Could you really blame me if, when asked to play a game about German politics, I was a little trepidatious? I didn't think so. Politics leaves me indifferent at the best of times, and I don't exactly jump for joy at the thought of an election.
So why is it then, that playing a game in which you represent a political party vying to outdo your opponents over the course of seven elections is actually quite enjoyable?
I'll tell you why. Strategy. If you ignore the political dressing, the game comes down to a series of interesting and clever strategic and tactical choices that you use to boost your score. Have the highest score at the end of the game, and you'll be the champion of Die Macher.
For the heads up on this five hour monster of a game, I suggest you do what I did: head over to Board Games with Scott and download Scott's excellent video review (it goes for about an hour). You can, of course, stay here instead and get the Up the vacuum thingy take on Die Macher.
One of the first things I asked myself when I was approached to play this game was "Five hours? Are you mad?". And after I realised that I was, I then wondered what "Die Macher" actually meant in English. So I typed "die macher" into Babel Fish, which translated it to "more macher". Not particularly helpful.
I then tried translating "Die Macher" on the chance that capital letters might help. What do you know, I was right. This time it spat out "The doers". Which is quite appropriate because I was about to play a game where I'd be doing a lot of stuff.
With that in mind let's take a quick (and I use the word "quick" advisedly) squiz at the stuff with which you'll be doing the, er, other stuff.
These are (most) of the bits and pieces that the green player starts with. The game can accomodate up to five players, each representing a political party in one of five colours: black, yellow, red, green and pink. Yes, pink. I do believe this is the first time I've ever seen a pink player in a board game.
There are various cubes and flattened cubes which you use to keep track of various things on the boards; there are cards representing your shadow cabinet, bribes and various denominations of Euros; and there are little tiles used to tell you what your party name is, and to indicate that you are up for a coalition during an election (that's the telephones - no face-to-face shenanigans here).
In addition to the stuff pictured above, you get five cards representing your party's policies. Essentially, these cards are used to show whether your party is either for...
...or against...
...five (of seven) particular issues (eg. nuclear power, genetic engineering, taxes, social security etc).
Now, if you're like me and party politics leave you cold, then don't worry. The issues represented on the cards aren't really the focus here. You see, this is really just a card matching game dressed up in political clothing.
You don't really care whether your party is for or against nuclear power. All you're trying to do is match your cards as best as possible with the four issue cards in each state.
Each of the seven elections during the game has four public opinion cards associated with it (though these can be changed during the game). As the idea is to get as many votes as you can in each election, matching your party's policies to each state's issues is the key to doing well.
Exact matches are good, while opposing cards are bad. For example, if one of your cards has the white square tomato card, and one of the public opinion cards in an election is the red square tomato card, then it means the public aren't digging your policies (or your tomatoes).
Don't fret though, because you have the power to change public opinion, and if you play your cards right (literally) those ignorant voters will soon come around to your way of thinking.
One way to do that is via media control. During the game you'll get the chance to become your media mogul/despot of choice by placing media markers (they're the big cubes you start with) on the various election boards.
Each election board can have up to five media markers on it, and if you have more than any other player, then you control the media in that state. And that means power (cue maniacal laugh). Once per turn any player with media control in a state may switch out one public opinion card, and replace it with another, preferably one matching their own.
You know what? I think it's time we looked at the board itself to see exactly what we're dealing with.
Each election board looks a little something like this:
You may notice the card hanging off the bottom of the board. That's a State card and determines what state the current election is for. What this really means is the card determines how many points the current election is worth.
Not all elections are created equal, and each state is worth a different number of points per seat you win. Here are some examples:
With a maximum of 50 seats available to win in each election, you have to pick and choose your battles. You won't be able to win the 50 seats in every election so it makes sense to save your resources for the elections that'll earn you the most points.
In the example cards above, winning 50 seats in Hessen will get you 48 points, whereas you'll get 60 points if you win the same number of seats in Freistat Bayern. Therefore, winning Freistat Bayern is more valuable than Hessen.
With the cards coming out randomly, and quite a few more than seven state cards in the deck, the points on offer varies from game to game.
OK, so concentrating on more valuable elections is generally a good thing (so expect your opponents to be doing it as well), but how exactly do you win seats in an election?
That, my friend, comes down to two things: meetings and multipliers.
Think of meetings as chances to meet and greet the public. The more you get out there kissing babies, the more people are going to vote for you. You have to fork out €1,000 for each meeting, but without them you're not going to get far.
Once per turn, you'll get a chance to plonk down up to four meeting markers (little cubes) on any of the four election boards, though you can't exceed ten in any one election.
Which leads us to the multipliers. When you count the seats won in an election, you multiply the number of meeting markers in that state by the magic multiplier number.
OK, so it's not really magic. The multiplier is calculated by taking your popularity level in a state, adding the number of your party's policies that match the opinion cards, and subtracting the number of your party's policies that are opposite to any opinion cards (you'll have one or more policy cards that don't match or oppose the opinion cards, and they are ignored).
But what is this popularity level of which I speak? Is it not the same as matching public opinion? No, it's not.
Let's have a gander at the election board again:
Notice those pretty coloured columns? They are used to keep track of each player's popularity in the state. You start of in the middle of each popularity scale (worth 0), and can either increase your popularity (to +2 or +3) or decrease your popularity (to -2 or -3).
Obviously, an increase in popularity is good as it increases your multiplier at vote counting time.
Let's have an example to clarify. Say you have placed the maximum ten meeting cubes on that board. Say that you have also increased your party's popularity to +2. Say, also that two of your policy cards match opinion cards on the board, but one of your policy cards is opposed to another of the opinion cards. In this case your multiplier will be + 2 + 2 - 1 = 3. The number of seats you will gain in the election is therefore 10 x 3 = 30.
If those 30 seats are more than anyone else, you win the election. Woohoo! Don't celebrate too early though as you'll find that the maximum 50 seats will be won by at least one player in almost every election.
Once everyone's counted their seats, these are then converted to points as per the state card. Everyone can get points regardless of whether they win the election or not. Which is not only nice, but an essential way to keep your score ticking over if you know you're not going to win an election.
And it's then rinse and repeat for seven elections (although the seventh election count is conducted immediately following the sixth, so you have less time to influence the result).
And that's how the game works. You play cards and cubes that let you affect opinions and popularity in each state in order to maximise the number of seats you gain in each election, and thus maximise your score.
At any one time, there are four elections (one current and three future) that can be affected/manipulated, so you'll actually have four election boards on the table like so:
Now for the sake of brevity and simplicity I have deliberately skipped over a few other elements of the game, such as the national opinion board (which tracks national opinions and party membership numbers), shadow cabinet cards, opinion polls and bribe cards, but you should get the idea.
What? You want to know about these things too? Well alright then, but only because I went to the trouble of finding these pictures and it would be a shame to waste them.
For the cost displayed on each shadow cabinet card, you may play that card to a particular state during the designated phase of each turn, and take one of the actions on the card. Actions can be things like extra seats in an election, or replacing someone else's media marker with your own, or increasing your popularity in that state. All quite handy, but these cards can only be used once each during the game.
Opinion polls are available for blind auction (you can't see what you're buying during the bidding) each turn and let you take one or two of the actions on the card:
If you win the auction you get to see the card, and if you're lucky one of the options will be to boost your own party's popularity. If not, you can always elect not to publish the poll, and instead roll two dice to increase your party membership.
And then there are bribes, or should I say "party contributions":
You can use these to get yourself some extra cash at the expense of party membership, or show what an upstanding party you are and ignore the money to increase your membership.
If you're still with me, then well done. As I said at the start, if you're not into politics and you can see through the politics to the strategy beneath, it's actually a good, challenging game.
Die Macher is not for the casual gamer. Don't try to jump your new gamer friend straight from Carcassonne to Die Macher - you may fry their brain. You have to have some gaming pedigree behind you, and the willingness to sit down for five hours (our first game actually took six) to see it through to the end.
If you like your games on the strategy heavy side of the spectrum, then you'll probably get a kick out of Die Macher. Just pretend it's about vying with evil aliens for control of the Galactic Council and it'll be a blast.
Saturday, January 31, 2009
Tuesday, January 20, 2009
The Phone
The promos looked intriguing. Imagine you're walking along a street and a phone rings. Do you answer it? It could be the Clue Master calling to give you the chance to win $25,000.
