Year 1
Among the planets of the Bellerive sector were eight peaceful orbs, circling lazily around their respective suns, unbothered in their own quiet majesty.
Oh how war changes everything.
The feud that had ensnared much of the galaxy had now come to Bellerive, and things were never going to be the same again.
First to arrive was the Overmind, seeking further resources for its hungry legions. The Zerg Swarm descended upon the world of Tarsonis and began to breed.
With survival on his mind, Jim Raynor also led his Terran forces to the Bellerive sector and set up home on Antiga Prime. He knew the Zerg had already arrived, but beggars can't be choosers. Besides, wasn't there an adage about keeping your friends close and your enemies closer?
With reports of Raynor's new colony reaching him, Arcturus Mengsk wasn't going to let a prime opportunity to lord it over Raynor once more go astray. He brought his own forces in to the sector, and planted the kernel of his new empire on Abaddon.
The picture would not have been complete without the third race in the galactic war. Joining his rivals in the sector was Tassadar, himself a fugitive from the Protoss Conclave, who was on his own personal mission to redeem himself and rid the galaxy of the insidious Zerg. Tassadar's choice of homeworld was the bountiful Torus. While producing the resources he would require to build Tassadar's empire, the planet also found itself bordering the home planets of the two Terran factions. Perhaps this could be turned to his advantage...
After initial allocation of forces, each faction sought to expand its territory immediately. The Overmind sent its Zerglings to the small, but strategically strong Vyctor V; Jim Raynor's new troops were dispatched to Halcyon; Arcturus Mengsk solidified his grip on his end of the sector by establishing a base on Bhckar Ro; while Tassadar sought to tap the resource rich planet of Pridewater.
At the end of Year 1, the Overmind's tactical placements saw the Zerg's yearning for conquest grow more quickly than its rivals, signalling its strength early. Still, the battle for supremacy in the sector had only just begun.
Year 2
An unspoken pact of sorts emerged in the second year of the Bellerive occupation. Each faction further established its two colonies without any conflict taking place.
The threat of conflict, however, was laid down, reminding all that battle was growing nearer.
With Arcturus Mengsk's only path to expansion via Tassadar's planet Torus, the Protoss leader was justifiably wary of an attack from the Terrans. Tassadar's order of troops to Abaddon was one he had no intention of carrying out. Leaving himself vulnerable to a counter attack this early in the war could very well be disastrous, and Tassadar had no desire to leave his existing colonies unprotected.
Tassadar's desire to both ruffle Mengsk and delay the Terran's own orders was successful, but Mengsk wasn't one to fool around, and he had the Protoss very firmly in his sights.
Year 3
Arcturus Mengsk wasn't the only rival eying off the bountiful resource deposits on Torus. Before Mengsk could launch his assault on Torus, he was beaten to the punch.
Seeking new resources, and conscious of the fact that control of just two more resource areas could well cement him victory in the sector, Jim Raynor dropped a force of Marines, Vultures and Wraiths on the two mineral fields on Torus that Tassadar had not protected.
For now, Raynor was content simply to deprive Tassadar of the mineral fields, but the other Terran force was not. With Tassadar's base on Torus unprotected by photon canons, Arcturus Mengsk launched an assault, keen to grab the planet's conquest advantage for himself.
Tassadar was no fool, however, and had a plan of his own. When the Marines and Firebats dropped in on the base, Tassadar withdrew his troops to the safety of the vespene geysers on the other side of the planet. While losing one unit of zealots in the process - the war's first casualty, albeit non-combat - the retreat forced Mengsk to return all bar two of his own units to Abbadon. Tassadar then capitalised with his final action of the year by counter-attacking in force and destroying the token force Mengsk had left behind.
While all the action had focussed on the Terran invasions of Torus during the third year of the war, the Overmind had quietly gone about its own business, as Zerg are wont to do, and had strengthened its bases and units numbers. It was only a matter of time before the Zerg sought further territory...
Year 4
...and that time had come.
With most of Jim Raynor's troops ensconced on Torus, this left Antiga Prime relatively undefended, and ripe for the picking by a gluttonous Zerg army.
The Overmind signalled its intentions early, and with the major threat of a Zerg invasion, Raynor had no choice but to order his own troops back to Antiga Prime from Torus.
