Die Säulen der
Erde

rezensiert von Peter Riedlberger

Ich kenne das gleichnamige Buch nicht; ja mehr noch, ich ahnte nicht die Existenz desselben, ehe
ich das gleichnamige Brettspiel in Händen hielt. Das will heißen, dass ich garantiert keinen
Kommentar dazu abgeben werde, ob das Spiel das “Feeling” des Buchs transportiert. Mich
stört am Brettspielnamen, dass er so extrem sperrig ist und ich ihn nicht mal eindeutig zu
“Säulen” verkürzen kann, weil ein anderes Essen-2006-Spiel “Die Säulen von
Venedig” heißt. So benutz’ ich ab jetzt das äußerst unansehnliche SdE.

Der Karton von SdE beinhaltet sechs Holzklötzchen, aus denen sich eine Kathedrale zusammensetzt.
Am Ende einer Runde verbaut der aktuelle Startspieler sein Klötzchen, und der neue Startspieler
schnappt sich das Teil, das die nächste Runde beenden wird. Die Kathedralenklötzchen sind also eine
der wertigsten Formen der Startspielermarkierung und des Rundenzählers, die man so antrifft.
Ansonsten spielen sie keine (!) Rolle für den Spielablauf. Nein, keine Villa-Paletti-Elemente.

Das Vergleichsspiel ist vielmehr das unter “echten” Spielern begeistert aufgenommene
Caylus. Wie bei Caylus platzieren die Spieler ihre Handlungssteine auf dem Spielfeld. Sobald diese
Platzierungsrunde abgeschlossen ist, werden diese Handlungssteine einer festen Reihenfolge nach
ausgewertet: Der eine kann sich vor dem Ereignis der Runde schützen, der andere kriegt eine
Sonderkarte, hier gibt’s einen oder zwei kostenlose Siegpunkte, dort stellt man sich hin, um
keine Steuern bezahlen zu müssen, um Waren zu (ver)kaufen oder um der neue Startspieler zu werden.
Soweit ist das Prinzip vertraut.

Wie werden die Handlungssteine platziert? Jeder Spieler hat drei davon, und die wandern in den
beliebten schwarzen Sack, um vom Startspieler gezogen zu werden. Der erste gezogene Stein kann
platziert werden, das kostet aber 7 Gold. Egal, ob der erste Stein gesetzt wird oder nicht: Der
zweite kostet 6 Gold. Das geht so weiter, bis der Preis 0 Gold beträgt. Dann wird garantiert
gesetzt, und wenn alle Steine gezogen wurde, werden die abgehandelt, bei denen der Besitzer zuvor
geizte. Die kann er jetzt kostenlos setzen.

Schöner Mechanismus. Werde ich gleich am Anfang gezogen, kriege ich das, was ich will – zu einem
enormen Preis. Warte ich noch ein bisschen zu, könnte jemand anderes vorher viel Geld ausgeben.
Außerdem sind dann ja nur noch zwei Steine von mir im Sack. Der einzige Möglichkeit, diese Ziehung
zu beeinflussen, ist das Recht des Startspielers, einmal (!) pro Runde einen gezogenen Stein sofort
wieder zurückzuwerfen.

Es geht in diesem Spiel um Siegpunkte. Siegpunkte werden i.d.R. von Handwerkern produziert, die
i.d.R. einen der drei Rohstoffe Sand, Stein, Holz zu Punkten umwandeln. Ein richtig mieser
Handwerker wandelt drei Sand-Marker in einen Siegpunkt, ein richtiger guter wandelt einen Stein in
zwei Siegpunkte, der beste Handwerker wandelt ein Holz plus ein Metall (ein Sonderrohstoff) in
satte sechs Siegpunkte.

Wie kommt man Handwerker und Rohstoffe? Das geht zwar auch im Spielteil mit den
Handlungssteinen auf dem Brett (man kann Rohstoffe kaufen, oder durch Sonderkarten bekommen, oder
…), aber eigentlich ist dafür die allererste Phase zuständig. Da liegen 2 Handwerker plus 7
Rohstoffkarten aus. Beginnend beim Startspieler schnappt sich jeder Spieler eine Karte, solange wie
er will und zahlen kann. Handwerker kosten Gold (das man ansonsten für u.a. die Pöppelverteilung
und die Steuer braucht), Rohstoffkarten kosten Arbeiter. Davon hat man jede Runde 12 zur Verfügung.
Für eine Steinkarte, die 4 Steine produziert (die teuerste im Spiel) braucht man z. B. gleich 10
davon.