Teamed up with another random person who also answered another fateful ringing phone, you solve clue after clue as you dash around the city, in an attempt to get to the case of cash before the time runs out.
How would you like to be that random passer by? It'd be majorly cool right?
Except it couldn't be you, and not just because you don't live in the right city.
Why not? Because the contestants are cast.
Which blows the whole premise out of the window straight away. Sure, they edited it to make it look like the phone was ringing with countless people walking past ignoring it, until one lucky person decided to answer it. Unfortunately, it became very clear, very quickly that the gorgeous girl and the hunky guy who answered each phone were preselected by the producers. Unsurprised, and with unquestioning obedience, the two immediately set off on their quest.
The girl, told to go and get into a van, does so. If you're a gorgeous young woman and you've suddenly received a phone call from a strange man telling you to go and get into a van would you do it? Of course not. She did so because she already knew she was on a game show and had been prepped by the producers.
The show is also edited to make it look like the contestants have no contact with any crew from the moment the phone rings until the money is found. Amazingly, their voices come through oh so crystal clear when they aren't speaking on the phone. Yup, they're wearing microphones too. How convenient.
Let me just say here that if you think about it, casting the show in this way makes a lot of sense for the producers. Getting two completely random people on the show is fraught with danger and unknowns. If they cast the contestants, they know they're getting two people who look good on camera, they can match up the contestants to form the sort of team we want to watch, and they can make sure they're not getting any psychos. They also have the added benefit of getting the contestants to pre-sign whatever forms they need to to appear on TV, and can prep them with microphones and at least some degree of knowledge that they're going to be busy for the afternoon.
OK, so let's get past this obviously contrived scenario that saw these two enter the game. Let's look at the game elements. Here, we must give at least some kudos to the writers. They did have some clever and diverse puzzles and challenges throughout the episode:
solve a clue to work out the PIN to a card that you can use to pay for petrol in your almost empty van;
using a bunch of keys with remote locks, find the one car in the huge car lot that one of those keys will open;
find a woman walking around the streets whose point of view one of the contestants can see via a camera in the woman's glasses, and must relay by phone to the other contestant who is trying to find her.
It seems, however, that the two contestants they chose were, shall we say, not the sharpest tools in the shed. They failed to complete either of the first two challenges I just mentioned within the allotted time the Clue Master had given them, and so had money deducted from the $25,000 prize.
In the find-the-car challenge, The Giggling One was screaming at the TV telling the dopey pair to use the damn car remotes to see which car beeped/blinked its lights instead of walking up to each car to try the lock.
Here, the show did actually achieve something that all good reality shows do: make you shout at the TV to tell the contestants how stupid they are and how patently obvious the solution was, and how you would have done that challenge so much better.
On the subject of doing things better (lame segue I know), the host, JustinMullet Melvey, just didn't cut the mustard as the mysterious Clue Master. He was too wooden and pompous, and lacked that degree of authority necessary to pull off the role. Casting an unknown with the right degree of "stage presence", and who doesn't flirt with the female contestant, would have been a better option.
But now, to the pièce de résistance; the element of the show that managed to tip it from a somewhat contrived game show to an utterly ridiculous load of bollocks: the fictional story-line.
The Fox 8 website gushes about the show's "enthralling fictional element". Enthralling? Er, no. Not by a long shot.
Let's set the scene. The Clue Master is riding in a limo talking on the phone to the contestants to give them their next clue. Sitting beside him in the limo are two Japanese men (who reappear throughout the episode), one of whom is busy typing on a laptop. Initially it just appears as some silly window dressing for the Clue Master, to make him seem more important than he actually is.
Oh, if only that's all it was. We found out later that the Clue Master was actually "doing business" with these men, and the deal had gone south. As he didn't want to get his hands dirty, it was up to the contestants to put on the supplied gloves, secretly enter a house while the occupant was having a three minute shower, and steal the keys to a sports car parked outside. Meanwhile, the Clue Master was grassing on the Japanese businessmen to the cops, who later "arrested" them.
What the? It's a game show. You have a cool premise of getting two people to run around Sydney following clues Amazing Race style, and you have to add this naff pretend story line? I haven't seen anything with a less immersive story since Scavengers. Marrying game show and fictional plot just doesn't work unless you're in improv.
*sigh*
Alright, that pretty much brings me to the end of my rant.
Except to ponder what happened to the 3 hour countdown. It was nowhere to be seen at the end of the episode. Were they close to the 3 hour limit, or was that just another staged gimmick as well? Sort of like the only-one-person-can-win-but-we'll-let-you-share-the-cash-anyway lame excuse for a twist. They could at least make them divvy up the cash 60/40 or something.
The Giggling One and I were both hyped by the promos, and significantly let down by the execution. No second chances for The Phone I'm afraid. This won't be getting a look in on our TV screen again.
Teamed up with another random person who also answered another fateful ringing phone, you solve clue after clue as you dash around the city, in an attempt to get to the case of cash before the time runs out.
How would you like to be that random passer by? It'd be majorly cool right?
Except it couldn't be you, and not just because you don't live in the right city.
Why not? Because the contestants are cast.
Which blows the whole premise out of the window straight away. Sure, they edited it to make it look like the phone was ringing with countless people walking past ignoring it, until one lucky person decided to answer it. Unfortunately, it became very clear, very quickly that the gorgeous girl and the hunky guy who answered each phone were preselected by the producers. Unsurprised, and with unquestioning obedience, the two immediately set off on their quest.
The girl, told to go and get into a van, does so. If you're a gorgeous young woman and you've suddenly received a phone call from a strange man telling you to go and get into a van would you do it? Of course not. She did so because she already knew she was on a game show and had been prepped by the producers.
The show is also edited to make it look like the contestants have no contact with any crew from the moment the phone rings until the money is found. Amazingly, their voices come through oh so crystal clear when they aren't speaking on the phone. Yup, they're wearing microphones too. How convenient.
Let me just say here that if you think about it, casting the show in this way makes a lot of sense for the producers. Getting two completely random people on the show is fraught with danger and unknowns. If they cast the contestants, they know they're getting two people who look good on camera, they can match up the contestants to form the sort of team we want to watch, and they can make sure they're not getting any psychos. They also have the added benefit of getting the contestants to pre-sign whatever forms they need to to appear on TV, and can prep them with microphones and at least some degree of knowledge that they're going to be busy for the afternoon.
OK, so let's get past this obviously contrived scenario that saw these two enter the game. Let's look at the game elements. Here, we must give at least some kudos to the writers. They did have some clever and diverse puzzles and challenges throughout the episode:
It seems, however, that the two contestants they chose were, shall we say, not the sharpest tools in the shed. They failed to complete either of the first two challenges I just mentioned within the allotted time the Clue Master had given them, and so had money deducted from the $25,000 prize.
In the find-the-car challenge, The Giggling One was screaming at the TV telling the dopey pair to use the damn car remotes to see which car beeped/blinked its lights instead of walking up to each car to try the lock.
Here, the show did actually achieve something that all good reality shows do: make you shout at the TV to tell the contestants how stupid they are and how patently obvious the solution was, and how you would have done that challenge so much better.
On the subject of doing things better (lame segue I know), the host, Justin
But now, to the pièce de résistance; the element of the show that managed to tip it from a somewhat contrived game show to an utterly ridiculous load of bollocks: the fictional story-line.
The Fox 8 website gushes about the show's "enthralling fictional element". Enthralling? Er, no. Not by a long shot.
Let's set the scene. The Clue Master is riding in a limo talking on the phone to the contestants to give them their next clue. Sitting beside him in the limo are two Japanese men (who reappear throughout the episode), one of whom is busy typing on a laptop. Initially it just appears as some silly window dressing for the Clue Master, to make him seem more important than he actually is.
Oh, if only that's all it was. We found out later that the Clue Master was actually "doing business" with these men, and the deal had gone south. As he didn't want to get his hands dirty, it was up to the contestants to put on the supplied gloves, secretly enter a house while the occupant was having a three minute shower, and steal the keys to a sports car parked outside. Meanwhile, the Clue Master was grassing on the Japanese businessmen to the cops, who later "arrested" them.
What the? It's a game show. You have a cool premise of getting two people to run around Sydney following clues Amazing Race style, and you have to add this naff pretend story line? I haven't seen anything with a less immersive story since Scavengers. Marrying game show and fictional plot just doesn't work unless you're in improv.