While the reinforcements failed to arrive back in time to stop the Zerg force , including a unit of the formidable Ultralisks, from establishing a foothold at the Terran base, they were in sufficient number to launch a strong counter-attack.
It was a vicious battle, with casualties on both sides, but ultimately, Raynor's troops held their own. Just as the battle looked like it could go either way, the last of the Overmind's front line units, an Ultralisk, caught splash damage and was killed in a splatter of gore. With only a Queen remaining, the Overmind was forced to retreat to Vyctor V, lick its wounds, and seek another path to victory.
With Jim Raynor's forces all but removed from Torus, Tassadar seized the opportunity to take back one of the mineral fields. The Marine unit stationed there knew what was coming, but could do nothing to prevent it.
With four years of the war having elapsed, all factions knew the end was near. The time was coming to put one final plan into action that would see the glory of victory.
Year 5
It was not long into the final year of the war, that all sides knew what was at stake. The Terrans, unfortunately, would not be victorious.
Jim Raynor had severely miscalculated his ability to conquer and hold the extra resource areas he required to forge a victory, and it was now impossible for him to come out on top.
Similarly, Arcturus Mengsk, while controlling all areas of Abaddon and Bhckar Ro, had not done enough to secure victory for himself.
It was simplicity itself for Tassadar to move into the two remaining regions on Torus and Pridewater and secure more areas than any other faction. However, even Tassadar's run may have come too late.
Despite its failure to establish a base on a third planet, the Overmind's control of Tarsonis and Vyctor V had given it the conquest advantage it needed. All the Overmind had to do was hold on to its bases on the two planets until the end of the year, and victory would belong to the Zerg.
The Zerg victory was what Tassadar had to avoid. With no help coming from Jim Raynor, now wallowing in his own inability to succeed, the odds were stacked against the Protoss leader. Tassadar amassed his force of Reavers and Zealots on Pridewater and prepared to launch an all-out last-ditch attack on Vyctor V.
It was then that Tassadar realised his mistake.
The Overmind's base on Vyctor V was protected by spore colonies. An attack force could not be landed in the area of the base and had to be dropped on the other side of the planet. Even if Tassadar's troops could have conquered two separate groups of Zerg, he hadn't left himself enough time. He could make it to Vyctor V, but not to the all important Zerg base.
Realising the war was over, Tassadar reluctantly surrendered to the Overmind , watching helplessly as the Zerg swarm claimed the Bellerive sector for their own.
The Actual Game Summary
I've eschewed my usual how-to-play-the-game review and instead opted to write a session report because, well, it's more fun.
I was joined at my house in Bellerive (does the name of the sector make sense now?) by Mark, Tim and Christine. Instead of randomly choosing factions, they were chosen on personal preference.
Mark and Christine chose to play with their favourite colours (green and red respectively) meaning Mark was the Overmind and Christine was Arcturus Mengsk. Tim, as the only other player besides me who had played the Starcraft computer game, chose his favourite race, Terran, and so selected Jim Raynor. With a choice of three remaining, I chose to play Protoss and took the yellow forces of Tassadar.
After initial placement, we all expanded to a neighbouring planet, so had two planets each come the end of Round 1. It was at this point, that we realised Mark had the advantage. His two planets gave him 3 conquest points per round, while Tim and I had 2, and Christine had only 1 conquest point.
Round 2 was fairly uneventful, with all players improving bases and adding units to the board. I did place one move order on the top of the stack on Christine's planet of Abaddon, but that was really just to mess around with her and force her to take a couple of event cards when her actions were blocked.
Christine, whose two planets bordered only my planet of Torus, took action in Round 3, and placed orders on Torus. Later in the order placement phase, Tim placed a move order on Torus as well.
Tim, unfortunately, misunderstood the special victory conditions. He mistook "Round 3" for "Stage 3" and thought that if he captured the two empty mineral areas on Torus that he would have the six resource areas he needed to win.
Christine then attacked the conquest point area of Torus where my base was located. Fortunately, I had an event card that allowed me to retreat without engaging in battle. I moved my units to the gas area, and had to lose one Zealot due to the unit limit, but Christine had to return all except two units to Abbadon. I then executed a move order and succeeded in defeating Christine's remaining units.