Damit hätt’ ich die Zugreihenfolge mehr oder weniger durch, wenn diese auch anders herum
abläuft wie mein Text: Erste Phase Handwerker + Rohstoffe, zweite Phase Pöppel platzieren, dritte
Phase Pöppel werten. Die letzte dieser Wertungen ist das Erzeugen von Siegpunkten. Das Ganze
geschieht sechs Mal, dann ist das Spiel vorbei.

SdE ist ein sehr gutes Spiel. Bisher hatte jeder von uns, der es spielte, großen Spaß dabei. Es
gibt viele Möglichkeiten etwas zu tun, sodass man sich nicht zu einer Strategie gedrängt fühlt.
Gleichzeitig ist das Ganze hervorragend ausgewogen. Die eigenartige Methode der
Aktionsstein-Platzierung bewirkt, dass Grübler den Zug nicht zuvor komplett durchrechnen können und
sich daher zeitmäßig zurückhalten müssen. SdE ist eine Art Caylus Lite – im positiven Sinne.

Yspahan

reviewed by Peter Riedlberger

“Yspahan” is a German-style board game produced by Ystari. This may already vouchsafe
for its quality since Ystari delivered only excellent games so far. Fortunately,
“Yspahan” is no exception to this rule.

As most full-blown board games, “Yspahan” is about victory points. How do you get
them? Those numerous, little coloured wooden cubes and the game board, which features a city map
layout, might suggest a majority mechanism like we had so often since “El Grande” times –
but far from it.

The city is divided into four quarters, and those quarters again in neighbourhoods. After seven
turns (“a week”), victory points are scored for every completed neighbourhood. Once you
start a neighbourhood (i.e. you put the first cube into a house of a neighbourhood in a quarter),
no other player is allowed to put their cubes into houses of this particular neighbourhood. So, the
challenge is not to get more houses than other players, but to complete the neighbourhood before
scoring takes place.

How do you get your cubes into the city? This takes us to the most interesting novelty of
“Yspahan”, the dice board. At the start of each turn, the starting player rolls 9 dice.
He groups them according to the number they show, and accordingly, he ends up with 1-6 different
groups.

First, all dice showing the lowest number are placed onto the first spot. Then, all dice showing
the highest number are put onto the last spot. Those two spots represent camels and money,
respectively. Within the framework of this game, think of camels just as another currency, just as
useful as money. Some things are paid with camels, others with gold, a few require both.

Let’s image that there were two 1s and three 6s. The first player could now choose either to
take two camels, or three coins. Got the idea?

However, there are of course six different spots, and the four others represent the four
quarters. Every die on such a spot means you may place one cube into the respective quarter.

Once a player chooses an action, he takes all the dice from the spot he chose. The next player
must do something different. Therefore, in each turn, only one player may put cubes in any one
quarter. This is exactly why it may get difficult to get your neighbourhood full before scoring
day.

There is another, statistical challenge. Rolling six dice, one usually does not end up with
every number from 1 to 6 in the result, meaning that one or more quarters will not be accessible
(and those quarters are the ones, which offer the most victories points, of course). The starting
player can do something about it: Play up to 3 coins, and add up to 3 dice. Those dice are only
useable for him, and they often tip the scale and make all neighbourhoods available.

My review is already getting long, and I’ve only explained a mere third of game play.
I’ll try to catch up. Instead of taking the coins/camels associated with a spot, or placing the
cubes, a player may always choose one of two other actions: Taking a special card (well, the usual
stuff: “free camels”, “change camels and coins as you like”, “get victory
points for coins/camels” etc.) or moving the supervisor.

The supervisor is a token you move on the game board. The cube in the house in front of which
the supervisor stops gets kicked out and is put on the caravan. Sounds pretty aggressive, huh? In
fact, it’s not. The caravan is another game mechanism for earning victory points but it works
obviously according to different rules. This means you almost always kick out your own cubes, not
those of your fellow players.

There is a third and last way to earn victory points: At the end of each of their individual
turns, players may buy developments (e.g. “every time you collect camels, you get one
additional camels”, “every time you put a cube in the caravan, you get a card for
free” or “every time you score for neighbourhoods, get an additional 2 VPs for each
completed neighbourhood”). These developments do not only offer those special powers but add
some VP as well.