*sigh*
Alright, that pretty much brings me to the end of my rant.
Except to ponder what happened to the 3 hour countdown. It was nowhere to be seen at the end of the episode. Were they close to the 3 hour limit, or was that just another staged gimmick as well? Sort of like the only-one-person-can-win-but-we'll-let-you-share-the-cash-anyway lame excuse for a twist. They could at least make them divvy up the cash 60/40 or something.
The Giggling One and I were both hyped by the promos, and significantly let down by the execution. No second chances for The Phone I'm afraid. This won't be getting a look in on our TV screen again.
Sunday, January 4, 2009
Agricola
Oh Agricola how I want to love thee, but thou overwhelmeth me, leaving me battered, yet yearning for more.
Anticipation can be a killer, and to say I was hyped for this game is the understatement of the (admittedly short so far) year. Agricola had been on my Christmas wish list, and true to form, my ever-loving better half snuck it under the Christmas tree while I wasn't looking.
If you don't know about Agricola, know this: it is the highest rated game on Board Game Geek - a lofty accolade indeed.
It was with high expectations, then, that I opened the hefty box, removed the plethora of pieces, congestion of cards, and bulge of boards. You see, Agricola is a game of such depth and, dare I say it, underlying complexity that it really requires numerous plays before you get a true indication of what it has to offer. Only then can you really sit back and say "this is a bloody great game", or "this game really sucks and I can't believe I invested so much time building silly little fences for ridiculous cubic animals".
I look forward to seeing which side of the silly little fence I fall on.
As I said, Agricola has an extraordinary amount of depth below its simple farming conceit. As such, I could never do the game justice with an in-depth look at the machinations of 17th Century farming. If you need more information, there is more than enough to quench your thirst at Board Game Geek.
But let's at least dip our toes into the metaphorical waters of the game.
Agricola, pronounced "a-GRICK-oh-la", is the Latin word for "farmer". As you may have gathered by now, it's a game about farming.
Everyone starts with their own little patch of ground:
As you can see your farm consists of 15 spaces. During the game it is your responsibility as a responsible farmer to responsibly develop these spaces into a working farm.
At the start of the game, two of these spaces are taken up by your cosy little wooden hut. It's not much, but it's home. If you're not partial to wood, you can upgrade you home to clay or stone during the game.
You can expand your home to other spaces during the game, as well as plough (sorry, "plow" as the Americanised version of the game says) fields, fence areas to form pastures for animals, or build a stable or two.
Of course, it's not going to be easy, and your family is going to have to toil for their supper. You start with a mummy and a daddy farmer, and during the game you'll have the option to grow your family (the nights are long and cold) so that you have more hands to work for you.
The way it works is that each round players take it in turns to choose a specific action to take with one of their family members. The actions that are available depend upon the number of players, and more actions become available during the game.
Once one player chooses an action during the round, no other player may choose it. All of the available actions can be found on the three (yes, three) game boards:
As you can see some of the actions are preprinted (like "Build room(s) and/or Build Stable(s)", or "Take 1 Grain", or "3 Wood" (3 Wood is added to this space each round)).
Other spaces are devoid of actions. Some of these spaces are filled at the start of the game, such as these action cards used in a 4 player game:
The other spaces (with a Round designation on them) will be added to as the game progresses. Actions you will come across include:
Obviously, the strategy is to select the actions that are best going to improve your farm. You'll want to collect resources to build stuff, grain and vegetables to plant in your fields, and collect animals to place in your pastures (though you are allowed to keep one in your home as a pet. Awww).
I bet you're wondering what exactly you will be physically collecting. Let's take a squiz at some of the pieces that come with the game:
The cubes represent animals while the discs are the various resources (clay, wood, stone, grain, vegetables and reeds). Oh and the little yellow discs with plates and cutlery represent food.
Now this is quite boring, so many people have taken to replacing the standard pieces with animeeples and vegimeeples:
Much prettier I think you'll agree. I must get my hands on some of those.
So you gather all these resources to further expand your farm. But what should you focus on? Well, you shouldn't focus. Focussing is bad m'kay? You should diversify, because at the end of the game you will actually lose points for not having stuff. See the score summary:
See the left-most column? It says "-1 Point". You lose points if you don't have at least one of everything on that list. And it is remarkably easy to get a few -1's creeping in to your final score if you're not careful.
That's the core of the game then: take one action per family member each round and use those actions to build up your farm so that you can maximise your score at the end of the game.
Sounds relatively simple, but where the depth of this game really socks it to you is with the sheer number of cards.
Cards? Oh yes. We're not just talking the action cards here. We're talking extra cards: Occupations, Minor Improvements, and Major Improvements. Well over 300 of the buggers.
The Occupation and Minor Improvement cards are also sorted into decks based on their complexity. You can play with the Easy deck, the Interactive deck, or the Complex deck. Or, if you're feeling particularly masochistic, you can play with all the decks mixed in together.
Here's a little sample:
Everyone starts with a hand of 7 Occupations and 7 Minor Improvements, and once you've got your 14 cards, that's what you're stuck with for the game. With so many different cards, this means you're going to get a different group of cards every time (unless there is some freakish occurrence when all the animeeples align or something).
And that's what sucks you in. You peruse the cards in the decks and think to yourself "Ooh that might be useful", and then you play 20 games trying to get dealt that one card or card combo that you just have to try.
There's a semblance of normality to each game, though, as the 10 Major Improvements are always available for everyone to purchase. They are very useful, so trying to play through the game without getting your hands on one is, quite frankly, just plain stupid.
And that's Agricola. Accumulate stuff in order to improve your farm as best as possible so you maximise your score at the end of the game. Simple. Ish.
Getting back to the whole hype killer thing, Agricola has so far lived up to most of my expectations. Like I said, however, it'll take plenty of more plays of this baby before I can truly judge its worthiness. Things are looking good though, and I've no intention of quitting the farm any time soon.
Anticipation can be a killer, and to say I was hyped for this game is the understatement of the (admittedly short so far) year. Agricola had been on my Christmas wish list, and true to form, my ever-loving better half snuck it under the Christmas tree while I wasn't looking.
If you don't know about Agricola, know this: it is the highest rated game on Board Game Geek - a lofty accolade indeed.
It was with high expectations, then, that I opened the hefty box, removed the plethora of pieces, congestion of cards, and bulge of boards. You see, Agricola is a game of such depth and, dare I say it, underlying complexity that it really requires numerous plays before you get a true indication of what it has to offer. Only then can you really sit back and say "this is a bloody great game", or "this game really sucks and I can't believe I invested so much time building silly little fences for ridiculous cubic animals".
I look forward to seeing which side of the silly little fence I fall on.
As I said, Agricola has an extraordinary amount of depth below its simple farming conceit. As such, I could never do the game justice with an in-depth look at the machinations of 17th Century farming. If you need more information, there is more than enough to quench your thirst at Board Game Geek.
But let's at least dip our toes into the metaphorical waters of the game.
Agricola, pronounced "a-GRICK-oh-la", is the Latin word for "farmer". As you may have gathered by now, it's a game about farming.
Everyone starts with their own little patch of ground:
As you can see your farm consists of 15 spaces. During the game it is your responsibility as a responsible farmer to responsibly develop these spaces into a working farm.
At the start of the game, two of these spaces are taken up by your cosy little wooden hut. It's not much, but it's home. If you're not partial to wood, you can upgrade you home to clay or stone during the game.
You can expand your home to other spaces during the game, as well as plough (sorry, "plow" as the Americanised version of the game says) fields, fence areas to form pastures for animals, or build a stable or two.
Of course, it's not going to be easy, and your family is going to have to toil for their supper. You start with a mummy and a daddy farmer, and during the game you'll have the option to grow your family (the nights are long and cold) so that you have more hands to work for you.
The way it works is that each round players take it in turns to choose a specific action to take with one of their family members. The actions that are available depend upon the number of players, and more actions become available during the game.
Once one player chooses an action during the round, no other player may choose it. All of the available actions can be found on the three (yes, three) game boards:
As you can see some of the actions are preprinted (like "Build room(s) and/or Build Stable(s)", or "Take 1 Grain", or "3 Wood" (3 Wood is added to this space each round)).