Mark, whose special victory conditions required him to have bases on three planets, saw an opportunity and placed orders on Antiga Prime at the start of Round 4. Tim, who had moved most of his units from Antiga Prime to Torus in the previous round had to move them back again. Mark captured the conquest point oarea of Antiga Prime, and looked like he might hold on, especially with an Ultralisk assisted by a Queen.
Despite failing to defeat the Ultralisk, Tim had played a splash damage in the other skirmish won by his Vulture. The splash damage took out the Ultralisk, and the Queen was forced to retreat because it is an assist unit.
Mark didn't actually need the third base to win. He'd been receiving 3 conquest points each round and at the end of Round 4 was on 12 points. If he held on to his planets, he'd claim the 3 points again in Round 5 to reach the 15 needed to achieve a normal victory.
Both Christine and myself had a special victory in our grasp, but as Christine had fewer conquest points than me, she couldn't win. Tim just didn't have the forces to take the extra areas he needed.
The problem I had was that the check for a normal victory is made before a special victory at the end of a round. Therefore, I had to prevent Mark from getting his three conquest points. For my first order placement in Round 5, I placed my special move order on Vyctor V. My plan was to attack Mark's base there directly.
Unfortunately, as related in the story above, I didn't realise that Mark had the spore colony protecting his base, meaning I could only attack that area if I already had units on the same planet. That required two move orders: one to move to the second area on Vyctor V (and battle Mark's forces there), and the other to move to the base. As I'd only placed one move order on the planet I couldn't do that, so it was impossible for me to win even if I could defeat his forces.
So, Mark was the winner and he received congratulations from the losers.
I was left feeling somewhat underwhelmed by the game. I felt as if my choices were limited and that the grand scale on which a game like this ought to be played just wasn't there.Ultimately, it seemed that the game came down to the initial planet layout. Mark claimed planets that gave him 3 conquest points each round, and that is ultimatley what decided the game.
The game took a good four plus hours to play, and yet we only had five rounds. I felt like I wanted to do so much more. I only built three types of units, and was left thinking the game could have been so much more if only I had a chance to develop my base more, or build different units.
And yet, now that I've had time to digest the game, rethink my strategy, and work out what I could have done differently, the game is growing on me. A good game gives you an array of choices in a limited timeframe, and it's how you approach these choices that affect the game.
I imagine StarCraft would play out very differently with six players and twelve planets rather than the fours players and eight planets we played with. I think I'd like to try that one day. I don't think I've even scratched the surface of what a strong Protoss strategy can do. If the game can serve that up, then I'm willing to chow down on more StarCraft action. Bad metaphors aside, what I mean is that, while I'm not entirely convinced I like this game, I'm willing to give it another chance.
Monday, May 11, 2009
Sunday, April 12, 2009
Caylus
"Caylus": not the most gripping of titles for a game. Despite this, Caylus has fought off plenty of more intriguing sounding games to hold on to the number 9 spot on the Board Game Geek rankings. And, you can even buy the t-shirt.
Caylus is one of those games for thinkers; one of those games where the term "analysis paralysis" is particularly apt. It presents you with choices - limited at first but increasing as the game goes on - that lead to a frustrating want-to-do-everything-but-can't-afford-to-and-if-I-don't-do-that-then-someone-else-will-and-it's-just-not-fair-damnit.
Ultimately, your goal is to earn more prestige points (effectively victory points) than anyone else. You do this by accumulating resources and then using those resources to build buildings and/or build part of a castle. Of course, everyone else is trying to do the same thing, and once that castle is built it's game over and you hope you've done enough to win.
Of course, to do all of this, we need a pretty board to play on. Here's one I prepared earlier:
What? That monster? Wait, no. That's the Essen ye-olde-gigantic-3D-rific version. Here's what we peasants play on:
As you can see we've got a kick-arse castle at the top, and a path that leads down through a village, and across a bridge, before winding gracefully down through lush green pastures.
As the game progresses, those empty squares will be filled with buildings. The first six after the bridge are filled at the start of the game, with the remaining empty spaces filled during the game when players decide to build.
