Long Games

Played Age of Conan and Android. I really enjoyed both games, but I'm not close to being able to review them.

I've been Louis Blaine in both Android games. They've been different cases (which make the game play differently), but same character. I even ended up with the same starting plot.

In the second game, I played Louis more in character. He didn't have the maga-happy ending with his wife, but did catch the criminal. Going for the marginally happy ending gave Louis extra powers (ability to move evidence after following up a lead), which isn't there if you resolve the first 3 days favorably. Being able to place evidence helped a lot (Louis was also obsessed with his suspect).

But there is so much more to the game: 4 other characters to try, many other cases, different strategies to try out with each character. Only problem is the length-phobic gamers make it harder to get played than other games.

Played a full game of Age of Conan (as Aquilonia). I seemed to be doing pretty good conquering territory, but the game ended shockingly: Stygia crowned Conan king. Last time I checked Conan hated Stygia, but they had enough "women" tokens to win Conan over.

I had also left 1 army unit alone next to Stygia. They were able to attack it for a Crom counts the dead token. This was enough to give them +3 points (instead of +1 for ties on Crom counts the dead). Did I mention that I lost by 1 point?

Although, if he thought he wouldn't win via crowning Conan the game would have ended normally and Hyperborea would have won. They had the majority of Monster and Treasure tokens (+10 points) which would have put them in the lead.

It is amazing to play a quick 3.5 hour game (with 3-4 players, one player left early), and still be within striking distance of each other. The "rubber banding" mechanism of the Conan bonus card didn't seem to come into play (although that might be because Hyperborea had it and they kept winning Conan auctions).

I'd like to play the game again as a different kingdom (probably one of the sorcerous ones) to see how the game changes, but as it is the game is great fun.

Not sure when/if I'll be picking up a new game. The current crop of games are very fun (at least the first few times) and need a lot of time. This is probably a good thing, why spend money on a "disposible game"?

Rules 2fer

Some game publishers release rules before the game is in stores. Some people feel like they can review games based on reading the rules. Maybe that is true for some games and/or some gamers, but I think it is like reviewing a film after reading the shooting script. Fantasy Flight posted rules for both Android and Age of Conan. I have played Android since then, but Age of Conan still isn't out.

So let's talk about the rules for Android. Are they long, complicated, and hard to grasp first time? Yes. Are they "strongly thematic"? A set of rules governing the behavior of Noir detectives seems questionable.

I was able to write 5 whole sentences about the rules. Like number of players or play time unless long "meaty" rules aren't enjoyable then there's nothing to scare you away. But the rules aren't the game.

Specifically there are lots of cards which have special rules on them which change the game for you. Without reading all the cards, you can't know how the game will play.

Even playing for the first time, I couldn't really get the system. It is big and different and hard to evaluate. After the game, I thought about what had happened for days afterward (which is something I enjoy in games).

The more I thought about what had happened to my character and how the game played out, the more I could see the theme in the game played.

I played Louis Blaine. He's a corrupt cop who let his partner die just before the game starts. His wife knew something was up and left him. I spent most of the first week trying to get Blaine back with his wife. This gave me 7 VP, but I was kind of confused with what to do. I was in a bad mood and that somehow translated into Rachel (the bounty hunter) having her car break down. I figured she was out of the game for the time being. And then I turned my attention to Caprice (the psychic).

For the second week Caprice was pelted with Nightmares and emotional trama. Her sanity began to slip (even though I was now in a good mood). Louis had decided to end his relationship with Mr. Li (the underworld guy who Louis sold his partner out to). During the beginning of the week, Louis managed to corner Mr. Tanaka and beat him to death with a lead pipe.

Louis's plot was going so well he as it entered the second part of the second week. Then I realized that Louis couldn't be corrupt any more and have a happy ending. The cards I drew to frame suspects and throw out evidence caused me to gain bad baggage. I couldn't even gain favors like I used to. I stuck it out and managed to resolve the plot for 7 more VP.

However, I'd burned all my favors trying to reconcile Louis with Sarah. With the favors spent I couldn't profit from the work I did uncovering the conspiracy either. And I couldn't sway guilt at the end of the game. I ended up with 14 VP. Thematically, I chose to stop being corrupt, but it meant that the criminal got away.

Which seems like a very Noir story, but I only realized the importance of my decisions after the game was finished. I would lost more points pursuing the happiest endings than I gained from them.

This is how Blaine played. I am sure that the other detectives play very differently. I'm interested to see how they play.

I've kind of rambled long enough about Android. Age of Conan isn't out yet. So who knows how it actually plays. Just like Android, Age of Conan has decks of cards. The rules for Age of Conan don't seem all that thematic (whatever that means), but the flavor could well be in the cards.

I am waiting anxiously to find out.

2 Recent Games

I have still been playing board games (dispite the last few console game posts). Don't really have any reviews, but here are some impressions of games. Recently played 2 games which are "top of the class" to some people: Agricola and Descent: Journeys in the Dark.

Agricola is fun. It isn't the greatest thing since sliced bread. But it is fun. If you remember my gripe about 7 Ages (seemed too gamey because when an empire you have in China produces, your empire in the middle east can only produce if you take a point penalty).

My feelings could also be the result of how I was taught Agricola. After going on and on about how difficult the game was, and how a score of 20 points was "amazing" for first time players, the two new players scored a minimum of 28 points. I had 32 on my first game (which was 2 points away from the winner).

I wasn't thinking hard at all. Maybe the game is like Blue Moon City and scores are automatically close. I enjoyed Blue Moon City better. The decisions seem harder in Blue Moon City. It is a no-brainer to take 10 wood if you have no fences and there's a pile available.