Other spaces are devoid of actions. Some of these spaces are filled at the start of the game, such as these action cards used in a 4 player game:
The other spaces (with a Round designation on them) will be added to as the game progresses. Actions you will come across include:
Obviously, the strategy is to select the actions that are best going to improve your farm. You'll want to collect resources to build stuff, grain and vegetables to plant in your fields, and collect animals to place in your pastures (though you are allowed to keep one in your home as a pet. Awww).
I bet you're wondering what exactly you will be physically collecting. Let's take a squiz at some of the pieces that come with the game:
The cubes represent animals while the discs are the various resources (clay, wood, stone, grain, vegetables and reeds). Oh and the little yellow discs with plates and cutlery represent food.
Now this is quite boring, so many people have taken to replacing the standard pieces with animeeples and vegimeeples:
Much prettier I think you'll agree. I must get my hands on some of those.
So you gather all these resources to further expand your farm. But what should you focus on? Well, you shouldn't focus. Focussing is bad m'kay? You should diversify, because at the end of the game you will actually lose points for not having stuff. See the score summary:
See the left-most column? It says "-1 Point". You lose points if you don't have at least one of everything on that list. And it is remarkably easy to get a few -1's creeping in to your final score if you're not careful.
That's the core of the game then: take one action per family member each round and use those actions to build up your farm so that you can maximise your score at the end of the game.
Sounds relatively simple, but where the depth of this game really socks it to you is with the sheer number of cards.
Cards? Oh yes. We're not just talking the action cards here. We're talking extra cards: Occupations, Minor Improvements, and Major Improvements. Well over 300 of the buggers.
The Occupation and Minor Improvement cards are also sorted into decks based on their complexity. You can play with the Easy deck, the Interactive deck, or the Complex deck. Or, if you're feeling particularly masochistic, you can play with all the decks mixed in together.
Here's a little sample:
Everyone starts with a hand of 7 Occupations and 7 Minor Improvements, and once you've got your 14 cards, that's what you're stuck with for the game. With so many different cards, this means you're going to get a different group of cards every time (unless there is some freakish occurrence when all the animeeples align or something).
And that's what sucks you in. You peruse the cards in the decks and think to yourself "Ooh that might be useful", and then you play 20 games trying to get dealt that one card or card combo that you just have to try.
There's a semblance of normality to each game, though, as the 10 Major Improvements are always available for everyone to purchase. They are very useful, so trying to play through the game without getting your hands on one is, quite frankly, just plain stupid.
And that's Agricola. Accumulate stuff in order to improve your farm as best as possible so you maximise your score at the end of the game. Simple. Ish.
Getting back to the whole hype killer thing, Agricola has so far lived up to most of my expectations. Like I said, however, it'll take plenty of more plays of this baby before I can truly judge its worthiness. Things are looking good though, and I've no intention of quitting the farm any time soon.
2009 Games Record
Having concentrated on playing as many new games as possible during 2008, the Up the vacuum thingy goal for 2009 was to play at least fifteen games a minimum of three times each. That target was achieved with the third play of Stone Age on October 2nd, and finished at 19 at year's end.
18 December 2009 - Ca$h 'n Gun$ (Play #4) Jeremy ($75,000) def The Giggling One ($70,000), Brian ($65,000), Donald ($65,000), Narelle ($55,000), and Leah (Dead)
18 December 2009 - Ca$h 'n Gun$ (Play #5) Jeremy ($105,000) def Donald ($75,000), The Giggling One ($65,000), Brian ($65,000), Narelle ($40,000), and Leah ($35,000)
18 December 2009 - Zombie Fluxx (Play #57) The Giggling One def Jeremy, Leah, Narelle, Brian, and Donald
19 December 2009 - Man Bites Dog (Play #2) The Giggling One (565) def Jeremy (440), Chris (410), Bernd (370), Vincent (355), Christine (285), and Guirec (210)
19 December 2009 - Razzia (Play #2) Guirec ($305,000) def Mark ($260,000), Bernd ($220,000), Jeremy ($220,000), Vincent ($170,000), Chris ($150,000), The Giggling One ($110,000), and Christine ($85,000)
19 December 2009 - San Marco (Play #1) Dan (57) def Jeremy (54), The Giggling One (53), and Bernd (52)
19 December 2009 - Time's Up! Title Recall! (Play #1) Jeremy & Dan (39) def The Giggling One & Christine (35), Guirac & Mark (25), and Bernd & Vincent (21)
25 December 2009 - Martian Fluxx (Plays #1 - #2) Jeremy v The Giggling One; Winner: Jeremy (#1,#2)
25 December 2009 - Martian Fluxx (Play #3) Jeremy def The Giggling One, Chris, Wynne, Danny, and Sandi
26 December 2009 - Martian Fluxx (Plays #4 - #6) The Giggling One v Jeremy; Winners: The Giggling One (#1,#2), Jeremy (#3)
26 December 2009 - Magic: The Gathering (Plays #1 - #3) The Giggling One (Blue/Green) v Jeremy (Black/Red); Winners: The Giggling One (#1: 28-0), Jeremy (#2: 20-0; #3: 13-0) (Set: Magic 2010)
26 December 2009 - Dice Town (Play #1) Jeremy (74) def The Giggling One (42)
26 December 2009 - Martian Fluxx (Plays #7 - #10) The Giggling One v Jeremy; Winners: The Giggling One (#7,#10), Jeremy (#8), Retreat! (#9)
28 December 2009 - Killer Bunnies and the Quest for the Magic Carrot (Play #1) Jeremy (Carrots 1,2,4,8,10,11,12) def The Giggling One (Carrots 3,5,6,7,9) (Magic Carrot: #10)
28 December 2009 - Magic: The Gathering (Plays #4 - #6) Jeremy (Black/Red) v The Giggling One (Blue/Green); Winners: Jeremy (#4: 4-0; #5: 20-0), The Giggling One (#6: 11-0) (Set: Magic 2010)
28 December 2009 - Citadels (Play #2) Jeremy (37) def The Giggling One (20)
30 December 2009 - Martian Fluxx (Plays #11 - #13) The Giggling One v Jeremy; Winners: The Giggling One (#11,#13), Jeremy (#12)
30 December 2009 - Citadels (Play #3) The Giggling One (37) def Jeremy (25)
31 December 2009 - Magic: The Gathering (Play #7) Jeremy (White) (11) def v The Giggling One (Green/Red) (0) (Set: Magic 2010)
31 December 2009 - Werewolf (Play #32) Werewolf - Paul def Villagers - Drew (Seer), The Giggling One, Narelle, Darren, Brian, and Leah (with Jeremy as the Moderator)
31 December 2009 - Werewolf (Play #33) Villagers - Mary (Seer), Narelle, Darren, Brian, Paul, Drew, and Leah def Werewolf - The Giggling One (with Jeremy as the Moderator)
31 December 2009 - Werewolf (Play #34) Werewolf - The Giggling One def Villagers - Paul (Seer), Narelle, Darren, Brian, Drew, Leah, and Mary (with Jeremy as the Moderator)
- Summary for 2009:
- Total games: 46