The buildings themselves give various benefits from producing resources (food, wood, stone, cloth or gold), to trading resources for money or vice versa, to allowing new types of buildings to be placed on the board.
Each building generally has a cost, a reward for building, and some sort of output (what you get from that building), though there are exceptions (aren't there always?).
Say you wanted to build a farm. That's the wooden building in the middle of the bottom row in the picture above. It will cost you one wood and one food to build (as indicated by the cubes in the top left of the tile), reward you with 2 prestige points (per the top right of the tile), and will produce either two food (mmm...pork) or one cloth when it is utilised.
Which leads, in a nice little segue, to a quick explanation of how buildings are utilised.
Each player has six workers. Taking it in turns, players place one worker at a time on a building. Most buildings can only have one worker on them. Once everyone has placed all the workers they wish to (there may not be enough buildings or you might not have enough money (placing workers costs money) to place all of your workers) then each building with a worker is resolved from the castle downwards and whoever placed their worker on a building gets the benefit from it.
Just because you built a building (you get to place a little house on the tile to signify you own it) doesn't mean other players can't place their worker there. In fact, it can be handy if they do, because every time another player uses one of your buildings you earn a prestige point. Not only that, but some buildings also reward the owner with resources if another player's worker is placed there. Sweet.
So far it's looking relatively straight forward right? You place workers on buildings - those buildings give you resources or money, or the right to buy another building. Of course, it's not that simple.
Firstly, the buildings between the castle and the bridge are special and have some, er, special benefits. In particular, the Stables allow you to change the order of play, which doesn't change otherwise. The Inn lets you place all your workers for 1 denier (the game's currency), even if you would have to pay more.
The Merchant's Guild lets you move the provost up and down the road.
The what? Pronounced "prov-uhst", the provost is a sneaky little bugger that players can move along the road in order to prevent other players from activating buildings. When it comes time to get the benefit from a building on which you've placed a worker, and that building is further away from the castle than the provost is, then bad luck - you ain't gettin' a sausage from that building. Ouch.
Another of the special buildings is the Joust Field. Placing a worker here gives you - for the cost of 1 denier and 1 cloth - a royal favour (or "favor" if you want to be true to the Americanised rules).
Favours are pretty darn handy in this game, and are another way to gain stuff. Gaining favours allows you to move a marker of your colour along one of the four favour tracks (the grid in the top right of the game board). Here's a close-up:
There are multiple ways to gain favours in Caylus, and you'll want to utilise them as best as possible. Each time you gain a favour, you can advance a token further along one of the favour tracks for a bigger and better reward.
The top favour track gives you bonus prestige points; the second track gives you deniers; the third gives you resources; while the fourth lets you buy buildings at reduced cost. All nice things to have.
Now, that just leaves me with one last thing to address: the castle. When it comes to your turn to place a worker, instead of choosing a building space, you can elect to place a worker in the castle.
After all the other workers have collected their goodies during a round, anyone who placed a worker in the castle can now build part of the castle. You do this by spending three resources (one food and two other resources) and placing a house of your colour in one of the spaces beneath the castle.
Not only are you rewarded with prestige points for giving a batch of your hard earned resources to the castle, but the more you give, the more favours you get.
It's certainly rewarding to spend resources this way, but with a limited amount of resources at your disposal, you need to decide whether it is better to invest those resources elsewhere, particularly by paying to place a building that will reward you with more points down the track.
So it comes down to those aforementioned analysis paralysis decisions...
"I can place my worker there, which will give me that resource, and I can then afford to build that stone building, but that means I'll have to place a worker over there as well, and someone else might go there, so do I go there first and hope someone doesn't take the resource I want, or do I take the resource first, or do I spend the resources at the castle instead and hope it's enough to gain a favour? Oh, and do I want to save some money in case I need to move the provost, or will I hope no one moves it? Also, I'd really like to go first next round, but if I go in the stables now I might not be able to get the gold that I need if I'm going to have enough for the prestige building later on."
And so on.
If this is your thing, then go for it. Caylus is a lot of tactical fun, especially when you're playing with people of a similar disposition for this kind of game. I've played the game twice now: one 2-player and one 5-player game, and I'm starting to see the strategies involved and I'm most certainly intrigued to play again.