The most important strategy hint is that you need to buy those developments that match your
strategy. If you want to win by neighbourhood majorities, go for “place one extra cube every
time you place cubes” and “get 2 VPs more when scoring”. For caravan gaming, you
need “move the supervisor up to three places for free” and “get a free card every
time you send a cube to the caravan”.

This is, basically, the rule set of “Yspahan”. It allows for carefully planning
different strategies. Yet at the same time, a player whose turn it is does not have an overwhelming
number of choices. Accordingly, “Yspahan” can be played with an appropriate amount of
time, and even deep thinking players will not annoy their fellow players for too long while making
their choices.

“Yspahan” should be as enjoyable to casual gamers as it is to real buffs. In my eyes
it is one of the best games of the 2006 vintage.

Günther provides more information for finding a good strategy here.

1. Säulen der Erde
==================

Andrea kannte es noch nicht, Moritz hatte es 2x mit signifikant falschen Regeln in Essen gespielt, Loredana und ich 1x als Zweipersonenspiel erprobt. Aber alle hatten wir kolossal viel Spaß dabei, und trotz aller unkalkulierbaren Glückselemente war das Ergebnis erstaunlich eng: Moritz gewann, dann drei Punkte Abstand, dann die anderen drei einer direkt hinter dem anderen. Das Ziehen der Baumeister verhindert, das Züge komplett kalkulierbar werden, sodass sich das Ganze in vernünftiger Zeit spielen lässt.

2. Yspahan
==========

Auch hier: 4 enthusiastische Spieler (Walter, bevor du mich wegen Punkten anmailst: Mail die Liste an, denn ich hab nicht gefragt). Allerdings war das Ergebnis hier klarer, die Punkteabstände am Ende ziemlich groß. Ich habe wieder gewonnen, aber doch anders als bei HiG. Dort hatte ich als einziger alle Ausbauten; gestern fehlten mir 2, während alle anderen alle hatten. Bei HiG hatte ich keine einzige Häuserwertung, gestern kamen vielleicht 40% meiner Punkte aus Häusern. Eines ist sicher: Die Karawane darf nicht ignoriert werden, allein schon wegen der Gratis-Sonderkarten.

Noch ein (noch nie aufgetretenes) Kuriosum: Am Ende von Yspahan dachte ich gefühlsmäßig, es sei 22:30. Dieses Gefühl teilten Loredana und Andrea. Schock: Die Funkuhr zeigt 00:07. Moritz schafft es (zum Glück!), uns drei zu überzeugen, noch ein Spiel zu auszuprobieren, und so kommen wir zum dritten Knüller des Tages:

3. 24/7
=======
… ist eine Mischung aus zwei Spielen, mit denen man mich jagen kann: Scrabble und Kniffel. Man hat ein Scrabble-Brett, und statt Buchstaben stehen halt Zahlen auf den Steinen. Man muss, um zu punkten, gewisse Konstellationen basteln, etwa “3er Straße” oder “Vierling” oder “insgesamt 24 Punkte”, und zwar in der Reihe, Spalte oder Diagonale. Klar, dass da auch manchmal mehrere Scorings auf einmal erzielt werden können, wenn der Stein 'sitzt'. Das Spiel ist schnell (obwohl wir etwas Angst haben, dass entscheidungsunfreudige-allzu-kalkulierende Spieler für 24/7 ungeeignet sind) und macht höllisch Spaß. Ich wollte es sofort kaufen, aber es ist mal wieder Sunriver Games, und nicht mal Delayed Reactions führt die. Also höllisches Porto mit Funagain bezahlen oder einen Freund in den USA belästigen … Moritz gewann, der Rest folgte in Abständen. Da 24/7 für mich eine Absacker-Alternative zu Bluff darstellt (im Gegensatz zu 'soundsoviel nimmt' oder 'Coloretto'), muss es her!

Fazit: Selten so außergewöhnlich gute Spiele gehäuft erlebt! Der Abend war historisch!

