Coup

 

Coup
Company: Indie Games; Type: Mixed; Players: 2-6; Time: 15 minutes; Genre: Bluffing, Elimination; Rating: 💥💥💥💥💥 I love it!

Along with Ace of Aces and perhaps Trashsexy in the RPG world, this is the perfect pick-up game. To start the game, you are dealt two role cards facedown. The object of the game is to be the last player left with an unexposed (i.e., facedown) card left.

The rules are simple. Every turn you take an action, either a general rule available to anyone or a special rule that is limited to as specific role. Now here's the wrinkle: you don't have to actually have the role to perform a special rule. You just have to successfully bluff your way into doing it.

At any point, another player can challenge your right to perform a specific action. You must then show them a card. If you don't actually have the role in your tableau, you must expose it and leave it in your tableau. That card is now effectively dead. However, if you do have the role, your opponent must expose a card instead and leave it dead in their tableau. You then bury your card in the deck and deal yourself a new card facedown. 

The normal actions include:

Income: Take 1 coin.
Foreign Aid: Take 2 coins.

Coup: See below.

Special roles and actions include:

Duke: Tax to earn 3 coins. Block foreign aid.

Captain: Steal 2 coins from another player. Block steals.

Ambassador: Take two cards from the deck and replace them with any two cards, each of which can be the original card drawn or one from your tableau as a replacement.

Assassin: Pay 3 coins to kill one of another player's cards.

Contessa: Block assassination.

But there is also a built-in clock to the game. If a player accumulates 7 coins, they may initiate a coup against another player and force them (without recourse) to expose a card from their tableau and leave it dead there. At 10 coins, you must initiate a coup. Hence the game's name of Coup.

Jaipur

 

Jaipur
Company: Gameworks; Type: Eurostyle; Players: 2; Time: 30 minutes; Genre: Rummy; Rating: 💥💥💥💥💥 We love it!

One of the things I look for in board games is whether they can effectively scale down to two players. A lot of the time it's my wife and me. So if a game is going to get played much, it needs to scale down accordingly.

Jaipur, by contrast, is a pure two-person game. The theme is that you are a merchant and are hoping to earn your way to becoming the Maharaja's personal factotum. You do this in the game by winning at least two of three rounds of trading.

This is a rummy-style game in which you draft cards from the tableau, match them with cards in your hand and then meld / play them to the board as sets to earn points.

There are six types of cards to match, each of which is a commodity: diamonds, gold, silver, cloth, and leather. There are also camels, which act as null cards (much like a black three in Canasta). The tableau is five cards -- starting out with three camels and two random commodities.

On any given turn, you can take one of the following actions:

Take an individual good: Take the card, deal another to the tableau from the deck

Take several goods: Pick up any two commodity cards from the tableau. Replace them with the same number of either commodity or camels.

Take all the camels: Take all the camel cards, replace them with an equal number of cards dealt to the tableau from the deck.

Turn in sets of cards: Turn in sets of matching cards, except for camels. For each item in a set, draw the next token on top of the stack for the same commodity. If you trade in sets of three, four, or five items, draw a mystery token from the stack denoted for the same-size set.

Now for some wrinkles. First of all the tokens in most stacks reduce in value as you draw down that stack. The highest value commodities (diamonds, gold and silver) require at least two tokens to cash in. The lower value commodities (cloth, spices and leather) don't. And for the record, all silver tokens are worth five.

When your third commodity stack gets depleted, the round ends and you score it. Whoever has most camels, gets the most camels victory token. Add up all the values, and whoever has most points wins that round.

It is a simple game, but with some nuance. First, the game has a high degree of variance in play in terms of initial conditions and how they shape your strategy in the game. Do you hold out for high-value trades? Or do you churn through lower-value ones to accumulate points quickly to end the round early?

Also, nota bene that there is no draw directly into your hand. Fresh cards come out only as a result of your drafting from the tableau. There develops a rhythm to the choices being made, as you are trying to get your stuff done, but also trying to present your opponent with dilemmas to solve in their game. Remarkably, no game feels the same. (Much the same way as I feel about Euchre.)

As a side note, Neil Christiansen introduced this one to me at a Gen Con once, and I was immediately sold on it!