Total plays: 233
Total games played at least three times: 19
Games Played (Number of Plays)
- Acquire (2)
Agricola (5)
An Evening With Bram Stoker's Dracula (3)
Ca$h 'n Gun$ (5)
Ca$h 'n Gun$ Live (1)
Carcassonne (4)
Catan Card Game (1)
Caylus (1)
China Moon (1)
Citadels (3)
Democrazy (4)
Dice Town (1)
Die Macher (3)
Dominion (24)
Dominion: Intrigue (4)
Dune (1)
Fact or Crap (1)
Fluxx (4)
Incan Gold (2)
Killer Bunnies and the Quest for the Magic Carrot (1)
Loopin' Louie (3)
Loot (1)
Magic: The Gathering (7)
Mamma Mia! (1)
Man Bites Dog (2)
Martian Fluxx (13)
Monty Python Fluxx (1)
Munchkin (7)
Munchkin Booty (1)
Pandemic (7)
Pictionary (2)
Puerto Rico (1)
Razzia (2)
Risk (1)
San Marco (1)
Set (7)
Settlers of Catan (1)
StarCraft: The Board Game (1)
Stone Age (6)
The Pillars of the Earth (1)
The Princes of Florence (2)
Time's Up! Title Recall! (1)
Werewolf (34)
Why Did the Chicken...? (1)
Wizard's Quest (1)
Zombie Fluxx (57)
Games In Detail
- 1 January 2009 - Carcassonne (Play #1)
- Jeremy (120) def The Giggling One (87)
- 1 January 2009 - Carcassonne (Play #2)
- Jeremy (118) def The Giggling One (90)
- 1 January 2009 - Agricola (Play #1)
- Jeremy (47) def The Giggling One (23)
- 2 January 2009 - Loot (Play #1)
- Christine def Jeremy, Carl, The Giggling One, Mark R, Gypsy Anna, Betty, and Bernd
- 2 January 2009 - Agricola (Play #2)
- Jeremy (29) def The Giggling One (28), Splat (23), and Carl (13)
- 24 January 2009 - Zombie Fluxx (Play #1)
- Splat def Mark R, The Giggling One, Jeremy, Tammy, Christine, and Mark S
- 24 January 2009 - Agricola (Play #3)
- Jeremy (51) def The Giggling One (41), Splat (24), and Mark S (20)
- 24 January 2009 - Democrazy (Play #1)
- Mark S and Ian T (both 14) def Jeremy, The Giggling One, Mark R, Tammy, Splat, and Christine
- 27 January 2009 - Die Macher (Play #1)
- Mark R (348) def Bernd (320), Jeremy (301), and Christine (248)
- 6 February 2009 - The Princes of Florence (Play #1)
- Jeremy (63) def The Giggling One (46), Nathan (44), Juanita (44), and Ian T (39)
- 6 February 2009 - Monty Python Fluxx (Play #1)
- The Giggling One def Jeremy, Ian T, Daniel, Nathan, and Juanita
- 10 February 2009 - Zombie Fluxx (Plays #2 - #4)
- Jeremy v The Giggling One; Winners: The Giggling One (#2,#4), Jeremy (#3)
- 10 February 2009 - Zombie Fluxx (Plays #5 - #6)
- Jeremy v The Giggling One; Winners: Jeremy (#5), The Giggling One (#6)
- 13 February 2009 - Zombie Fluxx (Plays #7 - #12)
- Jeremy v The Giggling One v Lucinda; Winners: Jeremy (#7,#10), The Giggling One (#8,#9,#11), Lucinda (#12)
- 14 February 2009 - Zombie Fluxx (Play #13)
- Jeremy def The Giggling One, Lucinda, and Ric
- 16 February 2009 - Zombie Fluxx (Plays #14 - #15)
- Jeremy v The Giggling One v Lucinda; Winners: Jeremy (#14), The Giggling One (#15)
- 19 February 2009 - Zombie Fluxx (Plays #16 - #20)
- Jeremy v The Giggling One; Winners: Jeremy (#16-#19), The Giggling One (#20)
- 22 February 2009 - Zombie Fluxx (Plays #21 - #23)
- Jeremy v The Giggling One v Patty; Winners: Jeremy (#21,#23), Patty (#22)
- 28 February 2009 - Zombie Fluxx (Plays #24 - #27)
- Jeremy v The Giggling One v Mel v Tim v Stuart v Louise; Winners: Stuart (#24,#25), Jeremy (#26), The Giggling One (#27)
- 1 March 2009 - Zombie Fluxx (Plays #28 - #30)
- Jeremy v The Giggling One v Danny v Sandi; Winners: Sandi (#28), The Zombies!! (#29), The Giggling One (#30)
- 4 March 2009 - Dominion (Play #1)
- Jeremy (42) def The Giggling One (38)
- 5 March 2009 - Dominion (Play #2)
- Jeremy (41) def The Giggling One (29)
- 6 March 2009 - Dominion (Play #3)
- Jeremy (39) def Chris (28), Jon (21), and Andy (9)
- 6 March 2009 - Munchkin (Play #1)
- Dan (10) def Nathan (9), Jeremy (9), Ian (8), and Maike (8)
- 15 March 2009 - Munchkin (Play #2)
- Jeremy (10) def Brian (9), and The Giggling One (6)
- 21 March 2009 - Munchkin (Play #3)
- Jeremy (10) def The Giggling One (8), Christine (6), and Andrew (4)
- 21 March 2009 - Ca$h 'n Gun$ (Play #1)
- Andrew ($285,000) def Christine ($120,000), The Giggling One (Dead), and Jeremy (Dead)
- 21 March 2009 - Mamma Mia! (Play #1)
- Christine (7) def Jeremy (5), and The Giggling One (4)
- 21 March 2009 - Wizard's Quest (Play #1)
- Game abandoned after two and a half hours when the clock hit 1am. At the time the scores were: Mira (1), Christine (1), Jeremy (0), The Giggling One (0), Ian T(0), Bernd (0)
- 27 March 2009 - Die Macher (Play #2)
- Jeremy (351) def Bernd (333), Ian T (285), Mark R (274), and Christine (271)
- 28 March 2009 - Zombie Fluxx (Plays #31 - #33)
- Jeremy v The Giggling One v Paul v Narelle; Winners: Narelle (#31), Jeremy (#32), The Giggling One (#33)
- 3 April 2009 - Man Bites Dog (Play #1)
- Social game (no scoring) with: Jeremy, The Giggling One, Mark R, Mira, Chris, Bernd, Andy, Keith, Raphael, and Nadege
- 3 April 2009 - Ca$h 'n Gun$ (Play #2)
- Kit ($110,000) def The Giggling One ($100,000), Andy ($75,000), Jeremy ($55,000), Jon ($35,000), and Bernd (Dead)
- 3 April 2009 - Ca$h 'n Gun$ (Play #3)
- Andy ($125,000) def Jeremy ($120,000), The Giggling One ($115,000), Bernd ($60,000), Jon (Dead), and Kit (Dead Undercover Cop)
- 3 April 2009 - Caylus (Play #1)
- Ian B (54) def Jon (52), Jeremy (45), Christine (36), and Bernd (36)
- 4 April 2009 - Dominion (Play #4)
- Jeremy (42) def The Giggling One (20)
- 4 April 2009 - Dominion (Play #5)
- Jeremy (33) def The Giggling One (28)
- 4 April 2009 - Dominion (Play #6)
- The Giggling One (29) def Jeremy (27)
- 9 April 2009 - Munchkin (Play #4)
- The Giggling One (10) def Paul (9), Jeremy (8), and Brian (7)
- 11 April 2009 - Pictionary (Play #1)
- Jeremy & The Giggling One def Leah & Brian
- 11 April 2009 - Pictionary (Play #2)
- Leah & The Giggling One def Jeremy & Brian
- 18 April 2009 - Set (Play #1)
- Jeremy (13) def The Giggling One (10)
- 18 April 2009 - Set (Play #2)
- Jeremy (7) def Ian (4), The Giggling One (3), Mark R (3), Nadege (2), Raphael (1), Dan (0), and Bernd (0)
- 18 April 2009 - Acquire (Play #1)
- Bernd ($44,000) def Jeremy ($40,400), Dan ($26,700), Ian T ($23,900), and Keith ($23,700)
- 18 April 2009 - Democrazy (Play #2)
- Jeremy, The Giggling One, and Nadege (all 9) def Mark R (7), Raphael (7), Cam (4), and Bernd (2)
- 1 May 2009 - Carcassonne (Play #3)
- Jeremy (103) def The Giggling One (77), and Gordon (71)
- 9 May 2009 - StarCraft: The Board Game (Play #1)
- Mark R (15 - normal victory) def Jeremy (10), Tim (10), and Christine (5)
- 16 May 2009 - Zombie Fluxx (Play #34)
- Mark R def Jeremy, Splat, Erin, Thea, and Belinda
- 16 May 2009 - Democrazy (Play #3)
- Erin, and Thea (both 12) def Belinda (11), Jeremy, Mark R, and Bernd (all 10), and Splat (4)
- 16 May 2009 - Dominion (Play #7)
- Jeremy (38) def Splat (29), and Thea (18)
- 16 May 2009 - Dominion (Play #8)
- Splat (44) def Jeremy (33), and Thea (33)
- 16 May 2009 - Fluxx (Plays #1 - #2)
- Jeremy v Splat v Thea; Winners: Jeremy (#1), Splat (#2)
- 16 May 2009 - Razzia (Play #1)
- Splat ($330,000) def Jeremy ($225,000), Thea ($215,000), Bernd ($215,000), Belinda ($210,000), Mark R ($180,000), and Erin ($175,000)