While I haven't covered every little nuance of the game (like scoring the castle sections and movement of the bailiff), I reckon you'd probably know whether this is your sort of game or not.
As for me, I definitely like it. It has a similar sort of feel to The Pillars of the Earth with worker placement choices, giving ample opportunity for experimentation with varying strategies.
The best laid plans can go awry with opponents' workers blocking or delaying your cunning plan, and it's the necessity to constantly adapt your strategy that I find so damn frustrating yet so enjoyable.
Get the right crowd, like this one, and it's a damn good game:
Caylus is one of those games for thinkers; one of those games where the term "analysis paralysis" is particularly apt. It presents you with choices - limited at first but increasing as the game goes on - that lead to a frustrating want-to-do-everything-but-can't-afford-to-and-if-I-don't-do-that-then-someone-else-will-and-it's-just-not-fair-damnit.
Ultimately, your goal is to earn more prestige points (effectively victory points) than anyone else. You do this by accumulating resources and then using those resources to build buildings and/or build part of a castle. Of course, everyone else is trying to do the same thing, and once that castle is built it's game over and you hope you've done enough to win.
Of course, to do all of this, we need a pretty board to play on. Here's one I prepared earlier:
What? That monster? Wait, no. That's the Essen ye-olde-gigantic-3D-rific version. Here's what we peasants play on:
As you can see we've got a kick-arse castle at the top, and a path that leads down through a village, and across a bridge, before winding gracefully down through lush green pastures.
As the game progresses, those empty squares will be filled with buildings. The first six after the bridge are filled at the start of the game, with the remaining empty spaces filled during the game when players decide to build.
The buildings themselves give various benefits from producing resources (food, wood, stone, cloth or gold), to trading resources for money or vice versa, to allowing new types of buildings to be placed on the board.
Each building generally has a cost, a reward for building, and some sort of output (what you get from that building), though there are exceptions (aren't there always?).
Say you wanted to build a farm. That's the wooden building in the middle of the bottom row in the picture above. It will cost you one wood and one food to build (as indicated by the cubes in the top left of the tile), reward you with 2 prestige points (per the top right of the tile), and will produce either two food (mmm...pork) or one cloth when it is utilised.
Which leads, in a nice little segue, to a quick explanation of how buildings are utilised.
Each player has six workers. Taking it in turns, players place one worker at a time on a building. Most buildings can only have one worker on them. Once everyone has placed all the workers they wish to (there may not be enough buildings or you might not have enough money (placing workers costs money) to place all of your workers) then each building with a worker is resolved from the castle downwards and whoever placed their worker on a building gets the benefit from it.
Just because you built a building (you get to place a little house on the tile to signify you own it) doesn't mean other players can't place their worker there. In fact, it can be handy if they do, because every time another player uses one of your buildings you earn a prestige point. Not only that, but some buildings also reward the owner with resources if another player's worker is placed there. Sweet.
So far it's looking relatively straight forward right? You place workers on buildings - those buildings give you resources or money, or the right to buy another building. Of course, it's not that simple.
Firstly, the buildings between the castle and the bridge are special and have some, er, special benefits. In particular, the Stables allow you to change the order of play, which doesn't change otherwise. The Inn lets you place all your workers for 1 denier (the game's currency), even if you would have to pay more.
The Merchant's Guild lets you move the provost up and down the road.
The what? Pronounced "prov-uhst", the provost is a sneaky little bugger that players can move along the road in order to prevent other players from activating buildings. When it comes time to get the benefit from a building on which you've placed a worker, and that building is further away from the castle than the provost is, then bad luck - you ain't gettin' a sausage from that building. Ouch.
Another of the special buildings is the Joust Field. Placing a worker here gives you - for the cost of 1 denier and 1 cloth - a royal favour (or "favor" if you want to be true to the Americanised rules).
Favours are pretty darn handy in this game, and are another way to gain stuff. Gaining favours allows you to move a marker of your colour along one of the four favour tracks (the grid in the top right of the game board). Here's a close-up:
There are multiple ways to gain favours in Caylus, and you'll want to utilise them as best as possible. Each time you gain a favour, you can advance a token further along one of the favour tracks for a bigger and better reward.