It is like In the Year of the Dragon (in that it is a role-selection and engine building game), except that there is only 1 path to victory: the balanced farm. You don't have the dynamic interplay between prestige and victory points. Unlike ItYotD you only score points at the end so there's no tension between banking points now versus setting up big points at the end of the game. As long as you sit to the left of a player that wants to go first, you also end up with decent turn order for free (slight seating issue).

Agricola is still a fine game. I'd play it again. But it isn't a great game for me.

I also played one game of Descent. Descent feels like a tactical combat game more than a dungeon crawler. Also the person playing Overlord gave us gold chests instead of copper ones so the adventurers were really overpowered for the adventure.

I never felt that the adventurers were in any danger, but figuring out the optimal approach to take out the monsters we did face was interesting.

The mechanics of the game were fun. But it is very hard to evaluate the balance of the scenario we played because it was played wrong. There seems to be a good mix of ranged, magic, and melee options. I specialized in ranged attacks so I might have missed something. Also we didn't have a melee character in the game.

I would play Descent over Agricola if offered both. With mistakes in the scenario, I don't think Descent was given a fair deal. It would be fun to play the same scenario with a different character or even as the Overlord.

Dunwich Horror

Dunwich Horror isn't an expansion to Arkham Horror; it's an integral part of Arkham Horror.

I have 3 problems with Arkham horror. Sometimes there's no good move to make (which can be especially frustrating if you can't do anything because of one unlucky die roll). The game gets easier after a certain point (closing a certain number of gates). One Great Old One is basically the same as the next. Dunwich solves my problems.

There is always something that can be done with the new expansion. Maybe try that task or mission you've gotten. How about heading to Dunwich to keep the Dunwich Horror under wraps? Or even take insanity or injury instead of losing the critical items and clues you need to seal the next gate. With Dunwich there is a choice between different strategies. Is it better to head to Dunwich? Close a gate? Do that mission?

Gate bursts prevent the feeling of safety given from sealing gates in the original game. Now a sealed gate is just a temporary stop-gap before the Great Old One awakens and everything destroyed. This does make the game harder, but saving the world from eldritch horror should be hard.

Speaking of Great Old Ones the 4 new ones change the dynamic of the game more than the original ones. These aren't like Ithaqua (street locations are slightly more hazardous).

Shudde M'ell destroys buildings forever. No more pat strategies relying on trading monsters at South Church for blessings or newspaper for money. And if there are too many monster surges (from open gates) too many buildings are destroyed and the Great Old One arises and everyone loses. Open gates are a big deal now.

Glaaki's strength lies in his undead servants. Each time one enters play it triggers bad effects for investigators. If all of them enter play Glaaki awakens and go immediately to the end game. It might seem like a good idea to always kill Glaaki's servants, but you don't get a trophy and they just go back on Glaaki so their negative effects hit the investigators when they come back into play. Also Glaaki's attack raises the terror level. If you ignore terror during play (focusing on arming for a fight with Glaaki) then the last fight might end before it begins. Servants enter play when allies die which makes the terror track more important with Glaaki.

The upcoming Kingsport Horror expansion sounds like it will add event more diversity to the end fight with the Great Old One (although, hopefully, it shouldn't come to that). Epic Battles sound like another welcome addition to the game.

Unfair Comparison: Runebound with All Expansions Versus Base Arkham Horror

Runebound isn't so much a game as it is a gaming system. With so many different rules tweaks and expansions (even a second edition) it is a hybrid role-playing game/board game.

Just like RPGs there is a lot of customization. Each group can play Runebound differently. Some groups play as multiplayer solitaire. Others add class decks for more interaction. Don't like the default fantasy setting? Play in Arabian deserts with Sands of Al-Kalim. Tired of the same old monsters, use a challenge deck expansion. Play an all against one game with Midnight expansion. Sail around with the Isle of Dread. Don't like fighting Dragon Lords, there are Giant Lords, Storm Lords, members of the dire Cult of the Rune, and so forth available in adventure variants.

Arkham horror is based on the Call of Cthulhu RPG. There are 8 different Ancient Ones in the base game. Everyone always works together to stop the Ancient One from doing whatever evil it wants. The Ancient Ones do give a bit of variety to the game, but each Ancient One is basically trying to open Gates. The differences between them are minor game effects and different number of gates needed to open.

I like Runebound better than the base version of Arkham Horror. There always seems to be something to do to get closer to the win in Runebound. Maybe save up money for that nice item in Dawnsmoor (it is nice to see what you will get so you can try to manage your money). In Arkham, I frequently find myself without a viable option on my turn (maybe I'm just bad at Arkham, but having no good moves is boring).

You can also level up your Runebound character and improve their stats. What makes the game work is leveling your character, moving on to harder encounters (as you level). And trying to keep ahead of the other players leveling. In Arkham there is no leveling. Monsters just come out at random (easy and hard mixed).

How do they compare on story? There is an effort at giving flavour text which has a story to encounter cards in Arkham. These cards are randomly drawn and typically give a boon or just bad stuff depending on the location you are in (and if you need to roll against stats).

In contrast, Runebound has story progression. It does have random stuff (not tied to location) called Encounters, but it also has Events. Events are global effects which give the game a progression, and sense of story. Even games where Event text is ignored have this sense of progression (seeing the Cult of the Rune spreading its corruption across the land, experiencing increasingly worse Storm cards, and so on).

This is not to say that Arkham is a bad game. I love it with expansions, but the base game is sorely lacking fun for me.