- 29 May 2009 - Risk (Play #1)
- Jeremy (Conquer Africa & Asia) def Andrew (Conquer Africa & North America), The Giggling One (Conquer Australia & North America), and Paul (Destroy the Blue Army (The Giggling One))
- 29 May 2009 - Zombie Fluxx (Play #35)
- Paul def Jeremy, Andrew, and The Giggling One
- 5 June 2009 - Zombie Fluxx (Play #36)
- Game abandoned after twenty minutes in order to play other games. Playing were The Giggling One, Jeremy, Mark R, Jeung, Carl, Christine, and Emma
- 5 June 2009 - The Pillars of the Earth (Play #1)
- Carl (52) def Jeremy (48), Mark R (45), The Giggling One (43), and Ian T (41)
- 20 June 2009 - Set (Play #3)
- The Giggling One (6) def Jeremy (5), Splat (5), Erin (3), Bernd (1), Christine (0), and Belinda (0)
- 20 June 2009 - Werewolf (Play #1)
- Werewolves - Splat and Ian T def Villagers - The Giggling One, Christine, Hannah, Erin, Belinda, and Jeremy (with Bernd as the Moderator)
- 20 June 2009 - Agricola (Play #4)
- Jeremy (43) def Christine (37), and Bernd (34)
- 20 June 2009 - Werewolf (Play #2)
- Werewolves - Jeremy and Keith def Villagers - Erin (Seer), Hannah (Bishop), Christine (Little Girl), Ian T, Carl, Belinda, The Giggling One, and Splat (with Bernd as the Moderator)
- 20 June 2009 - Werewolf (Play #3)
- Villagers - Hannah (Seer), Carl (Bishop), Keith (Little Girl), Ian T, Christine, Jeremy, Splat, and The Giggling One def Werewolves - Erin and Belinda (with Bernd as the Moderator)
- 3 July 2009 - Set (Play #4)
- Mark R (6) def The Giggling One (5), Splat (3), Christine (2), Jon (2), Erin (1), Dan (1), Jeremy (1), and Keith (0)
- 3 July 2009 - Set (Play #5)
- Mark R (4) def Christine (3), Jeremy (3), The Giggling One (2), Splat (1), Jon (1), Erin (1), Carl (1), and Keith (0)
- 3 July 2009 - Dominion: Intrigue (Play #1)
- Jeremy (33) def Bernd (31), The Giggling One (19), and Splat (19)
- 3 July 2009 - Dominion: Intrigue (Play #2)
- Jeremy (53) def Bernd (52), The Giggling One (51), and Splat (51)
- 3 July 2009 - Werewolf (Play #4)
- Evils - Ian T (Werewolf), Carl (Werewolf), and Mark R (Half-blood) def Villagers - Thijs (Seer), Erin (Bishop), Keith (Mason), Splat (Mason), Christine, The Giggling One, Dan, Pete, and Bernd (with Jeremy as the Moderator)
- 3 July 2009 - Werewolf (Play #5)
- Evils - Ian T (Werewolf), Christine (Werewolf), and Keith (Half-blood) def Villagers - Dan (Seer), Splat (Bishop), Bernd (Mason), Carl (Mason), Mark R, The Giggling One, and Erin (with Jeremy as the Moderator)
- 3 July 2009 - Werewolf (Play #6)
- Villagers - The Giggling One (Seer), Christine (Bishop), Bernd (Mason), Splat (Mason), Ian T, Carl, and Erin def Evils - Mark R (Werewolf), Dan (Werewolf), and Keith (Half-blood) (with Jeremy as the Moderator)
- 18 July 2009 - Set (Play #6)
- Christine (5) def Bernd (4), Jeremy (3), Ian T (3), Carol (2), Ian B (1), and Keith (0)
- 18 July 2009 - Acquire (Play #2)
- Carol ($51,500) def Christine ($39,700), Jeremy ($38,100), Ian T ($36,000), and Keith ($22,500)
- 18 July 2009 - Werewolf (Play #7)
- Villagers - Carl (Seer), Keith (Bishop), Bernd (Mason), Alan (Mason), Jeremy, and Maike def Werewolves - Carol and Christine (with Ian B as the Moderator)
- 18 July 2009 - Werewolf (Play #8)
- Villagers - Keith (Seer), Christine (Bishop), Carol (Mason), Alan (Mason), Jeremy, and Bernd def Werewolves - Maike and Carl (with Ian B as the Moderator)
- 18 July 2009 - Werewolf (Play #9)
- Villagers - Bernd (Seer), Alan (Bishop), Carl, Keith, and Maike def Werewolves - Jeremy and Christine (with Ian B as the Moderator)
- 31 July 2009 - Carcassonne (Play #4)
- Jeremy (241) def The Giggling One (237), Ian T (173), and Christine (156)
Note: Game included expansions The River II, Inns & Cathedrals, Traders & Builders, Abbey & Mayor, The Princess & The Dragon, The Siege, The Cult, The King, and The Robber Baron
- 1 August 2009 - An Evening With Bram Stoker's Dracula (Play #1)
- Erin (Dracula) def Christine (Vampire), Jeremy (Vampire), Betty (Vampire), Lana (Vampire), Belinda (Vampire), Bernd (Traveller), Joe (Traveller), and Kam (Traveller)
- 1 August 2009 - An Evening With Bram Stoker's Dracula (Play #2)
- Kam (Dracula) def Bernd (Vampire), Christine (Vampire), Jeremy (Vampire), Joe (Vampire), Belinda (Vampire), Erin (Vampire), Betty (Traveller), and Lana (Traveller)
- 1 August 2009 - An Evening With Bram Stoker's Dracula (Play #3)
- Joe (Traveller) def Bernd (Dracula), Christine (Vampire), Jeremy (Vampire), Betty (Vampire), Kam (Vampire), Belinda (Vampire), Erin (Vampire), and Lana (Traveller)
- 7 August 2009 - China Moon (Play #1)
- Mark R (14) def Jeremy (4), Keith (2) and Christine (2)
- 7 August 2009 - Puerto Rico (Play #1)
- Carl (51) def Jeremy (49), and Dan (42)
- 7 August 2009 - Incan Gold (Play #1)
- Bernd (37) def Dan (25), Keith (20), Jeremy (11), Ian T (10), Christine (7), Carl (7) and Mark R (5)
- 7 August 2009 - Incan Gold (Play #2)
- Mark R (32) def Keith (31), Dan (15), Carl (15), Jeremy (13), Ian T (9), Christine (0) and Bernd (0)
- 7 August 2009 - Werewolf (Play #10)
- Evils - Keith (Werewolf), and Dan (Half-blood) def Villagers - Carl (Seer), Mark R (Villager turned Moderator), Christine, Bernd, and Jeremy
- 7 August 2009 - Werewolf (Play #11)
- Villagers - Carl (Seer), Christine (Villager turned Moderator), Bernd, Jeremy and Keith def Evils - Mark R (Werewolf), and Dan (Half-blood)
- 7 August 2009 - Werewolf (Play #12)
- Evils - Christine (Werewolf), and Keith (Half-blood) def Villagers - Jeremy (Seer), Dan (Villager turned Moderator), Mark R, Bernd, and Carl
- 14 August 2009 - Stone Age (Play #1)
- The Giggling One (311) def Jeremy (246)
- 15 August 2009 - Die Macher (Play #3)
- Jeremy (309) def Bernd (258), Christine (238), Mark R (175), and Ian T (110)
- 16 August 2009 - Pandemic (Play #1)
- Jeremy (Dispatcher) and The Giggling One (Scientist) were victorious (4 Epidemics)
- 22 August 2009 - Werewolf (Play #13)
- Villagers - The Giggling One (Seer), Ann-Marie (Bishop), Lori (Mason), Sarah (Mason), Nick (Mason), John, James, Scott, Alistair, Suzie, and Vanessa def Werewolves - Matt, Naomi, and Kerry (with Jeremy as the Moderator)
- 22 August 2009 - Werewolf (Play #14)
- Villagers - John (Seer), Nick (Bishop), James (Mason), Lori (Mason), Kerry (Mason), Matt, The Giggling One, Naomi, Sarah, Alistair, and Suzie def Werewolves - Scott, Ann-Marie, and Vanessa (with Jeremy as the Moderator)
- 4 September 2009 - Zombie Fluxx (Play #37)
- Christine def The Giggling One, Jeremy, Christine, Jon, Rene, and Mark R
- 4 September 2009 - Stone Age (Play #2)
- Jon (138) def The Giggling One (128), Jeremy (117), and Mark R (85)
- 4 September 2009 - Pandemic (Play #2)
- Jeremy (Reseacher), The Giggling One (Dispatcher), and Mark R (Scientist) were defeated (5 Epidemics)
- 4 September 2009 - Werewolf (Play #15)
- Werewolves - Rene and Christine def Villagers - Ian T (Seer), Mark R (Villager turned Moderator), Bernd, Erin, The Giggling One, and Jeremy
- 4 September 2009 - Werewolf (Play #16)