(Neil Christiansen introduced this one to me at Gen Con once. I was immediately sold on it!)

(Neil Christiansen introduced this one to me at Gen Con once. I was immediately sold on it!)

Settlers of Catan

 

Settlers of Catan
Company: Kosmos; Type: Eurostyle; Players: 3-4; Time: 1-2 hours; Genre: Builder; Rating: 💥 I hate it!

I know that this will be controversial. This is one of my two most hated games. Games that I will never willingly play again. Chew on that. And then I will explain.

In my opinion, the game is very much broken and not very fun when and if you realize this. (This is not always the case. I can think of a handful of "broken games" that I find intriguing and continue to play.)

Some minor nitpicks -- none of them fatal. First, the game is rather abstract and oriented primarily to its game mechanics. While it is themed, the theme is largely irrelevant to you play experience in my opinion. Second, its playing space is geomorphic, which I'm generally not a fan of. (This has something to do with my least favorite board game Gammarauders, which is also geomorphic.) Finally, the gameplay environment is highly random, which makes it rather swing-y and hard to plan for.

Also, the choices you make at setup become critical for your future success in the game. Player setup is the single hardest part of the game (see above my point about randomness in this game.) One thing I do like about this game is how it handles turn order in setup: 

There are two rounds to placement, and they switch direction so that the first player to place in round one, becomes the last player in round two. The last player to place in round one, becomes the first player in round two -- essentially doubling up.

On each player's turn, they roll two six-siders. Each space has a number attached to it, two to twelve and with seven excepted. Whichever spaces have the same number as the dice roll produce their commodity to each player that has a town or city located at one of its vertices. On a seven, the robber comes into play and is placed by the player whose turn it is. A space that has a robber on it fails to produce when rolled for again, until the robber is moved again.

Players trade for cards to amass the necessary commodities to build towns, cities, roads or to purchase special cards. Each of these is worth some points. The game ends when a player reaches a total of 10 points, and that person wins.

Here are my two grips that ruin the game for me. First of all, the robber. I HATE the robber. First, it can disrupt consistently and for an extended period any strategy or planning you've engaged in since the very start of the game. Placement of the robber in actual play turns out to typically be less strategic, than personal. Second, my experience is that trading often gets short-circuited by personal embargoes, and that there are insufficient incentives for players to avoid it. My experience has been that trading at ports is almost always more productive than trading with other players. And that is just plain boring!

I mean, if I want to play a game that has that kind of potential to piss me off so thoroughly, I'll play Diplomacy, where at least I feel I have agency in what happens. I know that there are many folk who will strongly disagree with me, since this is one of the most popular games currently on the market. But for me, no way!

Empire Builder

 

Empire Builder
Company: Mayfair Games; Type: Ameristyle; Players: 2-6; Time: 180 minutes; Genre: Builder, Railroad; Rating: 

💥💥💥💥 I like it!

Just for starters, this game feels like it runs longer than an hour-and-a-half. More like 2 to 2-1/2 hours based on my experience. (But I could be wrong.)

At home, we call it in all its versions "choo-choo and crayons. Which I think is actually pretty descriptive of the game. The object of the game is to be the first to accumulate a determined cash fortune. You do this by building railroad lines, upgrading your trains, and shipping goods to selected destinations.

You start with a locomotive card, demand cards (each of which have three destinations and commodities to be shipped there), your starting cash, colored token, and crayon. 

The playing board is a map of the given country for the specific version you playing (more on that in a bit). The map is made up of milestones (clear or otherwise), cities small and large, and commodities to be found at each city. On your turn, you can:

Upgrade your locomotive or draw railroad track: Improving your train either gains you speed or more storage. Drawing track is the name of the game. You can spend your cash connecting milestones from your cities in any direction. Building to clear milestones costs $1 million, cities and other terrain costs somewhat more.

Move your trains, pick up goods and deliver them: Then based on your demand cards, you will pick up goods, move your maximum speed, and deliver goods when you arrive at your destination.

That's it. Albeit there a few more rules. But not really that much more. We personally own and play Empire Builder, British Rails and Lunar Rails. Of these Lunar Rails is by far our favorite. 