The top favour track gives you bonus prestige points; the second track gives you deniers; the third gives you resources; while the fourth lets you buy buildings at reduced cost. All nice things to have.
Now, that just leaves me with one last thing to address: the castle. When it comes to your turn to place a worker, instead of choosing a building space, you can elect to place a worker in the castle.
After all the other workers have collected their goodies during a round, anyone who placed a worker in the castle can now build part of the castle. You do this by spending three resources (one food and two other resources) and placing a house of your colour in one of the spaces beneath the castle.
Not only are you rewarded with prestige points for giving a batch of your hard earned resources to the castle, but the more you give, the more favours you get.
It's certainly rewarding to spend resources this way, but with a limited amount of resources at your disposal, you need to decide whether it is better to invest those resources elsewhere, particularly by paying to place a building that will reward you with more points down the track.
So it comes down to those aforementioned analysis paralysis decisions...
"I can place my worker there, which will give me that resource, and I can then afford to build that stone building, but that means I'll have to place a worker over there as well, and someone else might go there, so do I go there first and hope someone doesn't take the resource I want, or do I take the resource first, or do I spend the resources at the castle instead and hope it's enough to gain a favour? Oh, and do I want to save some money in case I need to move the provost, or will I hope no one moves it? Also, I'd really like to go first next round, but if I go in the stables now I might not be able to get the gold that I need if I'm going to have enough for the prestige building later on."
And so on.
If this is your thing, then go for it. Caylus is a lot of tactical fun, especially when you're playing with people of a similar disposition for this kind of game. I've played the game twice now: one 2-player and one 5-player game, and I'm starting to see the strategies involved and I'm most certainly intrigued to play again.
While I haven't covered every little nuance of the game (like scoring the castle sections and movement of the bailiff), I reckon you'd probably know whether this is your sort of game or not.
As for me, I definitely like it. It has a similar sort of feel to The Pillars of the Earth with worker placement choices, giving ample opportunity for experimentation with varying strategies.
The best laid plans can go awry with opponents' workers blocking or delaying your cunning plan, and it's the necessity to constantly adapt your strategy that I find so damn frustrating yet so enjoyable.
Get the right crowd, like this one, and it's a damn good game:
Monday, March 9, 2009
Dominion
Dominion is one of those games that falls squarely in the category of "I really want to love this game, but I'm not sure that I can".
Let me explain.
On the face of it, Dominion is a fairly simple card game with the appearance of containing a deeper game within, with potentially clever underlying strategic gameplay. It's ranked very highly on Board Game Geek (currently sitting at Number 6), and this, combined with its plaintive "Buy me! You know you want to!" cry when I saw it on the shelf at the game shop led me to obtain my own copy, despite knowing little else about it.
I had already read that Dominion was promoted as a card game with all the fun of a CCG (collectible card game) without all the hassle of, well, constant card collecting. While I've never played a physical CCG before, I have dabbled online with Magic: The Gathering in the past so I knew a thing or two about the game mechanics of a CCG.
Having said that, let me make one thing clear. Other than drawing and playing cards from your own stack, Dominion has nothing in common with Magic: The Gathering. The latter is quite complex and can lead to cunningly complicated strategies. Dominion is a wannabe, that doesn't get close to the same level.
OK, so it sounds bad right? Well as long as you don't try to compare it with Magic like I just did, then you should find the game enjoyable. Just don't look for anything deep.
And that's where Dominion has so far fallen a little short for me. I have, admittedly, only played the game three times (two 2-player games, and one 4-player game) and I'm yet to play with all the different sets. Yet I'm not convinced any particular combination of the game's Kingdom Cards will make this game as exiting as I'd like it to be.
A rundown of Dominion's gameplay seems appropriate at this point, so let's do that.
The object of this game is to collect cards. An array of cards are placed face-up on the table for all players to purchase during the game. As the game goes on, you'll buy these cards and place them in your deck (every player has their own deck) and use them to purchase more cards. Your deck will keep growing until the the end of the game.
At the end of the game, everyone adds the points on any Victory Cards they have in their deck and the person with the most points win.
I'll get to Victory Cards shortly, but before I do that it's worth noting how each turn works. It's quite simple really: you get to play one Action from your hand, then you get to buy any card from the table, then you discard your entire hand and draw five new cards. When you run out of cards to draw, you shuffle your discard pile into a new draw deck.