- Werewolves - Bernd and Ian T def Villagers - Christine (Seer turned Moderator), Mark R (Bishop), Erin, The Giggling One, Jeremy, and Rene
- 4 September 2009 - Werewolf (Play #17)
- Villagers - Ian T (Seer turned Moderator), Mark R (Bishop), Bernd, The Giggling One, Jeremy, Rene, and Christine def Werewolf - Erin
- 19 September 2009 - Loopin' Louie (Plays #1 - #3)
- Jeremy v The Giggling One v Ian T v Josh; Winners: Ian T (#1), Josh (#2), and Jeremy (#3)
- 19 September 2009 - Pandemic (Play #3)
- Jeremy (Medic), The Giggling One (Dispatcher), and Mark R (Researcher) were victorious (5 Epidemics)
- 19 September 2009 - Dominion: Intrigue (Play #3)
- Jeremy (38) def Mark R (35), and The Giggling One (33)
- 19 September 2009 - Zombie Fluxx (Plays #38 - #39)
- Jeremy v The Giggling One v Mark R; Winners: Jeremy (#38), Mark R (#39)
- 19 September 2009 - Ca$h 'n Gun$: Live (Play #1)
- Jeremy, Julianne, and Bernd ($400,000) def Dan, Christine, and Ewan ($155,000), and Erin, Belinda and Ian T (#150,000) (with Mark R as the Godfather)
- 19 September 2009 - Werewolf (Play #18)
- Villagers - Belinda (Seer), The Giggling One (Bishop), Jeremy, Ewan, Ian T, Erin, and Dan def Werewolves - Bernd and Christine (with Mark R as the Moderator)
- 19 September 2009 - Werewolf (Play #19)
- Villagers - The Giggling One (Seer), Ewan (Bishop), Ian T (Mason), Christine (Mason), Bernd, Dan, and Mark R def Werewolves - Erin and Belinda (with Jeremy as the Moderator)
- 19 September 2009 - Werewolf (Play #20)
- Villagers - Ian T (Seer), Erin (Bishop), Mark R (Mason), Christine (Mason), Jeremy, Ewan, and Dan def Werewolves - The Giggling One and Belinda (with Bernd as the Moderator)
- 25 September 2009 - Dune (Play #1)
- Bernd (Atreides) and Christine (Emperor) def Dan (Fremen), Ian T (Guild), Mark R (Bene Gesserit), and Jeremy (Harkonnen)
- 26 September 2009 - Zombie Fluxx (Plays #40 - #42)
- Jeremy v The Giggling One; Winners: Jeremy (#40,#42), The Zombies!! (#41)
- 2 October 2009 - Zombie Fluxx (Plays #43 - #45)
- The Giggling One Jeremy v Mark R v Christine v Paul v Dan; Winners: Mark R (#43), Christine (#44), Dan (#45)
- 2 October 2009 - Stone Age (Play #3)
- Jeremy (162) def Mark R (159), The Giggling One (134), and Paul (114)
- 2 October 2009 - Pandemic (Play #4)
- The Giggling One (Operations Expert), Jeremy (Dispatcher), Mark R (Researcher), and Paul (Scientist) were defeated (5 Epidemics)
- 2 October 2009 - Werewolf (Play #21)
- Villagers - Paul (Seer), Bernd, Christine, Dan, Erin, and Ian T def Werewolves - The Giggling One and Mark R (with Jeremy as the Moderator)
- 2 October 2009 - Werewolf (Play #22)
- Villagers - Jeremy (Seer), Paul, Mark R, Christine, Dan, and Erin def Werewolves - The Giggling One and Ian T (with Bernd as the Moderator)
- 2 October 2009 - Werewolf (Play #23)
- Werewolves - Jeremy and Bernd def Villagers - Erin (Seer), The Giggling One, Paul, Mark R, Christine, and Ian T (with Dan as the Moderator)
- 4 October 2009 - Settlers of Catan (Play #1)
- Matt (10) def The Giggling One (6), Jeremy (4), and Vanessa (4)
- 4 October 2009 - Munchkin Booty (Play #1)
- Matt (10) def Jeremy (9), The Giggling One (8), and Vanessa (8)
- 10 October 2009 - Stone Age (Play #4)
- The Giggling One (264) def Jeremy(216)
- 10 October 2009 - Dominion (Play #9)
- Jeremy (35) def The Giggling One (35) in the tiebreaker (combined game including Intrigue)
- 10 October 2009 - Dominion (Play #10)
- Jeremy (42) def The Giggling One (34) (combined game including Intrigue)
- 10 October 2009 - Dominion (Play #11)
- Jeremy (32) def The Giggling One (24) (combined game including Intrigue)
- 10 October 2009 - Dominion (Play #12)
- Jeremy (37) def The Giggling One (34) (combined game including Intrigue)
- 10 October 2009 - Dominion (Play #13)
- Jeremy (27) def The Giggling One (27) in the tiebreaker (combined game including Intrigue)
- 10 October 2009 - Dominion (Play #14)
- The Giggling One (48) def Jeremy (33) (combined game including Intrigue)
- 10 October 2009 - Dominion (Play #15)
- The Giggling One (30) def Jeremy (27) (combined game including Intrigue)
- 11 October 2009 - Dominion (Play #16)
- The Giggling One (29) def Jeremy (22) (combined game including Intrigue)
- 11 October 2009 - Dominion (Play #17)
- The Giggling One (27) tied with Jeremy (27) (combined game including Intrigue)
- 16 October 2009 - Pandemic (Play #5)
- Jeremy (Dispatcher), and The Giggling One (Medic) were defeated (5 Epidemics)
- 16 October 2009 - Dominion (Play #18)
- The Giggling One (33) def Jeremy (24) (combined game including Intrigue)
- 16 October 2009 - Dominion (Play #19)
- Jeremy (34) def The Giggling One (32) (combined game including Intrigue)
- 16 October 2009 - Dominion (Play #20)
- The Giggling One (46) def Jeremy (43) (combined game including Intrigue)
- 16 October 2009 - Munchkin (Play #5)
- Jeremy (10) def The Giggling One (1)
- 16 October 2009 - Munchkin (Play #6)
- Jeremy (10) def The Giggling One (6)
- 17 October 2009 - Zombie Fluxx (Play #46)
- The Giggling One def Jeremy, Ewan, and Dan
- 17 October 2009 - Zombie Fluxx (Play #47)
- The Giggling One def Jeremy, Ewan, Dan, and Mark R
- 17 October 2009 - Citadels (Play #1)
- Mark R (29) def Bernd (27), Ewan (25), The Giggling One (22), Belinda (19), Dan (18), and Jeremy (18)
- 17 October 2009 - Why Did the Chicken...? (Play #1)
- Mark R (9) def Belinda (7), Jeremy (5), Dan (3), The Giggling One (2), Ewan (1), and Bernd (1)
- 17 October 2009 - Fact or Crap (Play #1)
- Mark R (32) def Ewan (29), The Giggling One (28), Jeremy (27), Bernd (19), Dan (14), and Belinda (0)
- 17 October 2009 - Werewolf (Play #24)
- Villagers - Mark R (Seer), Ewan (Villager turned Moderator), Dan, Jeremy, Bernd, and Belinda def Werewolf - The Giggling One
- 17 October 2009 - Werewolf (Play #25)
- Villagers - Dan (Seer), Jeremy (Villager turned Moderator), Ewan, Bernd, Mark R, and Belinda def Werewolf - The Giggling One
- 17 October 2009 - Werewolf (Play #26)
- Villagers - Bernd (Seer), Belinda (Villager turned Moderator), Dan, The Giggling One, Ewan, and Mark R def Werewolf - Jeremy
- 17 October 2009 - Werewolf (Play #27)
- Villagers - Ewan (Seer), The Giggling One (Villager turned Moderator), Dan, Jeremy, Bernd, and Mark R def Werewolf - Belinda
- 17 October 2009 - Werewolf (Play #28)
- Werewolf - Jeremy def Villagers - Mark R (Seer turned Moderator), Dan, The Giggling One, Ewan, Bernd, and Belinda
- 17 October 2009 - Werewolf (Play #29)
- Villagers - Dan (Seer), The Giggling One (Villager turned Moderator), Jeremy, Ewan, Mark R, and Belinda def Werewolf - Bernd
- 22 October 2009 - Dominion (Play #21)
- The Giggling One (43) def Jeremy (34) (combined game including Intrigue)
- 22 October 2009 - Dominion (Play #22)
- The Giggling One (39) def Jeremy (39) (combined game including Intrigue)
- 22 October 2009 - Dominion (Play #23)
- The Giggling One (43) def Jeremy (34) in the tiebreaker (combined game including Intrigue)
- 22 October 2009 - Dominion: Intrigue (Play #4)
- Jeremy (45) def The Giggling One (44) ("Best Wishes" recommended set)
