GamerChris

Picture of the Week - Week #21

2012-05-21T19:34:26Z

This is a picture from my first multiplayer game of Walnut Grove. It's not perfect, but I like the contrast between my fields in the foreground and then the game board and resource cubes and all in the background.

Review - Zulus on the Ramparts!

2012-05-18T20:21:15Z

Zulus on the Ramparts!
and the Expansion Kit

Designer: Joseph Miranda (2009)
Publisher(s): Victory Point Games
# of Players: 1
Ages: 12+
Play Time: 25 minutes
Average BGG Rating: 7.52
Category: Gamer's Game
At one point in my hobby gaming, most of what I did was solitaire activity. In theory, all that deckbuilding for CCG's and adventure planning for RPG's was in preparation for social play, but the reality was that I spent a lot more time with just me alone in a room writing stuff or shuffling cards than I did playing the games with others.

Thankfully, I get a lot more chance to actually play games with real other people these days, but there are still some times when I find myself alone and aching for a game. Since I'm not much on video games (which is a lot of gamers' first choice for solo activity), I like having a few "go to" solo games at my disposal.

In that vein, I was given Zulus on the Ramparts! last year by my good friend Kenny, and it quickly jumped right to the top of my favorite solo games. I've taken it on trips, played it over lunch at work, and occasionally pulled it out when everyone else was asleep and I had a hankering for something to play.

Game Basics (click here for part A and part B of the complete game rules)

Just in case you're not very familiar with Victory Point Games (VPG), they mostly specialize in desktop-published historical and solitaire games. They certainly work outside that box from time to time, but you're usually talking about a war-ish sort of game made out of cardstock and packaged in a plastic baggie when you reference a Victory Point game.

Zulus on the Ramparts! is no exception to this rule, and comes with a fold-out cardstock map, some cardboard tokens, and a deck of small, flimsy cards. The components are adequate overall, but I did feel the need to sleeve the cards (along with old Magic cards) in order to make them shuffle and play better.   And VPG doesn't really apologize for their component quality; it is what it is. Their slogan is "The gameplay's the thing" because their focus is more on providing quality game designs at reasonable prices, and are willing to sacrifice some on component quality to do so. At least the art and graphic design of this and other VPG games is pretty good, though, and that's one area that they continue to get even better as a company.

Zulus on the Ramparts! is the second in VPG's solitaire States of Seige series, which basically all have the player be some group that is trying to fend off attackers coming in from a number of directions. In other games, the attacking forces may be a little more abstract or figurative, but in ZotR!, which plays out the famous Battle of Rorke's Drift, you play the 150 British troops at the Rorke's Drift mission station literally trying to fend off 4,000 Zulu warriors coming in from 4 different directions. It's a modern day Battle of Thermopylae, and you definitely feel the pressure...

Game Play

The game board primarily displays a map of the mission station with four tracks leading into it. There are four different Zulu iButho markers (regiments) of different strengths (able to take between 2 and 5 hits) which are placed randomly onto the "5" spaces of the four tracks. The Zulu Victory marker is placed into the Outer Perimeter, meaning that if any Zulu iButho reaches it, the game is lost. If, however, you can survive until the Relief Column arrives (which is one of the last 4 cards in the deck), you will survive the attack and win the game.

The four Zulu iButho (regiment) markers

Game Turn

The first thing each turn is drawing one of the round iMpi tokens out of a cup. Most of these move one or more of the iButho markers further along its track, but there are also some event tokens that do various (and usually bad) things. Assuming that no iButho has reached the Zulu Victory marker, you then move on the next step.

In the Action Phase, you get to perform one action.  Some of the most common things you do here are:

1) "Put forth" a Hero - Play a hero card from you hand to the table, which makes it then usable on a later turn either for its special powers or to perform another action

2) Construct a Barricade - Commit a hero (Leftenant or Sergeant only) on the table to building a barricade. This actually takes 3 turns to do, after which the hero is returned to your hand and the Zulu Victory marker is moved backwards one step (first to the "Inner Barricade" and then to the "Final Redoubt"), thus buying you time and space to fight.

3) Fire a Volley (Make an attack) - You play a card from your hand to attack one of the iButho markers within range (usually at space 3 or closer on their track). All hero cards also have attack values, and you can discard them as well either from your hand or from play to do make an attack. Based on the range and the card, you'll roll between 1 and 5 dice, with only 6's doing damage and 5's causing them to retreat one space.

Sample Volley and Hero cards

I don't want to get into too much detail here, but there are a few other standard actions you can take any time. Plus, a lot of heroes will give you more options that I can't really get into at all, but I don't want to leave you with the idea that you don't have many options on your turn, because there are almost always a lot more things you'd like to get done than you have the actions for.

But anyway, after performing one action, you may then draw one card from the deck. You then get the chance to "Put Forth" one more hero from your hand, and then have to discard down to 5 cards (which may be why you wouldn't draw a card).

Fire and Night and Other Stuff

There are some other cool elements of the game that I'll touch on. The two buildings (Hospital and Storehouse) can actually catch on fire through drawing the "Building on Fire" iMpi marker from the cup. Other than blocking line of sight further down those two tracks, though, it's really not a bad thing, because shooting at an iButho in a burning building makes a "4" result on attack dice into a retreat. You can use an action (by pulling a hero back to your hand) to try and put out the fire, but I usually don't bother.

Halfway through the deck, there is also a card that changes the time marker from day to night. The only real effect this has is that all volleys have a -1 Dice Roll Modifier (DRM) to their highest roll unless one of the buildings is on fire (even more proof that burning buildings are a good thing). And speaking of DRM's, there are a number of other effects that also add positive or negative DRM's in the game, but once again, I don't have the time here to get into specifics.

One last thing I'll mention is that some heroes are seeded at different points in the deck. And some of the ones in the top half (before nightfall) represent people who were outside of the walls before the battle. If you draw their card before you fire your first volley, then you get to use it as normal. But if you've already taken your first shot, then you have to discard the card and do not get to draw a replacement, which really sucks. There's one of these in the base game, but the expansion pack adds two others (including the garrison's commander, Major Spalding, who has a really great power).

What I Think...

As I said in my intro, Zulus on the Ramparts! is definitely one of my favorite solo games. It's quick to setup and play, travels easily, and still manages to pack in some really tough choices.

Theme

I also really like the fact that it's all about a real, historical event. I love the idea of wargames most of the time, but don't have the time, energy, or opportunity to really learn or play them. Plus, while I get tired of the ambiguous, mundane, and often downright boring themes in a lot of eurogames, my preference is still more for having having strong and streamlined game play rather than historically accurate theming.

But the theme in Zulus on the Ramparts! is done really well. Both in things like the flavor text on the cards and in the whole nature of the gameplay itself, I feels really tense and forces you to set priorities, much as I imagine the actual battle did. It certainly prompted me to do at least a rudimentary Wikipedia search and read about it on the internet. I also need to see the movie...

Tension, Pressure, and Investment

So, any time you have people working solely against the systems of a game (i.e. solo and coop games), the most important key factor to success is how well that system engages and challenges the players. And while theme can also help to hook you in initially, it's got to be the game play experience, the tension and pressure and variability of the system, that's interesting and engaging enough to keep you coming back for more.

Zulus on the Ramparts! does a pretty good job with all of this. The whole nature of the States of Seige engine is based on having all these threats pressuring in from all sides, and for most of the game, it feels like the Zulu iMpi (army) is crawling all over your back, giving you wet willies, and whoopin' your heiney with a rough-cut 2x4!