There are two main strategies. Payouts depend on the rarity of the commodity and the distance to be traveled. One strategy is to build a compact, hyper-efficient local railroad system that you can then use to deliver goods early and often. The second strategy is to build for the long haul. There is usually one commodity that pays out especially well, because it has an unique origin. In Empire Builder, it's coffee from Mexico; in British Rails, it's clay from Scotland. (I forget what it is in Lunar Rails.) 

Both strategies are viable, and they can and should be combined to some extent. But it must be said, the longer the game goes, the more the advantage goes in favor of the Long Haul strategy. And it scales down to 2 players really well. (This is a go-to game for my wife and me when we decide we want to sit down and play a longer game.)

Hammer of Thor

 

Hammer of Thor
Company: Nova Game Designs; Type: Ameristyle; Players: up to 365; Time: 2+ hours; Genre: Mythology, Recruitment; Rating: 

💥💥💥 meh.

Let me get this out of the way first:

While the publishers claim you can play up to 365, I'd peg it more realistically at somewhere between 3-12 players. (We only played 3-6 ourselves, but I could reasonably see twice as many playing.) I also feel that a playing time of 2 hours seems a little optimistic to me.

With that out of the way, what is the game like? Well, the ultimate goal is to reach and win Ragnarok. And that's pretty much where all the fun of the game is. But when you do reach it, it's a blast!

Unfortunately, the rest of the game, while necessary for recruiting your forces for Ragnarok is repetitive and tedious. First, there are up to three teams involved: Good, Neutral, and Evil. Each player spends their time wandering a constellation map, which is meant to represent the Nine Realms. You run into random encounters based on where you are and interact: negotiate with them, seduce them (if possible), fight them or recruit them. Each choice you make is countered by the choice of a player selected to play your opponent. The movement and encounter resolution mechanics are really much more complicated than they need to be.

As far as the components are concerned, it was an ugly poster map, hundreds of cards that you had to cut out and sort, and some cheap chits used to mark where your players are at. (I've seen re-designs of the game that are very handsome and may indeed improve your playing experience.)

As a Norse mythos fan, I really want this game to work. But in truth it doesn't. It's a few hours of relatively dull play, finished up with a half-hour of excitement. The player on the winning side of the battle with the most reputation earned wins the game.

Having said that, it is the kind of game I might play in the rare case when the mood arises. However, your mileage may vary.

Ace of Aces

 

Ace of Aces

Company: Nova Game Designs; Type: Ameristyle; Players: 2;  Time: 20 minutes; Genre: Dogfight; Rating: 💥💥💥💥💥 I love it!

Ace of Aces is a simple, elegant game. (But must be fiendishly complex in its manufacture and design!) You are a pilot in a single-seated fighter airplane engaged in a 1:1 duel with your opposite number. The beauty of this game is that you see exactly what your pilot would see from their cockpit. The actual mechanic is the picking of maneuvers and then cross-referencing them to end up on the same result page.

Gameplay is actually quite simple and fast:

Both players start on the same page: There is a default page to start the game or to re-start it if you have lost each other and wish to re-engage. Otherwise, it's the result page you share in common from the turn before.

Pick a maneuver You will pick a maneuver from the suite of maneuvers listed at the bottom of the page. Each maneuver has a page number printed below it. When you pick your maneuver, you call out the page number to your opponent. You each go to your assigned interim page.

Cross-reference your maneuvers: On your new, interim page, look up your maneuver and find the page number printed below it. Go to that page.

Players end on a new, common page: You should always land on the same final page number. If you don't, you've done something wrong. Apply the results you visually find. Scoring your hits and starting to tail, if so indicated.

Rinse and repeat.

Some of the strategy of the game is to visualize the maneuvers in your head and figure out "if I do X and they do Y, then we should end up with situation Z" and so on. It's simple, fast and very addictive. And portable -- you can play it while waiting in line, in the backseat of a car, while waiting on friends, etc. There are rules for more advanced and campaign play, but we never really used them, since we had Dawn Patrol for that.

We mainly played the Rotary Series and some Powerhouse. There were also books for the early pusher planes Flying Machines, but we never really had much chance to play it.

