Sunday, February 22, 2009

Dominion - Some Additional Thoughts on Strategy

At our last meetup, I had the opportunity to play Dominion three times, two times using cards besides the beginner version. I've refined my play somewhat and will share with you some of my thoughts.

The basic strategy is to get enough gold in your hand to buy a Province. Failing that, buy a gold if you get 6 or 7 treasures. If less than 6, buy a silver or a card that's better than a silver.

My tendency right now (after only 5 plays) is to try to build highly efficient decks, ie ones that allow me to cycle through as many cards as I can. To this end, my favorite card is the Village (costs 3, gives you +1 card and +2 actions). In the past, I was in love with the Smithy (costs 4, gives you +3 cards) and would get all of them that I could. Now, I would rather load up on Villages and keep the quantity of Smithies to no more than 3.

Another fabulous card for an efficient deck is the Moneylender (costs 4, trash copper for +3 treasure). He gets rid of those early coppers for you and gives you a good jump in treasures for this turn. In the first game where I ever used him, I was able to trash 4 coppers, each time trading them for either Gold or a Province. I wouldn't buy more than one, though.

If your goal is to get to eight treasures in a hand, having an Adventurer (costs 6, allows you to draw through the deck until you get two treasures - discard interim cards). Assuming you have a tight deck and at least two or three golds, you're looking at an instant boost up to Province territory.

Next on my list to try: building decks around Chapel (costs 2, trash up to 4 cards from your hand) where you build a hyper efficient deck and Gardens (costs 4, 1VP for every 10 cards in your deck) where you try to get as many cards as possible.

Wednesday, February 18, 2009

No Thanks!

No Thanks! is simple to learn and quick to play, a perfect filler game.

Each player is given 11 chips, and a turn order is established. A card is them flipped up in the center of the table. The first player has the option of taking the card or placing a chip on it to pass it to the next player. Each card counts against you based on the numerical value on its face, and each chip takes one from the total. The player with the least points after the deck has been gone through wins. The only slightly complicated rules are that some cards are removed from the deck and left face down so that no one knows exactly what cards are in deck and, if you get consecutive cards, only the lowest one counts against you.

Procrastinating for two weeks before posting this allowed me to realize that, out of all the games that we played at the last meetup, this one was the least memorable. I had to go to Boardgamegeek just to remember anything about it. Of course, it probably didn't help that we played two games, and JM kicked my butt both times. I do have a tendency to equate winning and enjoyment.

I'm willing to give it another try if only to see if I can figure out the key to the game. With most games, I pretty quickly ascertain at least the basic strategy, enough at least to keep me in contention. After two plays, I'm still searching...

Pandemic

Pandemic is a unique game in that it's cooperative. It pits you and your friends against the game itself, and, let me tell you, it's not easy to prevail, even on the medium difficulty level.

You and your team represent the Centers for Disease Control and must fight to stop outbreaks of different viruses. Each of you has special powers to help contain and cure, but the little bugs spread fast and furious. If you cure all the viruses, you win. If a certain number of outbreaks occur, you lose.

Unfortunately, JM, Angela, and I allowed pestilence to rule the world. Sorry about that all you who died horrible deaths.

What can you expect from our first attempt? I think that we can beat the medium setup with a little tweaking of our strategy. Man, I'd hate to see the hard level, though.

This one is going to require more play. That's why I'm so happy that my wife got it for me for my birthday!

Tuesday, February 17, 2009

Modern Art

While I can be a bit ambivalent toward card games, I generally love auction games, and JM introduced me to a gem of one last meetup, Modern Art. He also messaged me to let me know that it's on sale for half off at Barnes and Noble here in town and to admonish me for being so slow to update my blog. Sorry!

I did indeed enjoy the game and intend to pick up a copy ASAP.

Each player represents a museum and starts with a hand full of paintings by various artists. Following assorted rules, the players take turns auctioning their collections, receiving money from the other museums at the time of sale. Once five paintings from the same artist have been sold, the round ends.

At the end of the round, values are placed on the artists' worth based upon whose paintings sold the most. This sets a baseline value for subsequent rounds, and the game is on. The museum who manages to acquire the most money wins.

After the first round, the minimum value for the paintings has been clearly set, but occasionally I was allowed to purchase one for lower than that value. If that artist's work was worth $10000 at the end of round one, it will not be lower than that at the end of round 2, and it could go up in value to as much as $40000. Therefore, it makes no sense to let me buy it for less than the minimum $10000. By capitalizing on these mistakes, I ended up finishing with nearly twice as much cash as my nearest competition.

Sunday, February 15, 2009

Take 6

Take 6 is a card game in which each player receives a hand of numbered cards and four cards are placed face up in the center of the table. Taking turns, the players place cards on the table next to the face up cards with the caveat that each one has to be placed next to the one that is closest numerically to it without going under. If you place the sixth card, you have to take the first five cards. If all the cards in your hand are lower than the ones on the table, you choose which row to take and start a new row with yours. Each card also has a point value, which are scored when you take them. Lowest score wins.

It's a short game, and we played it twice. JM kicked my butt the first game, but I managed to pull out a victory the second time.

As far as strategy goes, this game is all about card and hand management. You need to manipulate the situation so that your opponents are forced to take the points instead of you. There does seem to be a lot of luck involved however, because high cards do seem to give you a distinct advantage.

After two plays, I'm still on the fence. I need to play it a few more times to get a better feel for it.

Initial Impression of On the Dot and Jungle Smart

At our last meetup, JM brought out On the Dot and Jungle Smart. I'm reviewing them together because a) we played a lot of new games that night and b) the two are both puzzle games.

In On the Dot, players are given four transparent cards with colored dots on them. A card with a pattern of dots is flipped up, and players must manipulate their cards to replicate that pattern. The first one to do so, gets the card and the point. The game is challenging until you get the trick of it. Once you do, I guess there's fun to be had in trying to find the match before your opponents. Still, I'm not sure of the replayability factor.

Jungle Smart is very similar in that a card is flipped over, all players compete to see who can figure out how to move a lion, elephant, and bear into the order shown first. The trick is that you have to determine the moves mentally and be able to repeat them to the others to win the point. To me, this seems more like a good game to play with kids than a highly competitive adult game.

Overall, both were enjoyable for the first play, but I question how fun they would be with multiple replays.