Still, though, a little experience with the base game can definitely give you some advantages. Being familiar with the range of the iMpi markers helps a lot, especially if you can get a good idea of which ones have or have not been played (especially the "all move 2" and the "Loins move 3"). And after a few plays, I felt like the base game was maybe a little too easy. But introducing the expansion kit ratcheted back up the difficulty and helped hold my interest.

Randomness

Obviously, a lot of the challenge and replayability of Zulus on the Ramparts! comes from random elements.  Which iButhos will move and how far they go is governed by a random chit pull, but this is actually pretty cool because there's at least an even distribution between the four different tracks. The dice rolls for attacking is pretty brutal, though, since only 5's and 6's have any real effect.  But of course, skillful play usually involves finding some other mitigating factor from heroes or burning buildings or whatever else to make it a little more reasonable.

And while it's still more or less balanced, the order of the player cards can also make a pretty big difference in how things play out. I think it was a really nice design choice to seed the player's initial hand and to do some level of deck stacking to ensure a particular arc for the game while still having a variable and challenging card draw.

But there are certainly times when luck turns completely against you and it feels like nothing you do has any real effect on the game. Without question, there are some plays of the game that are totally unwinnable, which can be a little frustrating. Interestingly enough, my favorite game, Pandemic, also has this sort of thing, but it's just a lot more obvious in Zulus on the Ramparts! when dice rolls that you "should" have won still don't go your way.

Therefore, the level of randomness does occasionally make the game feel a little pointless. But that's actually pretty rare, and my overall impression about the luck factor is that it's very appropriate for the theme, style, length, and depth of the game.

Zulu Victory...
Strategy and Tactics

And like I said from the very beginning, the biggest thing going for Zulus on the Ramparts! and mitigating all the random factors is the huge range of choices available. The feeling of having so many things you want to do but only a few actions to spend on them is very simiar to a lot of eurogames, in fact.

Now, some of the choices do seem a little automatic. I mean, I can't imagine why you wouldn't ever try to build the barricades as quickly as you can. But at the same time, the way you balance that with playing out heroes and maybe fending off an early attack can be very different depending on what priorities you set. And of course, there are a lot of times when the threat of an iButho actually invading the compound is so pressing that you drop whatever else you're doing and throw anything you can at it.

So a lot of the choices, most of them probably, are very tactical. But especially with the Expansion Pack, there are also some big picture choices that have to be made more strategically. Probably the biggest one is how long you hold off on firing your first volley waiting for Major Spalding or one of the other heroes outside the walls to show up. I mean, it's pretty obvious that damaging the Zulus as soon as you can is a good idea, but having those really nice heroes turn into a dead draw (on a turn when the Zulus still drew an iMpi marker and continued to advance) is really tough.

And another choice that rides the line between strategy and tactics is whether to focus attention more on the weaker iButhos (hoping to take them out early and therefore having dead iMpi marker draws later on) or to concentrate fire on the biggest and most dangerous threats. I actually go back and forth on this one, and for the most part, I do let the course of the game help make the choice for me.

Hand Management

Another huge part of the game is the hand-management element. Most of the standard actions and many of the Hero powers involve returning them back to your hand, so even if the power itself is a "free" action, you have to then use another action to lay them back down or potentially risk running over your hand limit and discarding something that could be useful later. And this is balanced, obviously, against all the other things you need to do, like playing volley cards to actually knock off or chase away the invading iButho markers.

And really, a lot of the choices made each turn are either dependent or greatly influenced by the powers of the cards and heroes in your hand. So getting more familiar with what sorts of things they do and how they work together is key to developing some expertise with the game.

Cost and Components

But what about the component quality? Well, for the most part, I'm pretty okay with the low-end bits. I really need to pick up a piece of plexiglas to keep the board flat, but otherwise I think that the VPG model is just fine. My only real concern is that the games feel just a bit expensive too me. I know that you're mostly paying for the quality of the design, which is definitely real solid, but most VPG prices feel maybe $5 or so too high to me.

In fact, just to be honest, I've never actually bought one of them myself.  I received this and Nemo's War as gifts, and VPG just sent me We Must Tell the Emperor and No Retreat! as review copies. But with all that said, if you catch one of the games on just a little bit of a sale or with the Expansion Kits thrown in (which they really should be, by the way), then most all of my complaints about value evaporate.

Luck was on my side (for the moment)
The Verdict!

Zulus on the Ramparts! is, without question, currently my favorite solitaire-only game.  It's been fun to play at home, is quick enough to set up and play over lunch at work, and takes up so little space that it's almost stupid not to pack it on a business trip. Its thematic, full of choices, and almost always challenging and fun.

• Rules: Pretty simple, but I don't particularly like the old-school wargame format.
• Theme: As I said, strong and interesting.
• Downtime: None (it's a freaking solitaire game)
• Player Interaction: None (again, FSG)
• Length: 30 minutes for the base game, but maybe up to an hour if you play slow and include the Expansion Kit. Plenty of tension to keep the time moving well, though.
• GamerChris' Rating: 7.5 (on the BGG 10-point scale)

On My iPod...

2012-05-17T16:24:00Z

It's been quite a while since I last ran through my favorite podcasts here on my blog, so I thought I'd take a little time to list some of my current favorites, some new ones I'm hot on, and some that have gone a little cold for me...

Top of the List
Roughly in order, here are the podcasts that I listen to before any others. I often download them directly to my iPod because I don't want to wait until the next time I sync with my laptop...

Boardgames To Go - It's the oldest "active" boardgame podcast, and despite a distinct lack of bells and whistles, Mark Johnson's content is thoroughly and consistently the best in the business. He talks about individual games, of course, but his real forte is in his discussions with guests about the hobby or meta-game topics. http://boardgamestogo.com/

The Dice Tower - I've always liked the Dice Tower, but it just keeps getting better and better. Eric is by far the best co-host, and the consistency of the whole networking "going pro" really seems to have raised the bar. It's probably the most "fun" podcast I listen to. http://www.dicetower.com/

On Board Games - Again, my preference for discussion is more in the meta-game/hobby issues sort of thing (rather than just a list of game reviews), and On Board Games always has some round-table topic that hits home for me. I also like the personalities involved as well. http://onboardgames.net

Ludology - It's all about the meta-game sort of discussions that I love, but may suffer just a little from being a little too single-minded and dry at times. http://www.ludology.net/

Funding the Dream - It's all about Kickstarter, which is a little single-minded at times, but Richard Bliss does a good job also of expanding his discussions out a little more and talking about the hobby in general (even if it does relate back to Kickstarter). Plus, he has really excellent and knowledgeable guests and sponsors really fantastic blogs... http://www.buzzsprout.com/4646

The State of Games - Husband-and-wife team Chris and Cherilyn have a great chemistry that's lots of fun to listen to. Actual content focuses a lot on game design, the community surrounding design, and Kickstarter designers/projects, but it also gets into a lot of general boardgaming topics as well. http://dicehateme.com/

Garrett's Games & Geekiness - Doug and Shelley are another husband-and-wife team that sort of define consistency as the longest-running weekly boardgame podcast (that I'm aware of, anyway). They're very eurogame-centric, but their preferences line up pretty well with mine. http://garrettsgames.com/