Actions are found on what are called Kingdom Cards. During the game you can purchase these on your turn during the Buy phase, place them in your discard pile, and after they get shuffled into your deck, you'll draw them into your hand on a later turn and can then play them during your Action phase.
There are a total of 25 Kingdom Cards (you'll need to click on the pictures to read the cards):
Looking at these, most cards give bonuses like letting you draw more cards into your hand, letting you play more actions, or giving you more coins to spend during the Buy phase.
The thing is, only ten of these 25 sets will be available in each game. Ten copies of each card are available for purchase during the game, so once a particular card has been bought ten times, the pile will run out and no one else can buy another copy of the card.
This seems to lend itself to a plethora of different options during games doesn't it? Unfortunately, in my limited experience that's not entirely true. There isn't a great deal of interaction between cards (and virtually none between players) and once you hit on an optimal strategy, there will probably be some cards you won't even bother with.
I mentioned earlier that you can buy Victory Cards as well. Victory Cards have both good and bad qualities. They are good because (obviously) they give you Victory Points which you need to win. They are bad, however, because once they are in your deck they are useless until the end of the game, and therefore take up valuable space in your hand that could otherwise be taken by a more useful card.
Victory Cards come in three types: Estates (worth 1 VP), Duchies (worth 3 VP), and Provinces (worth 6 VP):
By and large, you'll want Provinces and not want Estates. It seems a little counter-intuitive at first to avoid collecting Estates (because they're Victory Points right?), but if you're going to clog up your hand with cards that you can't use, you're far better purchasing a Province than an Estate.
A similar principle applies to Treasure Cards. In order to purchase cards, you'll need coins.
As you can see, Treasure Cards come in Copper, Silver, and Gold. Everyone starts with seven Copper cards in their deck, and if you're at all serious about winning you'll need to use these to purchase Silver and Gold cards as soon as possible.
Silver and Gold cards are much more valuable than Copper, because when you only have a hand of five cards during each turn, the more coins you have, the better the card you can purchase. You're not going to be able to buy a Province with a handful of Coppers.
And there you have it. Each turn you'll have five cards in your hand, and hope that you have either a slew of Silver and Gold coins to buy the good cards, or an Action Card or two to boost your buying power.
Buying power, you see, is really what this game comes down to. In order to win, most of the time you'll need more Province Cards than anyone else. Each Province costs 8 coins to buy, so your best bet is to manage your deck in order to maximise the number of times you'll draw a hand of five cards that will net you at least 8 coins.
That's why I don't think Dominion is quite as deep, or good, as it appears. Yes, you need to work out which Action cards can benefit you in your quest, but ultimately it comes down to getting as many coins into your hand each turn as possible. Purchasing low value cards (like Estates or Coppers) that don't do much is next to useless.
Maybe I'm wrong. Maybe there is a greater depth to Dominion that I am yet to discover. Certainly cards like the Witch or Gardens change things up a bit (and the latter admittedly does encourage stacking your deck with as many cards as you can), and I'm hoping that playing this game more (and perhaps the upcoming expansion) will change my perception.
I certainly intend to find out.
Let me explain.
On the face of it, Dominion is a fairly simple card game with the appearance of containing a deeper game within, with potentially clever underlying strategic gameplay. It's ranked very highly on Board Game Geek (currently sitting at Number 6), and this, combined with its plaintive "Buy me! You know you want to!" cry when I saw it on the shelf at the game shop led me to obtain my own copy, despite knowing little else about it.
I had already read that Dominion was promoted as a card game with all the fun of a CCG (collectible card game) without all the hassle of, well, constant card collecting. While I've never played a physical CCG before, I have dabbled online with Magic: The Gathering in the past so I knew a thing or two about the game mechanics of a CCG.
Having said that, let me make one thing clear. Other than drawing and playing cards from your own stack, Dominion has nothing in common with Magic: The Gathering. The latter is quite complex and can lead to cunningly complicated strategies. Dominion is a wannabe, that doesn't get close to the same level.
OK, so it sounds bad right? Well as long as you don't try to compare it with Magic like I just did, then you should find the game enjoyable. Just don't look for anything deep.
