VPs with it).  A good move also as the forth shop was revealed to have several bluff counters including Kerns, which meant a lot of buyers would not end up with games.

        Looking at the scores, I do find it interesting that the player who did complete 2 sets (to the exclusion of all other sets) and did generate the second most income finished behind the leaders.  But of course, it was our first play and the first few turns were spent feeling out the system.  It appeared to me that we were more deliberate in our moves in the later rounds, and perhaps the players with the best overall balance managed to lead this game.

        Aside speaking of balance, I was watching Scotts Stuff Scott Nicholsons video blog on YouTube about his 10 best gaming experiences of the year and discovered (belatedly) a minor error in our play of Peloponnes.  It doesnt affect the results, but the final game end score is not the sum of prestige and population but rather the lower of the two.  While it doesnt affect our game, it might have made a difference in strategy for the last few turns as those behind in prestige points might have tried to increase their population to win by that metric.  Perhaps we can try that gain this year with the proper rules.

        THIS WEEK:

        And from that aside, we are at the heart of the matter games for this Wednesday.  I am happy to host again and have a punched copy of Homesteaders we could try, thought it does appear to be an auction heavy game but one that feeds into an economic engine development type of game.  As always, I monitor the replies and adjust the game for the anticipated head count so lets start counting some heads.

        Who is up for the first gaming of 2010.

            GAMES:

            ************* ********* ********* ********

            Wednesday Night, 18:30 to ~21:00
            My house in San Ramon
            (Contact me off-list if you need directions)

            ************ ********* ********* *********

        Rich


      • thedesign3r
        I will make it as well!!! Lawrence
        Message 3 of 4 , Jan 4, 2010
        • 0 Attachment
          I will make it as well!!!

          Lawrence

          --- In trivalleygamers@yahoogroups.com, "Richard Pardoe" <RPardoe@...> wrote:
          >
          > Happy New Year!
          > I was considering summarizing all the games we played last year, but found no easy way to get a list together without going piecemeal through a lot of data â€" be it prior mails here or my own stats on BGG. Let’s just say it was a lot of games. The y ear ended with….
          >
          > LAST WEEK:
          > A full house as one Dave couldn’t make it, but other Dave (and Kern) did make it. In addition, Jeff and Ricardo made it as did Tim for a 6 player game of The BoardGameGeek Game. Players are “publishers” of games (representing one of 6 actual publishers) trying to sell games while collecting sets of the other players games. Published in honor of BGG’s 10th anniversary, the board is full of game references for visual appeal, but the heart of the game is moving one’s geeks (buyers represented by dice) to the various shops to purchase games. While there is the possibility to purchase 3 games each turn, there is a bit of luck and skill necessary to purchase the necessary 5 games to make a set â€" especially as the game lasts only 6 turns. But in the end we each did manage at least one set, so it would come down to the other games to see who was the winner. Points = GG for selling games (during the game) + Points for Set # 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6 respectively:
          >
          > Rich : 56 + 30 + 2 + 12 + 16 + 0 + 18 = 134
          > Jeff : 58 + 3 + 0 + 3 + 30 + 20 + 18 = 132
          > Dave : 63 + 0 + 8 + 9 + 4 + 30 + 18 = 132
          > Ricardo: 61 + 30 + 4 + 0 + 0 + 0 + 30 = 125
          > Tim : 48 + 1 + 30 + 12 + 16 + 15 + 0 = 122
          > Kern : 57 + 0 + 2 + 12 + 8 + 5 + 18 = 103
          >
          > The game had its fair share of decisions. In the last turn, Rich needed Kern’s 1 game and Kern’s 4 game to complete both those sets. The 1 game was visible and available in the first shop, but Kern had also played a new game (hence face-down) in the forth shop as well. Was this the necessary 4 game? Though tempted, Rich opted to stay at the sixth shop for a certain 6 game (and 6 VPs with it). A good move also as the forth shop was revealed to have several bluff counters â€" including Kern’s, which meant a lot of buyers would not end up with games.
          >
          > Looking at the scores, I do find it interesting that the player who did complete 2 sets (to the exclusion of all other sets) and did generate the second most income finished behind the leaders. But of course, it was our first play and the first few turns were spent feeling out the system. It appeared to me that we were more deliberate in our moves in the later rounds, and perhaps the players with the best overall balance managed to lead this game.
          >
          > Aside â€" speaking of balance, I was watching Scott’s Stuff â€" Scott Nicholson’s video blog on YouTube about his 10 best gaming experiences of the year and discovered (belatedly) a minor error in our play of Peloponnes. It doesn’t affect the results, but the final game end score is not the sum of prestige and population â€" but rather the lower of the two. While it doesn’t affect our game, it might have made a difference in strategy for the last few turns as those behind in prestige points might have tried to increase their population to win by that metric. Perhaps we can try that gain this year with the proper rules.
          >
          > THIS WEEK:
          > And from that aside, we are at the heart of the matter â€" games for this Wednesday. I am happy to host again and have a punched copy of Homesteaders we could try, thought it does appear to be an auction heavy game but one that feeds into an economic engine development type of game. As always, I monitor the replies and adjust the game for the anticipated head count â€" so let’s start counting some heads….
          >
          > Who is up for the first gaming of 2010….
          > GAMES:
          > ***************************************
          > Wednesday Night, 18:30 to ~21:00
          > My house in San Ramon
          > (Contact me off-list if you need directions)
          > ***************************************
          > Rich
          >
        • Dave
          ... I m finally up to it. See you then. Dave
          Message 4 of 4 , Jan 6, 2010
          • 0 Attachment
            --- In trivalleygamers@yahoogroups.com, "Richard Pardoe" <RPardoe@...> wrote:
            >
            > Happy New Year!
            >
            > Who is up for the first gaming of 2010?
            > GAMES:

            I'm finally up to it. See you then.

            Dave
          Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.