Into the Gamescape - Another really fun podcast to listen to. I really wish they were a little more consistent/frequent in their release "schedule", because they have great chemistry and have a lot of fun on the air. It's also cool to have more perspectives from the UK. http://thegamescape.co.uk

Little Metal Dog Show - Speaking of the UK, Michael Fox probably has the best interview-based show on the air. I get a little tired of interviews from time to time, but his are usually the best. http://littlemetaldog.com/

House Rules - A really solid, general boardgaming show that does a lot of things well. It's not maybe as focused on one style or format as most others, but host Drew Massey does a good job of finding interesting topics to bring forth whether it's just him on the mic, it's his whole group, or if he's talking with a guest. http://gfbrobot.com/category/houserules/

Rising Stars
Here are some other new podcasts that may be earning a place in the list above:

Great Big Table - Another husband-and-wife team with some nice chemistry. One main focus on the podcast is going to be on gaming evangelism, which has me pretty interested. http://www.greatbigtable.com/

Wooden Cubes and Iron Soldiers - Three popular video reviewers with different game tastes all coming together to do an audio podcast. It's been pretty great so far. http://www.2d6.org/category/podcast/

This Board Game Life - Two guys talking about games, but their level of knowledge and insight seems really great so far. http://www.thisboardgamelife.com/

The Dice Section - I've barely listened to one whole podcast yet, but I know one of the hosts personally and and pleased so far. http://www.dicesection.com/

Still on My iPod
These are podcasts that I'll still keep on my iPod, but which probably don't get listened to unless I'm all out of the ones above:

The Royal Society of Gamers - Still a really solid, UK-based podcast, but since they've had some changes in hosts, my interest has fallen a bit. http://www.royalsocietyofgamers.com/

I've Been Diced - This is definitely the "old school" boardgamer podcast. I like it a lot, but it can be a little curmudgeony at times and isn't really at the cutting edge of what's happening with the mainstream boardgaming world. http://ivebeendiced.blogspot.com/

The Spiel - It's one of the oldest and most respected podcasts in the boardgame podisphere, but they also seem to be a little disconnected from the rest of the community in some ways. Plus, I often find their game reviews very laborious and over-scripted. I still listen regularly, but my patience with them often wears thin. http://thespiel.net

The D6 Generation - I used to not care about podcast length, but more and more it just bothers me. I really enjoy this podcast when I listen, but it just seems so daunting to start a 4-hour podcast, so I tend to put it off to last, but then never get back around to it. http://www.thed6generation.com

Boardgame Babylon - One of my original favorites, but mostly my loss of interest has been due to a very sparse release schedule, and many of those are Q&A sessions with game designers from L.A. conventions that I have no interest in. http://www.boardgamebabylon.com/

The Geek Allstars - I like the hosts and their banter, and their game discussions are really solid, but it's a general "geekiness" podcast, and I often don't care much about their discussion of TV, movies, etc. http://www.thegeekallstars.com/

1 Player Podcast - A "no frills" podcast about solitaire boardgames. I like it quite a bit, but my interest in solo gaming is just not that strong most of the time. http://fractaloon.podbean.com

Myriad Games Presentations - Their whole format is designed to have small shows with just one topic each that are clearly labeled so you will be able to pick and choose what you listen to. The problem with that concept is that I then tend to not listen if I'm not really interested in a game or topic. I'd much rather just have a standard format podcast that talked about different games from week to week.
http://www.pulpgamer.com/myriadgames/

How to Play Podcast - A great podcast with a very clear purpose, but once again, if I'm not interested in learning how to play the game (or already know how), then I don't listen. http://howtoplaypodcast.com/

The Gaming Gang - I sort of come and go with this podcast. I actually like a lot of their content, but the banter seems a little forced or something to me a lot. http://thegaminggang.com

Cardboard of the Rings - A really fantastic podcast with some amazing and funny chemistry between all the hosts, but it's all about the Lord of the Rings LCG. And as my investment in the game has waned over the last few months, so has my interest in the show. http://cardboardoftherings.com/

I Think It's Time to Go...
These podcasts, for whatever reason, just haven't done much for me, so if I need room for anything on the iPod, these are the ones that get deleted:

G*M*S Magazine - I can't point to anything in particular about this one, but I just don't get into it much. I've made a point to download and listen to a number of episodes, but it's always an effort to do so...

Not Just Another Gaming Podcast - It's just a little too goofy for me. Not everyone needs to be an expert on all things gaming, but I generally listen to podcasts because I feel they are, to some extent, "authorities" about boardgames, and NJAGP doesn't really live up to that for me.

The Secret Cabal - This one flew under my radar for a while, but even since I discovered them, I just can't get into their show. It feels way overproduced, and it's a bit long and laborious for me as well.

The Messy Game Room - Frankly, I don't know why I listened to this as long as I did. Maybe it's just the spectacle of all the cussing and irreverance that kept me fascinated for a while, but the real problem is that they don't like the games I like, and they don't really talk about games all that much.

So, that's a pretty good rundown of my current listening habits. I also have a few RPG podcasts in my rotation, as well as a few non-gaming-related shows, but I didn't think I'd get into those here. Are there any great podcasts that I missed? Do you disagree with me about any of the ones I mentioned? What do y'all think?

Down and Dirty Game Photo Editing...

2012-05-16T19:12:00Z

Over the last week or so, I've been having an email conversation with Kearn Reif, a listener who recently started his own blog on BGG and was asking for some advice. We discussed a number of things, but one in particular was the taking and post-processing of photos for my blog.

That sort of intersected with me recently discovering a free web app called Screenr, which lets you record up to 5-minute-long screencasts without any real investment other than registering with the website. So what came out of all that are these two short demos talking a little about how you can improve your photos pretty quickly using some readily-available software.

I'm no real expert at photo editing or manipulation, but my goal here is to show how relatively quick and easy it is to make a significant difference in your pictures, especially when you're taking them in less-than-ideal conditions (like dim game store play areas).

The first demo is about using Microsoft Picture Manager's editing tools, which most PC users probably already have on their computers:

This second demo is using the free GIMP software that can be downloaded here:

I certainly hope these are useful to y'all, but I'm also interested in how useful you think things like this may be, especially going forward...

Picture of the Week - Week #20

2012-05-16T15:14:58Z

I'm late with a Picture of the Week this time because I literally took no game pictures last week. We did something a little different at game night, and between that and being distracted, I never even pulled out the camera. However, I've rushed up some editing on last night's photos, and here's my favorite from my first play of Castles of Burgundy...

Check back a little later today for another picture-related post...

Thanks for 7 Walnut Pandemics from the Wizard's Chest in Denver

2012-05-10T14:17:00Z

I missed my regular game night last week because I was preparing for a quick business trip to Denver for some really cool training. But thankfully, we're living in the future, so I was able to search BoardGameGeek and find a local game group there that met on Thursday evening, which is when I was flying in! So after driving to Raleigh, waiting in the airport, flying a couple of hours to Memphis, waiting for a little longer in a different airport, flying 2 more hours to Denver, then navigating through a shuttle bus and renting a car, driving through rush-hour traffic into town, and then waiting 20 or 30 minutes to be able to check into my hotel, I was finally ready to catch a bite to eat and find the game store.

And really, "game store" doesn't quite describe the Wizard's Chest. It started its life as a costume shop way back in 1983, and since then has morphed into also including lots of toys, novelties, magic tricks, and, of course, games. When I walked in and started browsing through the game section, three people were playing Martian Dice at a folding table along the back of the lower level. As they finished up and started talking about playing another game, I wandered over and introduced myself.