Trashsexy

 Trashsexy

Company: Fox and Boar Games; Type: RPG; Players: 3+; Time: 30 minutes; Genre: Fast RPG; Rating: 💥💥💥💥💥 I love it!

This is a game I demoed by playing it twice in a row at Total Con. Imagine a world of intelligent raccoons trying to make their way finding trash and shinies in a world of somethings-, often- hostile humans. And that's Trashsexy in a nutshell.

Trashsexy belongs to a genre of super-short RPGs that can be played in a single session, in the same amount of time and space as you would use in playing a few hands of Coup. I got involved while standing around watching a demo with the game designer (John Harford) and two players. And boy, was it a blast!

In Trashsexy, you play an anthropomorphic raccoon (or as the rules term it, a raccoonicature) whose main goal is to travel between scenes accumulating trash and shinies. You then interact with the environment and its creatures. Each raccoon has both trash and sexy moves. Trash moves tend to be more physical than not. Sexy moves are the opposite, more about attitude than not. One set of moves is your specialty rated at D6, the other is your off-brand set of moves rated at D4. Your target number for success when trying anything is 4, which also includes any pluses or minuses due to environment, obstacles and also even your god-given ability. You also have Kilter (essentially HP), Pudge (your ability to ignore damage X number of times), and Skeeve (your ability to ignore environmental effects X number of times).

Advancement in the scenario is simple. The Trashmaster sets the scene for you. You need to move through X number of scenes, moving from scene to scene after you have accumulated X number of items of trash or shinies collectively as a group. It's a highly imaginative - and improvisational- style of play. (Which just happens to be my sweet spot!)

Trashsexy has an expansion booklet called -- wait for it! -- Tootrashsexy. It is largely about adding more flavor and options to the game. The game designer said that most people he knows who play it tend to do short one-shots. There is, owever, the option to urn it as a more involved campaign. It think it would take a lot of extra effort to accomplish this -- but it may well be worth it. Personally, I've given thought to doing something similar to the anime Pom Poko for an adventure path, with or without the tanuki. Just another thing to add to my to-do list.

(Confession: In my mind, I call this game Sexy Trash Panda. Which is actually a really good name for describing the vibe of it.)

Pandemic

 

Pandemic

Company: Z-Man Games; Type: Eurostyle ; Players: 2-4; Time: 45 minutes; Genre: Collaborative; 
Rating: 💥💥💥💥💥 I love it!

(First, I must say that I actually know the game designer! Matt Leacock was an undergraduate at Northern Illinois University, while Neil Christiansen and I were graduate students there. Matt was part of our gaming group and created our first double oval racetrack for our extended, multi-set Daytona 500.)

The object of the game is for the team to amass cures for each color epidemic before the game defeats them by tipping into a worldwide pandemic through infection, by running out of cards to be played, or by depleting the infection pool of cubes for any individual color. There are a number of tipping points in the game where the team can lose, because of just that one extra thing than happened . . . .

Each player has a limited number of actions that they can take. Each also has a special power that modifies one of the existing default rules in their favor. Players need to work together, to plan and execute their plays with an eye to not only what they can do, but what actions the other players will be taking after they go.

This is a game that scales well. My wife and play it a lot as a two-player game. One tip: when playing as two-people, it is highly recommended that one of the roles be the Medic. This is a pure collaborative game. And the theme is well-realized and works well with game mechanics.

--LM

Detroit-Cleveland Grand Prix

 

Detroit-Cleveland Grand Prix

Company: Mayfair Games; Type: Ameristyle; Players: 2-6; Time: 1 hour; Genre: Racing; Rating: 💥💥💥💥💥 I love it!

This game is based on the previous Daytona 500 put out by Milton Bradley in the early 1990s. It is a simple racing game in which an entire deck of cards is dealt out to all the players. Based on their resulting hand, they bid on cars by color for them to own and race in the current heat. After running a number of races, the winner is determined to be the player having the most money in their bank in the end.