- 22 October 2009 - Catan Card Game (Play #1)
- The Giggling One (13) def Jeremy (9) (with Politics & Intrigue Expansion)
- 22 October 2009 - Munchkin (Play #7)
- Jeremy (10) def The Giggling One (7) (with "Listening at the Door" variant)
- 23 October 2009 - Zombie Fluxx (Play #48)
- Vanessa def The Giggling One, Jeremy, and Matt
- 23 October 2009 - Agricola (Play #5)
- Jeremy (36) def The Giggling One (25), Vanessa (14), and Matt (6) (with E Deck)
- 6 November 2009 - Fluxx (Play #3)
- Splat def Jeremy
- 6 November 2009 - Fluxx (Play #4)
- Jeremy def Erin, Kam, Ian, Splat, and The Giggling One
- 6 November 2009 - The Princes of Florence (Play #2)
- Jeremy (78) def Erin (59), Ian T (52), and Kam (51)
- 6 November 2009 - Werewolf (Play #30)
- Villagers - Bernd (Seer), Erin, The Giggling One, Kam, Splat, and Christine def Werewolf - Ian T (with Jeremy as the Moderator)
- 6 November 2009 - Werewolf (Play #31)
- Villagers - The Giggling One (Seer), Bernd, Erin, Ian T, Kam, and Christine def Werewolf - Splat (with Jeremy as the Moderator)
- 19 November 2009 - Zombie Fluxx (Plays #49 - #52)
- The Giggling One v Jeremy; Winners: The Giggling One (#49,#51), Jeremy (#50,#52)
- 21 November 2009 - Zombie Fluxx (Plays #53 - #55)
- Jeremy v The Giggling One; Winners: Jeremy (#53,#54), The Giggling One (#55)
- 23 November 2009 - Dominion (Play #24)
- Jeremy (61) def The Giggling One (49) (combined draft game (selected 5 Kingdom cards each from 10 randoms) including Intrigue)
- 24 November 2009 - Stone Age (Play #5)
- The Giggling One (268) def Jeremy (197)
- 25 November 2009 - Pandemic (Play #6)
- The Giggling One (Operations Expert) and Jeremy (Medic) were defeated (5 Epidemics)
- 25 November 2009 - Pandemic (Play #7)
- Jeremy (Medic) and The Giggling One (Dispatcher) were victorious (5 Epidemics)
- 4 December 2009 - Democrazy (Play #4)
- Jon (10), Splat (10), and Jeremy (10) def Maike (8), Ian B (5), Christine (5), Bernd (4), David (4), The Giggling One (3), and Damien (3)
- 4 December 2009 - Stone Age (Play #6)
- Jeremy (182) def The Giggling One (178), Ian B (174), and Maike (130)
- 4 December 2009 - Set (Play #7)
- The Giggling One (16) def Jeremy (8)
- 4 December 2009 - Zombie Fluxx (Play #56)
- The Giggling One def Jeremy
2008 Games Recap
In 2008 I managed to play a total of 31 new games (28 if you don't count the 3 expansions). I'm quite chuffed by that. And also by the fact that I achieved a life long dream of using "chuffed" in a blog post. Twice.
To see which of these games were my favourites, mosey on over here.
Here's the list:
To see which of these games were my favourites, mosey on over here.
Here's the list:
Date First Played | Game | ||
January 18 | Kings Keep | Review | BGG |
February 1 | Loopin' Louie | Review | BGG |
February 1 | Bohnanza | Review | BGG |
February 1 | Familienbande | Review | BGG |
February 1 | San Marco | Review | BGG |
March 7 | Democrazy | Review | BGG |
March 7 | Carcassonne | Review | BGG |
March 7 | Set! | Review | BGG |
March 7 | Wits & Wagers | Review | BGG |
March 13 | The Pillars of the Earth | Review | BGG |
March 13 | Ca$h 'n Gun$ | Review | BGG |
March 17 | Catan Card Game | Review | BGG |
March 23 | StarCraft: The Board Game | - | BGG |
April 4 | Race for the Galaxy | Review | BGG |
April 17 | Catan Card Game Expansion | Review | BGG |
May 2 | Maka Bana | Review | BGG |
May 2 | Hoity Toity | Review | BGG |
June 6 | Liar's Dice | Review | BGG |
June 14 | The Pillars of the Earth Expansion Set | Review | BGG |
July 4 | Reiner Knizia's Amazing Flea Circus | Review | BGG |
July 12 | Caylus | - | BGG |
September 5 | The Princes of Florence | Review | BGG |
September 5 | Zombie Fluxx | - | BGG |
October 3 | Power Grid | Review | BGG |
October 18 | Löwenherz | Review | BGG |
October 25 | Puerto Rico | Review | BGG |
November 7 | Tigris & Euphrates | Review | BGG |
Decembe 5 | Ticket to Ride | Review | BGG |
December 5 | Monty Python Fluxx | - | BGG |
December 26 | Agricola | - | BGG |
December 27 | Carcassonne - the Tower | - | BGG |
Thursday, January 1, 2009
2009 Games Quest
Having successfully achieved my 2008 Games Quest of playing 25 new games, it is time to set my sights on 2009.
I have decided on two goals, with one at each end of the gaming spectrum: playing and creating.
In 2008 I concentrated on playing as many new games as possible. This inevitably lead to experiencing many games only once. So often at the end of a post I waxed lyrical of my plans for the next time I play the game.
So, with that in mind, Part I of my Quest for 2009 is to play at least 15 games a minimum of 3 times each. Additionally, to qualify a game must either be on the 2008 New Games list, or be a game I am yet to play. Games I first played prior to 2008 will not count.
To aid with the tally, I'll be recording my progress on the blog. Hopefully I'll be able to get things going nicely with a game or two on the New Years Day holiday, followed by the first HoGS of the year on Jan 2nd.
Part II of my Quest was spawned from something I've been piecing together over the last year. To fulfil the Quest, I need to create my own board game, with a fully working game completed by the end of the year. It doesn't matter if it isn't of professional quality, as long as it is fully playable.
I already have an outline of the basic game on paper. The idea for 2009 is to formulate the gameplay, rules, and bits and bobs, and come up with a proper game. It's time to see the dream come to life.
So there it is: play at least 15 games a minimum of 3 times each, and create my own board game. Quest on!
I have decided on two goals, with one at each end of the gaming spectrum: playing and creating.
In 2008 I concentrated on playing as many new games as possible. This inevitably lead to experiencing many games only once. So often at the end of a post I waxed lyrical of my plans for the next time I play the game.
So, with that in mind, Part I of my Quest for 2009 is to play at least 15 games a minimum of 3 times each. Additionally, to qualify a game must either be on the 2008 New Games list, or be a game I am yet to play. Games I first played prior to 2008 will not count.
To aid with the tally, I'll be recording my progress on the blog. Hopefully I'll be able to get things going nicely with a game or two on the New Years Day holiday, followed by the first HoGS of the year on Jan 2nd.
Part II of my Quest was spawned from something I've been piecing together over the last year. To fulfil the Quest, I need to create my own board game, with a fully working game completed by the end of the year. It doesn't matter if it isn't of professional quality, as long as it is fully playable.
I already have an outline of the basic game on paper. The idea for 2009 is to formulate the gameplay, rules, and bits and bobs, and come up with a proper game. It's time to see the dream come to life.
So there it is: play at least 15 games a minimum of 3 times each, and create my own board game. Quest on!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)