The group organizer was Alan, and the other two players were married couple Michael and Melissa. Kevin Pohle, the owner of the store, also then joined us as we set up and played...

Pandemic [BGG]

Michael and Melissa had only played once or twice before, so we stuck with just the basic 5 epidemics, but we did use the expansion roles and special event cards.  And overall, we did really well all game long. In just the first few turns, we had a nice network of Research Stations set up from a timely Government Grant card and Michael being the Ops Expert. Melissa was the Medic, so she got to wreck up some serious disease cubes, which never really got out of hand at all.

I was a little worried early on, in fact, that we were spending way too much time on board control and not working towards any cures. But before long, we engineered getting me (the Scientist) one cure, and I practically drew into a second one just a turn or so later. We were getting down to the bottom third or maybe quareter of the deck when we cured the fourth disease and won.

Score: We won! My Rating: 10 (of course!)

It's always cool to play Pandemic, and especially to see players new to it just begin to understand the strategy and tactics of how to do well. Michael and Melissa aren't really new gamers or anything, so they caught on really quickly to the planning discussions that Alan, Kevin, and I were having. By the end, we were all pretty equal partners, I'd say.

It's sort of odd that I just happened to play Pandemic last week as well (as I mentioned yesterday). I had some of the same feelings I mentioned in that report, but the biggest thing I dealt with in this play was trying really hard not to take on the role of "Game Group Organizer" and launching into the rules teach or managing the game as I normally would in my own group. Oh, that and all the dizziness and dropping things and feeling wonky from the altitude, of course, but I didn't really recognize that until the next day when one of my workshop organizers mentioned it. I just thought my blood sugar was low, so I ate like a whole roll of SweetTarts, which did quite the opposite to my sugar when I checked it later on back at the hotel.

7 Wonders [BGG]

Kevin had to get his son home at this point, but the rest of us pulled out 7 Wonders next for a quick game.  Alan went over the rules (which I was pretty rusty on as well), but then we got started pretty soon. I've had pretty good success before with collecting the monuments (blue cards), and when I got handed a ton of them, I just kept holding onto them this game as well.

Michael was to my left, and despite me trying my best to bury green (technology) cards, he kept gathering them more and more as we headed into the 2nd and 3rd age (aided by him having the Mausoleum, which let him build some buildings that I and others had discarded earlier). He and Alan beat up on me in the first to ages, but I managed to at least get ahead of him in Military in the last round, but when we totalled up points, Michael still managed to stay a few points ahead of me on the strength of his green sets.

Score: Michael 50ish, Me 48, Melissa and Alan - something less than 48 My Rating: 7

I like 7 Wonders well enough, but there's really not a lot of depth in it. Everyone goes on about how you can "play 7 people in 30 minutes!" and all, which is totally true, but sometimes, it feels like the short play time is more of an attraction for it than the actual play experience. I really need to try out the Leaders expansion, I suppose, because I understand that it adds a nice other layer of depth and strategy that is pretty absent in the base game.

No Thanks! [BGG]

Michael and Melissa needed to get home to relieve the babysitter, but I talked them into a few hands of No Thanks! to round out the evening. They loved it, of course, 'cause it totally rocks.

Score: I'm pretty sure I won 2 hands, but then blew the last one My Rating: 8

I wanted to play a little longer, but fatigue and hunger and the thin air were all getting to me, so I called it a night as well when Michael and Melissa left. I really appreciate Alan and the Wizard's Chest welcoming me into their game night, though, and I would love to visit with them again sometime if I ever find my way back to Denver.

I actually managed to get back over there on Friday night as well to do a little shopping for my little girls (since you need to bring back presents when you go away, of course), and I also ended up grabbing Anomia (a really great party game we played for the first time back in March) for Gwen and me as well. I got to talk with Alan and Kevin a little more then as well, and again, it's just so cool to be able to travel all over the country (or the world, for that matter) and find gamers just like me to spend time with.

Walnut Grove [BGG]

I also took along some solo games just in case I had some extra time alone in my hotel room. As it turned out, between going to game night and being rather exhausted, I didn't find a lot of time to pull them out, but I did get in a solo play of the relatively new Walnut Grove.

It's basically played over 8 "years" made up of 4 seasons each. In the Spring, you place 1 or 2 new land tiles; in the Summer, you place your workers on your tiles to collect resources; in Fall, you do something in town (like pick up extra workers, sell resources, buy improvements, and other stuff like that); and in Winter, you have to pay/feed your workers and keep them warm (using resources or money).

Solo play isn't much different from the full game, other than there is a pre-set "victory" score (of at least 25 points). It was only my first play, and I only scored 22 points, which I was a little disappointed in.

Score: I lost, dadgummit! My Rating: How the heck should I know?

I've heard Walnut Grove described as "Agricola meets Carcassonne", but that doesn't really encapsulate it at all. I mean, I guess there maybe is a touch of Agricola in there, but the only relation to Carc is that it has tiles in it.

The game it actually reminded me of most was Peloponnes. Mechanically, they aren't really similar at all, but both Peloponnes and Walnut Grove are very short games with just a few key choices played over just 8 turns. So the feel and scope of the games are very similar, and they're probably a very similar weight overall. And really, that's a pretty favorable comparison for Walnut Grove, because I like Peloponnes quite a bit.

Still, I can't even begin to make up my mind about it until I play it with others, so I'll come back to it soon, I'm sure.

Now I'm almost caught up with my gaming reports. But last night was game night, and it was actually even our first RPG night, so I'll hopefully get around to talking about it by early next week...

The Pandemic of 1812

2012-05-09T16:29:25Z

So, I'm way behind, like that's unusual or something. But last week was real wonky with missing game night and then heading to Denver for some work-related training. I didn't have a lot of time to write, but I did actually get in some gaming with a local group there, which I'll get to a little later. For now, though, let's focus on my regularly-scheduled game night from 2 weeks ago and try to catch up starting there...

Pandemic [BGG]

It's been way too long since I last pulled out Pandemic, so I not only toted it along, but also recommended and played it as well! Chris J had never played before, so we went over the rules pretty quickly, and then got down to bid'ness.

The main thing I got out of our first play was that we were (okay... I was) really rusty at the game. Really, though, I don't think there was much at all we could have done the first time around to stay alive, but when we reset and tried it again, we came really close to winning the second game. We had already cured the four "regular" diseases (or had the cures in hand, anyway), but needed to eliminate/cure the mutation disease as well. Theoretically, we had a little chance, but the thing we really hadn't accounted for was the Mutation player card that spawned 3 new locations, and when none of them matched up with cards in anyone's hand, we were pretty screwed.

Time: 41 and 60 minutes
Game 1: Pandemic (5 Epidemics and Mutation) - Win; Humanity (Chip, Chris J*, Norton, Josh, & Kenny) - Lose
Game 2: Pandemic (5 Epidemics and Mutation) - Win; Humanity (Chip, Chris J, Norton, Josh, & Rory) - Lose
Ratings: Chip 8.5, Chris J 7.5, Norton 10, Josh 8.5, Rory 8, Kenny ?

So, Pandemic returned to its normal state of butt-kickiness and reminded me and everyone else of just how gloriously vicious it is! It's so much fun, and if we didn't need to get into 1812 before the end of the night, I would have loved to play another time or two to get a freaking win!