As cars are purchased they are placed in order on the gameboard, with the first car purchased having pole position and making the first play. Each game card has a series of colored dots with movement numbers in descending order. When a player plays a card, they must move all the colored cars in ranked order the maximum value of movement points they are permitted by card and capable of moving at that moment on the gameboard. Cars always move forward, whether directly or on a diagonal. If they are blocked, however, they can end up losing some or all of their movement.

Unlike Daytona 500, there are cutbacks and curves where the number of lanes are limited. It is to your advantage to get into those cutbacks and curves before other cars, so as to limit their available movement and not to limit yours in return. Sequence of play on a card is an important component of the game.

Whenever we play, we always include the rule about drafting from Daytona 500 into our game. The rule is that if a car directly in front of you starts its move, you automatically get to draft behind them into that square. Drafting can also be a key component and vital strategy to efficiently moving your car around the track.

Each place in the race is worth a certain sized purse. Because the goal of the game is to have the largest bank at the end of one or more races, placing consistently at second or third can be even more valuable than getting first in a given race. It is equally important not to overbid on your cars. I generally spend the minimum value of $10,000 for most cars, but up to $30,000 for pole position. Going first has some intrinsic value, in and of itself.

It is a dead simple game to teach and play, but there is some nuance in how you play your hand and move the cars around the board. To me, this game is the ultimate in simplexity.

Circus Maximus

 

CIRCUS MAXIMUS

Company: Avalon Hill; Type: Ameristyle; Players: up to 10; Time: 2 hours; Genre: Racing; Rating: 💥💥💥💥 I like it!

This game started its life out as one game out of a two-game set put out by Battleline Publications in the late 1970s to early 1980s. The rights for both games were bought out by Avalon Hill. And that is how Circus Maximus came to be as a solo game for sale.

The game is about chariot-racing, Ben Hur -style in imperial Rome. The object of the game is to be first around the oval track in three laps. Players have four points to distribute among the three attributes that constitute a racing team: Driver, Chariot, and Team of Horses.  Driver determines the skill modifier you apply to your driving checks, Chariot determines its relative weight (light, medium or heavy), and Team of Horses determines their combined speed and endurance.

Movement Order is determined by drawing colored chits from a cup, bag or bowl. Players determine their base speed, may whip their horses to add to their movement, and then must move around the track. On their turn, they may also whip another team's horses or may ram chariots. When they corner, they must roll for chariot flips if over the safe speed score for their current lane. And that's it!

There are advanced rules for running a racing campaign, for gambling on the races, and for skullduggery. I've never played those rules (but would have loved too!). With those rules in-play, I could eventually see elevating my rating to an actual five booms!

--LM

Diplomacy

 

DIPLOMACY

Company: Avalon Hill; Type: Ameristyle; Players: up to 7; Time: 5+ hours; Genre: Geopolitical, Treachery; Rating: 💥💥💥💥💥 I love it!

This was the second-ever game I learned at STC in high school. Again, it is WWI -themed. It is best described as a game of geopolitical chess set on a pre-WWI map. An ideal game has between 6-7 players and typically runs 5+ hours. Typically ending in a "draw" of sorts, usually with a clear sense of who is "winning" though.

The gameboard has a large number of provinces on it, some with "dots" and many without. The dots are supply centers. There are 35 supply centers total on the board. Each country starts with 3 supply centers, or in the case of Russia, 4. The goal is to win, claim and hold the majority of those supply centers -- for a total of 18 supply centers. Achieving this is a solo win. 

The rules to the game are simple. In its shortest version: the players write moves for their on-board units, the orders are read, and they are resolved. But the slightly longer version is this:

👉 Each turn is a season in a calendar year, Spring or Fall. Typically starting out in Spring 1901. Each turn has a negotiation phase and a movement / resolution phase.

👉 No space can have more than one unit in it. Units can move, hold or support. (In the case of fleets at sea, they can also convoy an army from one coastal province to another.)

👉 Adjacent units to a target space can support a move into it. Whoever has more effective strength for moving into a space wins. Supports can be cut by attacks on the supporting unit, thereby reducing the effective strength of the target move.

👉 Powers gain ownership by occupying a space during the Fall phase. They can then build units up in vacant home supply centers up to a total number of units equal to the total number of supply centers owned. If someone owns 18+ supply centers at the end of Fall, they win!