And that's where Dominion has so far fallen a little short for me. I have, admittedly, only played the game three times (two 2-player games, and one 4-player game) and I'm yet to play with all the different sets. Yet I'm not convinced any particular combination of the game's Kingdom Cards will make this game as exiting as I'd like it to be.
A rundown of Dominion's gameplay seems appropriate at this point, so let's do that.
The object of this game is to collect cards. An array of cards are placed face-up on the table for all players to purchase during the game. As the game goes on, you'll buy these cards and place them in your deck (every player has their own deck) and use them to purchase more cards. Your deck will keep growing until the the end of the game.
At the end of the game, everyone adds the points on any Victory Cards they have in their deck and the person with the most points win.
I'll get to Victory Cards shortly, but before I do that it's worth noting how each turn works. It's quite simple really: you get to play one Action from your hand, then you get to buy any card from the table, then you discard your entire hand and draw five new cards. When you run out of cards to draw, you shuffle your discard pile into a new draw deck.
Actions are found on what are called Kingdom Cards. During the game you can purchase these on your turn during the Buy phase, place them in your discard pile, and after they get shuffled into your deck, you'll draw them into your hand on a later turn and can then play them during your Action phase.
There are a total of 25 Kingdom Cards (you'll need to click on the pictures to read the cards):
Looking at these, most cards give bonuses like letting you draw more cards into your hand, letting you play more actions, or giving you more coins to spend during the Buy phase.
The thing is, only ten of these 25 sets will be available in each game. Ten copies of each card are available for purchase during the game, so once a particular card has been bought ten times, the pile will run out and no one else can buy another copy of the card.
This seems to lend itself to a plethora of different options during games doesn't it? Unfortunately, in my limited experience that's not entirely true. There isn't a great deal of interaction between cards (and virtually none between players) and once you hit on an optimal strategy, there will probably be some cards you won't even bother with.
I mentioned earlier that you can buy Victory Cards as well. Victory Cards have both good and bad qualities. They are good because (obviously) they give you Victory Points which you need to win. They are bad, however, because once they are in your deck they are useless until the end of the game, and therefore take up valuable space in your hand that could otherwise be taken by a more useful card.
Victory Cards come in three types: Estates (worth 1 VP), Duchies (worth 3 VP), and Provinces (worth 6 VP):
By and large, you'll want Provinces and not want Estates. It seems a little counter-intuitive at first to avoid collecting Estates (because they're Victory Points right?), but if you're going to clog up your hand with cards that you can't use, you're far better purchasing a Province than an Estate.
A similar principle applies to Treasure Cards. In order to purchase cards, you'll need coins.
As you can see, Treasure Cards come in Copper, Silver, and Gold. Everyone starts with seven Copper cards in their deck, and if you're at all serious about winning you'll need to use these to purchase Silver and Gold cards as soon as possible.
Silver and Gold cards are much more valuable than Copper, because when you only have a hand of five cards during each turn, the more coins you have, the better the card you can purchase. You're not going to be able to buy a Province with a handful of Coppers.
And there you have it. Each turn you'll have five cards in your hand, and hope that you have either a slew of Silver and Gold coins to buy the good cards, or an Action Card or two to boost your buying power.
Buying power, you see, is really what this game comes down to. In order to win, most of the time you'll need more Province Cards than anyone else. Each Province costs 8 coins to buy, so your best bet is to manage your deck in order to maximise the number of times you'll draw a hand of five cards that will net you at least 8 coins.
That's why I don't think Dominion is quite as deep, or good, as it appears. Yes, you need to work out which Action cards can benefit you in your quest, but ultimately it comes down to getting as many coins into your hand each turn as possible. Purchasing low value cards (like Estates or Coppers) that don't do much is next to useless.
Maybe I'm wrong. Maybe there is a greater depth to Dominion that I am yet to discover. Certainly cards like the Witch or Gardens change things up a bit (and the latter admittedly does encourage stacking your deck with as many cards as you can), and I'm hoping that playing this game more (and perhaps the upcoming expansion) will change my perception.
I certainly intend to find out.
Saturday, January 31, 2009
Die Macher
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.
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.
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
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)