One thing that I'll also mention is that it's been a while since I played Pandemic with a new person. When I play with others already experienced in the game, I tend to discuss my opinions about strategy pretty openly and aggressively, but others are usually doing the same. In plays like this, however, where Chris J and Rory are pretty new to it, I try really hard not to be "that guy" who dominates and directs the whole game. But there's also a balance there, in that new people tend to naturally look to those with experience to know what to do. This is actually one of the cool things about coop games, because if you're all playing together, it's a lot easier to just jump into the game and explain/direct things for the first few turns while they're getting up to speed.

So anyway, what I try to do in this case (and hopefully succeed) is to explain choices rather than direct actions. I try to pick 2 or 3 relatively efficient things that they could do on their turn and give a little reasoning of why they might choose to do each, but then let the final decision about what to do be up to them.  If they flat out ask my opinion (of which option I'd choose), I'll give it to them, but then I also try to explain my reasoning of why I think that's the most pressing priority.

The only time this really sort of breaks down is near the end of the game when we're coming up with the "big plan". In our second game, for instance, we knew that the player deck was about to run out, so we had a 5 or 10 minute pow-wow to get our stuff straight and see if we could win. Now, it wasn't just me, because Chip and Josh were certainly right in there as well, and I'd say that we tried to include Rory and Chris J as much as we could as well. But my hope, at least, is that while they may not feel quite as involved personally in that sort of planning (since they might lack the experience to contribute), they would still see it as a cooperative action of the whole table rather than any one person being all domineering.

1812: The Invasion of Canada [BGG]

For the rest of the evening, we played our Game of the Month! for the last time during its reign. We randomly determined sides, with Chip and I getting the American side while Kenny, Rory, and Alton helmed the Canadians.

In looking at the game setup, I tended to think that the Americans had a bit more of an advantage both originally and in resupplying the western part of the map, so my first action was to launch an attack at Amherstburg. It was successful, but I drastically underestimated the Canadian ability to resupply the area, so it was in flux all game long. We did end up holding it at the end, but it was more because the Canadians decided to focus their energy elsewhere rather than any particular success on our parts.

The middle of the board had an almost surprising lack of activity for a while, but then we made a big push that drove us into it and even held the Canadian Militia's resupply area for a short period. But again, the Canadians side of the map is so much smaller that it was never a problem for them to move troops around and push us out whenever needed.

So then on the eastern area of the board, it's like this inevitable slide towards total Canadian dominance as more and more British Regulars keep pouring into Montreal. There may have been a point somewhere in the middle when Chip and I could have finagled a win during our big central push, but that wasn't ever even an option because my Truce card was at the very bottom of my deck. In fact, someone on the Canadian side also drew their Truce card as their last draw, so the game was destined to go on until at least the 7th or 8th turn.

While Chip and I kept it close, there was no real question about who would win pretty much all game long. So when the merciful end finally came, the Canadians managed to get the solid 4-2 win.

Time: 135 minutes
Score: Canada (Kenny - British Regulars, Rory - Canadian Militia, & Alton - Native Americans) - 4; Americans (Chip - US Regulars & Norton - US Militia) - 2
Ratings: Kenny 9, Alton 9, Chip 9, Norton 6.5, Rory ?

Okay, so I like 1812 just fine. My first game was very enjoyable, and some of the other plays throughout the month were packed full of stand-up moments and loud shouts of excitement. But in the end, it leaves me a little empty. Oh, what the heck, let me just break into a little mini-review then...

Stuff I like about the game:
• historicity - while the game is pretty light and abstract in a lot of ways, it also does a good job of being based in history and conveying at least a basic feel of the conflict at hand
• multiplayer - 2-player games are so hard for me to get to the table at game night, and a warish-game like this with 5 intentional factions to play is really cool to involve more of us
• asymmetrical sides - in some really elegant ways (composition and number of each faction's dice, card mix), all 5 factions feel quite different.  And in the big picture, the American vs. Canadian sides also feel very different and require different tactics.
• elegance and simplicity - as I said above, the use of custom dice and unique faction decks make the actual rules of the game very simple. I like how quickly it plays overall, and how approachable it is for pretty much anyone except the most casual gamers/nongamers.

What's not so hot:
• lack of choices - it's a very tactical game; more about playing the hand you're dealt than having some grand strategy, which I don't necessarily have a problem with. But the issue is more that I felt a number of times that I really didn't have any choice worth making. If you only have 1 movement card in your hand (of 3 cards), for instance, then you have to play it. Of course, you still have the choice of which troops to move with it, but the nature or amount or distance of the movement may not be beneficial for you at all at that time in the game. And while I really like the idea of a variable game end based on players playing out their Treaty cards, it's not really a choice is you don't have the card in your hand at a moment that would be beneficial for you to play it.
• Native Americans are too cool - The Native Americans are really fun to play. They have some options that are really cool (like the ability to retreat into non-friendly areas), but the problem is that they almost make the other factions boring in comparison. And in addition, they completely change the way that the Americans have to play in order to cover their backfield a lot more, while the Canadians have a lot more freedom to pull up completely from an area.  Plus, there are some shenanigans (the "Indian Trick" that our group discovered) you can set up with them which seem a little imbalanced to me.
• asymmetry becomes imbalance? - As with the Native Americans specifically, the Canadian side seems to have a few too many advantages to really have a balanced game. Maybe it's just my (admittedly limited) experience with the game, but it just seems like the Canadians have a distinct advantage in a number of ways. It definitely seems like the shorter distance they have to travel makes it easier for them to reinforce areas, which also makes fleeing from battle less painful than it is for the Americans. Having 3 factions on their side is also an advantage, of course, especially if the Canadian players make sure to keep a mixed army in most important areas (letting each player activate them). The Americans certainly have the ability to make nice inroads throughout the game, but as I said in the report section, it seems like there is a sense of inevitability for a Canadian win as the game gets into the later rounds. It might be a little more interesting if the Americans were guaranteed to have their Treaty cards whenever they wanted them, so they could maybe better dictate the terms on which the game would end.
• length - it's a pretty light game, but with 5 players and combat and all that stuff, it can also drag on a little too long when neither side draws their treaty cards. At 4 or 5 rounds, it seems really nice, but 7 or 8 is a good 45+ minutes too long.

Overall, I still like the game and would gladly play it again sometime if my group wanted to pull it back out, but I'm not going to run out and buy it myself.