👉 Negotiation is critical. You need help to win, but only one player can win! Lying and backstabbing are a necessary feature of the game.

A brutal game, but it can also be exhilarating! Most games, however, don't end in a solo win. Sometimes, this is because the game achieves a stalemate. But more usually, it is because the players have reached a time limit, either planned or by the limit of their collective endurance to play on. At that point, the "win" is usually given to the power that owns the most supply centers at the agreed-upon end of game.

There are three challenges to scheduling / arranging gameplay:

1. Number of players needed: The optimal number of players is seven. You can get by at six, but with a neutral Italy. After that, the fewer players involved negatively impacts balance and playability of the game.

2. Time Commitment: Five hours of gameplay is typical and generally considered the minimum time for a Diplomacy game. Albeit what's usually considered to be a "short game."

3. Emotional Stress: Because of the competitive-cooperative nature of the game, and the fact that lying and backstabbing are part of the game, it can be the game that damages / destroys friendships if expectations aren't carefully managed. (My mantra for this: Remember it's just a game. And whatever happens in Diplomacy, stays in Diplomacy.)

If you are bold, with a metaphorically thick skin, and a love for interpersonal conflict and resolution, this is the game for you! If not, you should probably stay away from it for the sake of your mental health. Caveat emptor!

Trivia Fact: Reportedly, Diplomacy was played in the White House during the Nixon administration by Henry Kissinger!

--LM

Fight In the Skies / Dawn Patrol

 

FIGHT IN THE SKIES / DAWN PATROL

Company: TSR; Type: Ameristyle; Players: 2-12; Time: up to 2 hours; Genre: Dogfight; 

Rating: 💥💥💥💥💥 I love it!

This was the first "wargame" I learned in our Strategy & Tactics Club in HS. (And it also inaugurated my journey into becoming an amateur historian of WWI.) The version I knew then was called Fight In The Skies (TSR 1975) and was the fifth edition and was designed by Mike Carr.

It was a grid-based game that simulated WWI dogfighting in a variety of historical aircraft, primarily along the Western Front. We used to call it Luck In the Skies for the high degree of chance involved. The system used 2D6 and involved dice rolls for everything: 

Initiative, Gun Jams, Chance to Hit, Hit Factors, Hit Locations, Critical Hits, Pilot Hits, Pilot Wounds, Consciousness, Overdives, Chances of Crashing, and so on.

Percentage chances for everything were also based on the bell curve of 2D6. So, a 5% chance of something happening was to roll an 11, a 10% chance would be a roll of 9, etc. (As a human outlier for bad luck, I was usually on the wrong side of the results. Lost many, many plans -- but never a pilot!) I would rue this, but after reading many accounts of early flight and dogfighting, the very swingy-ness of it all captures the experience and period quite well.

Learning the performance characteristics of each aircraft and the tactics of the period were crucial for improved performance when playing the game. You developed your favorite airframes -- when flying British, for me, it was the SE5 / SE5a and when flying German, it was the Albatros DV / Albatros DVa. You could set up a simple dogfighting scenario in just a few minutes by rolling for combat date and for available aircraft on just a few relevant tables.

In 1982, TSR released the retitled seventh edition as Dawn Patrol and added some historical roleplaying tables for nationality, military awards, and pilot advancement from aircraft to aircraft over time. In college, we ran a chronological campaign where we actually experienced the advancement of aircraft month-by-month from early 1917 to the end of the war November 1918.

I can't tell you how much joy I've gotten out of playing this game. (But not one Ace!) Trivia Fact: FITS / Dawn Patrol is the only gaming event to be featured at every Gen Con since its inception back in 1968!

--LM

About This Blog

About This Blog

Dedicated to tabletop gaming, but most especially boardgaming. It will include reviews of games, their design, and some suggested strategies for your successful play of them.

Plus I have created a Design Dictionary to define relevant terminology I use concerning their genre, their design, and related concepts. 

Lastly, I'll be using a five- "boom" rating system: 💥💥💥💥💥 = Loved It!  💥💥💥💥 = Liked It!  💥💥💥 = Meh.  💥💥 = Didn't Like It.  💥 = Hated It!