Other Games Played

Alien Frontiers
Time: 65 minutes
Score: Chris 11, Matt T* 8, Alton 7
Ratings: Chris 8

Army of Frogs
Time: 13 minutes
Score: Alton - Win; Chris and Chris J* - Lose
Ratings: Chris 7, Chris J 6

Battlefleet Gothic
Time: 120 minutes
Score: Kenny (Chaos) - Win, Rory (Imperial Navy) - Lose
Ratings: Kenny 10, Rory 10

FITS
Time: 22 minutes
Score: Chris 22, Chris J* 19, Matt T* 17, Alton 14
Ratings: Chris 8

Race for the Galaxy
Time: 30, 30, 74, 45, 30, & 30 minutes
Game 1: Kenny 40, Keith 34
Game 2: Kenny 24, Keith 16
Game 3: Kenny 51, Keith 43
Game 4: Kenny 53, Keith 38 (Draft Variant)
Game 5: Keith 46, Kenny 38 (Draft Variant)
Game 6: Kenny 33, Keith 31 (Draft Variant)
Ratings: Kenny 9.5, Keith 9

Roll Through the Ages
Time: 26 minutes
Score: Chris 13, Alton 9, Matt 8, Chris J 6
Ratings: Chris 8, Chris J 7

Sentinels of the Multiverse
Time: 39 minutes
Score: Heroes (Chris - Visionary & Fanatic, Matt - Absolute Zero & Tempest) - Win; Grand Warlord Voss on Wagner Mars Base - Lose
Ratings: Chris 9

To Court the King
Time: 30 minutes
Score: Chris - Win; Chris J*, Alton, & Matt T* - Lose
Ratings: Chris 8, Chris J 8

* First play for that Person

Picture of the Week - Week #19

2012-05-08T16:47:00Z

I wasn't at my normal game night last week, but I did manage to visit a local game group in Denver (where I attended a workshop) on Thursday. All I had was my trusty point-n-shoot camera with me, but I still got a few nice shots. Here's the one I like the best, from a play of 7 Wonders:

I wish there was a little less glare on the right side of the board, but if nothing else, I like the balance of the 5VP victory chip and the five -1 loss chips.

If the focus had been a little more sharp, I would have used this image from a game of Pandemic we played:

Picture of the Week - Week #18

2012-05-01T17:14:00Z

I was torn this week between selecting a "actual play" photo that I wasn't totally happy with and a "posed" picture from my Manhattan Project review photoshoot. In the end, though, I tend to usually prefer real pictures from real games, so I went with this photo of a damaged (eliminated?) ship from Kenny and Rory's game of Battlefleet Gothic last week:

Go here to thumb it on BGG!
The best Manhattan Project photo actually didn't even make it into the review, though:

(you can thumb this too, of course...)

Review - The Manhattan Project

2012-04-30T20:51:04Z

The Manhattan Project

Designer: Brandon Tibbetts (2012)
Publisher(s): Minion Games
# of Players: 2-5
Ages: 13+
Play Time: 120 minutes
Average BGG User Rating: 7.22
Category: Gamer's Game
I heard about The Manhattan Project when it was still in development and then during it's Kickstarter campaign, and while I loved the theme and artwork, I was pretty hesitant to pull the trigger on a heavy worker-placement game from a newish game company without much of a track record for heavier games. Boy, was that a mistake!

Thankfully, Minion Games was nice enough to send me a review copy of The Manhattan Project, and I've been totally blown away by it so far. But before I get into any more detail about all that, let's go over the...

Game Basics (click here for complete game rules)

The Manhattan Project is a worker-placement game, but it brings a very different approach to the mechanic, and I haven't really seen anything like it before. The goal of the game (and really, the only way to score points at all) is to develop and build atomic bombs, which is done through placing workers both on the central board and individual buildings (once you build them, anyway) to do all sorts of resource-manage-y things.

Workers actually come in three varieties: Laborers, Engineers, and Scientists. As you might expect, this is because certain spaces and buildings require particular types or combinations of workers to use them. You actually start the game with just 4 Laborers, however, and the other types must be earned through play.


A full complement of workers (plus two scientist contractors)

On any one turn, a player has to decide between either placing workers or retrieving workers.

Place Workers

If a player chooses to place workers on their turn, they may:
1) first place one worker into an unoccupied space on the central board, and then
2) place as many workers as they can (and want to) into their own buildings.

I'm not going to try and describe every single thing that you can do with placing workers, but here is an overview of some of the basic actions that are available as spaces on the board and/or individual buildings:

• Construction - At the top of the central board, there's a sliding market of building cards. Depending on the position of its card (increasing from left to right), each building costs a certain amount of money to construct.  So, when you place a worker into the Construction space on the central board (which is always available, even if other workers are already there), you pay for the building card you want and place it onto your own player board. And generally, you're the only person who can use your own buildings.

The Building market
• Universities - Let you recruit more workers into your workforce. Each player has a basic limit of 4 workers of each type in their own color, but there's also a pool of gray "contract" workers that you can recruit to temporarily go above this limit.

• Mines - Give a certain amount of raw uranium ("yellow cake") depending on the number and type of workers required to place on them.

• Enrichment Facilities/Reactors - Let you turn Yellow Cake into Enriched Uranium (Enrichment Facilities, which often also require money) or Yellow Cake/Enriched Uranium into Plutonium (Reactors).

• Factories - Gives you money, fighters, and/or bombers.

A Mine and Enrichment Plant in use on the main board
In addition, there are some other spaces on the central board that do some pretty interesting things:

• Air Strike - When you place a worker here, you launch air strikes against one or more other players. You can use your own fighters to destroy either another player's fighters or bombers. And then, if they don't have any fighters left, you can also spend bombers to deal damage to their buildings, rendering them useless until the damage is repaired (which is another space on the main board).

• Espionage - Choosing this space first advances the player one space on the espionage track (which runs from 1 to 6). Then, during the rest of that turn, they may place workers on a number of available buildings owned by other players equal to their position on the espionage track.

• Design Bombs - A number of bomb cards (1 more than the number of players) are always dealt faceup beside the board. When someone chooses the Design Bomb action, they pick up these cards and choose one to keep. The cards are then passed around the table and every player gets to draft one to keep, with the last card also going to the person who performed the action. These cards are the bombs which players can then construct as a bomb action to score points.

One general rule about placing workers in The Manhattan Project is that you get the effect of that space immediately when you place the worker. If you use a Laborer to construct a building, you can then place another worker in that building right afterwards to get its effect as well. If you use a University to make an Engineer, you can then use the Engineer on the same turn to activate another building.  It's pretty cool, and really allows players to think carefully about the order in which they do things to set up chains of effects.

Bomb Actions

After performing a Place Workers turn, the player may also perform any number of Bomb Actions that they want and are able to do.  There are actually 3 Bomb Actions:

1) Build Bombs - Much like a building card, every bomb card requires both a certain combination of Engineers and/or Scientists and the expenditure of some amount of either Enriched Uranium or Plutonium.  By spending/allocating these resources, the player can build the bomb, placing it down on the table, where it is worth the victory points listed on it.

2) Test Bombs - Uranium and Plutonium bombs are actually a little different, though. Plutonium bombs are more complicated, so they have two VP values listed on them (rather than the singe VP value on Uranium bombs). At baseline, they are worth the lower value of points, but once during the game, a player can choose to discard one of his constructed Plutonium bombs to perform an Implosion Test. The test itself is usually worth some points (0-8), but the big advantage is that every other Plutonium bomb they construct for the rest of the game is worth its larger VP value instead.

3) Load Bombs - Every bomb also has a "load" cost on it. If you pay this amount of money and use up a bomber, you can make the bomb worth an additional 5 points.
Retrieve Workers

At some point, either because you run out of workers or because you want to pull off some timing shenanigans, you will have to Retrieve Workers on your turn. It's pretty simple and quick, but there are 3 little phases to make sure that you clear all the correct spots:

1) Pull back all of your permanent workers
2) Clear workers off all your buildings
3) Clear all Contractors from the main board and your personal supply

Game End

The game continues until one player builds enough bombs and/or loads them to score the indicated number of points based on the number of players (70 points for 2, 60 for 3, 50 for 4, or 45 for 5).

What I Think...

Okay, first of all, The Manhattan Project looks freaking amazing. The whole retro/50's propaganda art design is both attractive and functional, and all of the component decisions seem to be really smart. In most worker-placement games, the "workers" themselves are some sort of wooden pawn, but here, the decision to use incredibly think (4mm) cardboard tokens identifying the 3 different types of workers was just brilliant.  The use of half-size cards (which I usually abhor) was actually pretty appropriate here, and once again the art and iconography used on them and the central board is truly excellent.

And the really cool thing is that looking at the game mechanically, I'm just as impressed.

Perpetual-Motion, Worker-Placement Madness!

The whole place vs. retrieve workers decision is just brilliant. Giving players the choice of when to effectively "pass" and pull back their workers sets up all sorts of cool choices. I mean, most obviously, there is a desire to be as efficient as you can with your workers and to make as few retrieve turns as you can. But especially if you're trying to be in a position to take advantage of someone else pulling off, you might just pull back early to make sure that you have the workers you'd need. The other side of that is, of course, trying not to set up the next player to get too much advantage from you pulling up.

The hallmark player interaction in most worker-placement games is the ability to take a spot that someone else wants and effectively block it out for the round or whatever. The Manhattan Project certainly has that, but with its crazy perpetual-motion/indefinite rounds structure, there is a whole other level of timing and planning and anticipation/bluffing involved in how and when you use or pull back your workers.

Fighters and Bombers and Spies, O My!

Speaking of player interaction, the biggest way that The Manhattan Project turns the whole worker-placement/eurogame-engine-building convention on its head is the inclusion of two very direct and in-yer-face conflict mechanics.

First is the Air Strike action, which lets you take out other players' fighters and bombers as well as dealing damage to their buildings (thereby taking them out of commission until they're repaired).  Whether you make small, surgical strikes that are more about disrupting a player for a turn or two, or if multiple players all gang up on a leader to bomb him into the stone age, there is a huge range of options to use this to your advantage.

In my games so far, however, I haven't actually seen all that much widespread use of Air Strikes. Whether it's just my group's play style/preference, or if it's more because we were all being careful to not open ourselves up to attack as well (which could easily happen if you use your fighters up on the offensive), it never seemed to be all that great an idea to go all gung-ho with a big military action. But both as a threat and as an option for limited use to delay/disrupt a leader's engine, it's a really entertaining mechanic to have available. Plus, the "cold war" atmosphere of having lots of unused armament around just adds to the theme!

I've been bombed!
The Espionage action, however, is a whole different story. In my experience, planning around being able to jump into and take full advantage of this space (and often, the buildings of the person who just pulled up) is one of the most significant factors influencing the play of the game. If you can pull up when the other players only have a worker or two available, though, you can minimize the damage to you and ensure that the space will open up again (hopefully for you) sooner than later. There's even some pretty cool shenanigans that you can pull off by using Contractors on another player's board, which won't get pulled off until they retrieve workers, even if you pull up before then.

From a big-picture perspective, I could definitely see that some traditional eurogame enthusiasts might not like all the direct conflict options in The Manhattan Project. But if your group as a whole just isn't into that sort of thing, there's nothing forcing you to engage with those mechanics. Just like with my group, where the threat of the airstrike is used a lot more than the actual action itself, most groups will be able to play the game to their taste of interaction. Because even without the direct-conflict elements, the game is still very compelling just as a worker-placement and engine-building experience.

Single-Minded Pursuit!

The Manhattan Project is all about building nuclear bombs. There is literally no other way to score points other than building, testing, and loading bombs. Usually, my preference is for games that allow players to choose between a variety of different yet viable paths to achieve victory. But here, I don't seem to really mind the limited focus of the game. Mostly, I think it's because while you're all sort of heading to the same end point, there still are some real choices about how exactly you'll get there.

At its heart, The Manhattan Project is really an engine-building game.  So in addition to all the tactical timing decisions you make from turn to turn, there's also a lot of strategic choices related to which buildings you'll construct, which of the two secondary resources (Enriched Uranium or Plutonium) you'll focus on, how much you'll engage with the Espionage/military elements, and how you then put all these elements together to make the whole thing hum.

Two Different Games?

Okay, so The Manhattan Project is about placing workers and building a bomb-making engine.  What happens in play, though, is that this sort of drives the game to have two pretty distinct phases. In the first "half" of the game, it looks a lot like most other worker-placement games, where the main focus is on choosing which space to use on the main board and most interaction is related to blocking out spots that other people need or finding the quickest way to build up your workforce. Players usually try to delay taking a Retrieve Workers turn as much as they can, doing so only every 5 or 6 turns.

Later in the game, however, once players have constructed most of the buildings they need to run their engine, you want to get in as many cycles of running it as you can. To maximize the effect, you then get into a pattern of Placing and Retrieving workers every other turn or so. At this point, interaction becomes more about finding ways to disrupt the engine of the player (or players) who seems to be doing the best. So obviously, the direct-conflict elements (Air Strikes and Espionage) really come into their own in this phase.

I've actually put a decent amount of thought and analysis into whether this phase shift facet of the game is a good thing or not, because I could see how it could feel a little disjointed or bait-and-switch-ey to some. In the end, though, I've really come to like how it adds more of a dramatic arc to the game that sort of mirrors real life.  It's also very similar to games like Puerto Rico or Acquire where you have to shift gears at one point in the game, and doing well often comes down to gaugeing when is the right time to make the transition.

Paralyzed?

One complaint I've heard about The Manhattan Project is that it's very prone to analysis paralysis, which can lead to loads of downtime and very lengthy games. I've personally never experienced this, however, and I actually think that the structure of the game discourages it to some point.  Early on, turns are very short because you basically only have one or two things to do (placing a worker on the board and maybe a building on your personal board). There can certainly be thought put into this, but you also have time to think about your next potential moves while play moves around the table.

The bigger issue I've heard is that the game can really slow down later on once players have constructed lots of buildings and have lots more options. But to me, if you're doing it right and purchased buildings strategically to build some sort of cohesive engine, placing your workers near the end of the game should be pretty much automatic. You have more options, but you should already know how you planned to use those options from the get-go.

People who overanalyze things will certainly have lots of fuel to fire their analysis paralysis with The Manhattan Project. But once they have a play or two under their belt, people investing a reasonable measure of thought into their moves shouldn't really have any real issue.

Too Short?

In fact, this leads me to my only real complaint with the game as published: it's just too darn short with 4 or 5 players! As I mentioned above, the target number of points scales with the number of players. At 50 or less points (again, 4 or 5 players), this basically amounts to building just two bombs. And since you usually manage to accumulate enough materials to build one smaller bomb in the first phase of the game, you then only have the chance to run your engine a couple of revolutions before someone builds their second one and the game is over. Plus, since the direct-conflict elements don't really become as important until the second phase of the game, you often just don't have the time to use them effectively either.

Obviously, the designer/developer's decision to scale the points was mostly a matter of keeping play time under control. But in my group anyway, we've pretty consistently played The Mahattan Project in 90 minutes or less (actual average is 84 minutes).  I'm also aware that we're a pretty fast-playing group in general, so other groups may have notably longer plays. But as far as I'm concerned, my intention from here on is that I will play to at least 60 points regardless of the number of players, since that seems to be the threshold where you have to at least get that third bomb into play.

Winning a 3-player game with 67 points...
The Verdict!

I guess it's rather obvious, but I think that The Manhattan Project is a pretty incredible game. In addition to looking great and bringing some real innovation to the worker-placement genre, it is one of the absolute best euro/American-style hybrids that I've ever seen.  So far, it's definitely one of my favorite games of 2012, and I really hope to play it a lot more in the future.

• Rules: There are some complex elements, but I've found it incredibly easy to teach and get people into.
• Theme: Unique theme that's supported well artistically and which both informs play and can actually teach you something about the subject matter
• Downtime: Very little early on, but it can get a little longer later in the game when players have more buildings.
• Player Interaction: A lot, both indirect (worker placement) and direct (Airstrikes and Espionage)
• Length: 84 minutes is my average, which actually feels a bit too short sometimes
• GamerChris' Rating: 9 (on the BGG 10-point scale)

Dice Tower Award Nominees!

2012-04-26T20:11:54Z

The Dice Tower Award nominees were recently announced, and since they only allow the best and brightest boardgame minds in the hobby to participate*, I felt compelled to list them here:

Game of the Year:
A Few Acres of Snow: Martin Wallace - Treefrog Games
The Ares Project: Brian and Geoff Engelstein - Z-Man Games
The Castles of Burgundy: by Stefan Feld - Ravensburger
Eclipse: by Touko Tahkokallio – Asmodee
King of Tokyo: by Richard Garfield - IELLO
The Lord of the Rings: The Card Game: by Nate French - Fantasy Flight Games
Mage Knight Board Game: by Vlaada Chvatil - WizKids
Quarriors!: by Mike Elliott and Eric M. Lang - Wizkids
Risk Legacy: by Rob Daviau and Chris Dupuis - Hasbro
Star Trek: Fleet Captains: by Mike Elliott, Bryan Kinsella, and Ethan Pasternack - WizKids

Best Family Game Nominees:
Flash Point: Fire Rescue: by Kevin Lanzing - Indie Boards and Cards
Kingdom Builder: by Donald X. Vaccarino - Queen Games
King of Tokyo: by Richard Garfield - IELLO
Quarriors!: by Mike Elliott and Eric M. Lang - Wizkids
Say Anything Family Edition: by Dominic Crapuchettes - North Star Games

Best New Game Designer Nominees:
Blood Bowl: Team Manager – The Card Game: by Jason Little - Fantasy Flight Games
Flash Point: Fire Rescue: by Kevin Lanzing - Indie Boards and Cards
The Ares Project: Brian and Geoff Engelstein - Z-Man Games
Sentinels of the Multiverse: by Christopher Badell and Paul Bender - Greater Than Games
Nightfall: David Gregg - Alderac Entertainment Group

Best Game Reprint Nominees:
Can’t Stop: by Sid Sackson - Gryphon Games
Confusion: Espionage and Deception in the Cold War: by Robert Abbott - Stronghold Games
Evo: by Philippe Keyaerts - Asmodee
A Game of Thrones: The Board Game (Second Edition): by Christian T. Petersen - Fantasy Flight Games
Puerto Rico: Anniversary Edition: by Andreas Seyfarth - Rio Grande Games

Best Production Values Nominees:
Dungeons & Dragons: The Legend of Drizzt Board Game: by Peter Lee, Mike Mearls, and Bill Slavicsek - Wizards of the Coast
Dungeons & Dragons: Wrath of Ashardalon Board Game: by Peter Lee, Mike Mearls, and Bill Slavicsek - Wizards of the Coast
Mansions of Madness: by Corey Konieczka - Fantasy Flight Games
Risk Legacy: Rob Daviau and Chris Dupuis, Hasbro
Super Dungeon Explore: by Chris Birkenhagen, John Cadice, and Deke Stella - Soda Pop Miniatures

Best Small Publisher Nominees:
Flash Point: Fire Rescue, by Kevin Lanzing - Indie Boards and Cards
Dungeon Run, Mr. Bistro, Plaid Hat Games
Rallyman: by Jean-Christophe Bouvier, Rallyman Inc.
Sentinels of the Multiverse: by Christopher Badell and Paul Bender - Greater Than Games
Bears!: by Anne-Marie De Witt, - Fireside Games

Best Party Game Nominees:
Crappy Birthday: by Brian Weinstock and Amy Weinstock - North Star Games
Dixit: Odyssey: by Jean-Louis Roubira - Asmodee
Reverse Charades Junior Edition: Scott and Bryce Porter - Gryphon Games
Faux-Cabulary: by Matthew Nuccio - Out of the Box
Train of Thought: by Jay Cormier and Sen-Foong Lim - Tasty Minstrel Games

Best Game Expansion Nominees:
Ticket to Ride Map Collection: Volume 1 – Team Asia & Legendary Asia: by Alan R. Moon and Francois Valentyne - Days of Wonder
Thunderstone: Dragonspire: by Mike Elliott and Brent Keith, Alderac Entertainment Group
Small World Underground: by Philippe Keyaerts - Days of Wonder
7 Wonders: Leaders: by Antoine Bauza - Asmodee
Summoner Wars: Master Set, by Colby Dauch - Plaid Hat Games

Most Innovative Game Nominees:
The Ares Project: by Brian and Geoff Engelstein - Z-Man Games
Ascending Empires: by Ian Cooper - Z-Man Games
Paperclip Railways: Tony Boydell, Surprised Stare Games Ltd
Quarriors!: by Mike Elliott and Eric M. Lang - Wizkids
Risk Legacy: by Rob Daviau and Chris Dupuis - Hasbro

Best Game Artwork Nominees:
Dixit: Odyssey: by Marie Cardouat and Pierô- Asmodee
The Lord of the Rings: The Card Game: by various artists - Fantasy Flight Games
Mansions of Madness: by Christopher Burdett, Anders Finer, and Henning Ludvigsen - Fantasy Flight Games
Flash Point: Fire Rescue, by Luis Francisco and George Patsouras - Indie Boards and Cards
A Game of Thrones: The Board Game (Second Edition): by Tomasz Marek Jedruszek and henning Ludvigsen - Fantasy Flight Games

Best War Games Nominees:
Sekigahara: Unification of Japan: by Matt Calkins - GMT Games
Band of Brothers: by Jim Krohn - Worthington Games
A Few Acres of Snow: by Martin Wallace - Treefrog Games
Julius Caesar: by Grant Dalgliesh and Justin Thompson - Columbia Games
Sergeants Miniatures Game: Jeff Billings, Lost Battalion Games

Best Game Theme Nominees:
Dungeon Petz: by Vlaada Chvatil - Z-Man Games
Flash Point: Fire Rescue, by Kevin Lanzing - Indie Boards and Cards
Last Will: by Vladimir Suchy - Rio Grande Games
Yggdrasil: by Cedric Lefebvre and Fabrice Rabellino - Z-Man Games
Takenoko: by Antoine Bauza - Asmodee

Best Digital Boardgame Nominees:
Ascension: Chronicle of the Godslayer: by Robert Dougherty, John Fiorillo, Justin Gary, and Brian M. Kibler – iOS, Playdek
Ticket to Ride: by Alan R. Moon – iOS, Days of Wonder
Forbidden Island: by Matt Leacock, Gamewright – iOS, Button Mash Games
Ghost Stories: by Antoine Bauza - iOS, Repos Productions
Elder Sign: by Richard Launius and Kevin Wilson, Fantasy Flight Games

It's a really good list, and while I still want to try a few more of the games before making my final vote, a lot of the categories have some pretty clear front-runners for me already. You can also go here for the full press release from The Dice Tower.

What do y'all think? What would be your picks?

* Since, you know, I'm on the jury now...