Yspahan machte es möglich: Jeder wollte dabeisein und schon 6 Tage vor dem Countdown waren alle WPG-Plätze vergeben und die Mannschaften für zwei getrennte Spielorte benannt. Am Westpark kam eine reine Männerrunde zustammen, in Schwabing trafen sich zwei Pärchen zum Flotten Vierer.
Bei den Männern wurden lediglich Brettspiele absolviert. Hier die Zusammenfassung.
1. “Yspahan”
Ein neues Super-Spiel von Ystari Games, die sich zu einem Garant für höchste Spielansprüche gemausert haben. Auch in “Yspahan” ist alles stimmig, ausbalanciert, vom Konzept her intelligent und von der spielerischen Reife einfach beste Klasse. Es gibt keine Schwächen, nicht einmal vom Ansatz her:
Schon allein der Würfelmechanismus, mit dem die Spieler ihre zulässigen Aktionen auswürfeln, ist äußerst geistreich. Mit diesem Element wird das spielerische, lockere Element in das ansonsten streng planbare Spielgeschehen hineingebracht. Wer gewinnt, war zweifelsfrei der Beste, wer verliert, hat schlichtweg Pech gehabt.
Viele verschiedene Strategien bieten sich an; welche davon zum Sieg führt, wird Peter nicht einmal in seiner Rezension verraten: Ladenbesitzer, Kamelhändler, Geldwechsler, Architekt, Würfel-Statistiker oder Glücksritter, für alle diese Charaktere gibt es Betätigungsfelder mit Umsätzen auf der Siegpunktskala.
Bei jedem Detail der Spielregel kann man ins Schwärmen kommen: so durchdacht und spieltheoretisch perfekt ist das Konzept, Note Eins mit Stern! Kleines Beispiel: Drei Wochen a 7 Tage sind zu absolvieren, mit jeweils wechselndem Startspieler. Das macht 21 Runden, und wenn 4 Mitspieler dabei sind, dann ist jeder genau 5 mal Startspieler. Da bleibt noch eine Runde übrig. Wenn jetzt nochmal der Startspieler in normalen Modus wechseln würde, wäre der erste bevorzugt und alle anderen benachteiligt. Doch “Yspahan” hat auch für diesen Konflikt eine geniale Lösung gefunden: In dieser Überschußrunde wird die Startspielerrolle nach einem total anderen Modus vergeben, die Spieler ziehen hier in der umgekehrten Reihenfolge ihrer aktuellen Spielposition. Wer bisher am meisten Pech hatte, darf sein Glück noch einmal versuchen. Ist das keine göttliche Erfinderweisheit!
WPG-Wertung: Aaron: 9 (keine 10, weil schon aus WPG-Prinzip eine Differenz zu “1830” sichtbar sein muß), Günther: 9 (Denken mit Spaß), Walter: 9 (hat sich von anfänglich 10 Punkten runterargumentieren lassen), Wolfgang: 9 (konstruktiver Glücksfaktor)
Peter hat schon eine Rezension geschrieben, Aaron muß sie nur noch freigeben.
2. “Säulen der Erde”
War standardmäßig als zweites Spiel vorgesehen, schließlich sollten alle WPGler noch eine Kostprobe von unserem nächsten “Spiel des Monats” abkriegen. Doch zur vorgerückten Zeit scheuten wir die Dreiviertelstunde Regelerklärung. Wird wohl das nächstes Mal bei freier Liebe auf den Tisch kommen.
Peter wird eine Rezension schreiben.
3. “Vegas Showdown”
Die Spieler bieten um Gebäude rund um die Casino-Szenerie: Spieltische, Hotels, Restaurants, Büffets, Parks und ähnliches. Die Gebäude bringen pro Runde neues Geld ein, sie ziehen Publikum an oder werden sofort in Siegpunkte umgesetzt. Am Ende wirft die Qualtität des ersteigerten Gebäude-Ensemble noch mal einige Siegpunkte ab.
Der Auktionsmechanismus läuft ganz flott ab, wobei hierzu auch das funktional gut durchgestilte Spielmaterial viel beiträgt. Ein paar wohldosierte Zufallsereignisse fördern die unterhaltende Spielstimmung.
WPG-Wertung: Aaron: 6 (nur! obwohl er gewonnen hat), Günther: 8 (hält es für ein Spiel-des-Monats-Kandidaten), Walter: 7 (hübsch und stimmig, aber doch nur ein Auktionsspiel), Wolfgang: 8 (leicht und locker)
Wolfgang schreibt eine Rezension.
4. “Bluff”
Im Endspiel mit einem gegen Walters zwei Würfel hatte Günther eine 2 gewürfelt und fing mit 1 mal die Fünf an. Mit 2/3 Wahrscheinlichkeit hatte er damit einen von Walters Würfeln richtig geraten. Doch Walter hatte nur eine Eins und eine Drei geworfen und zweifelte an. Damit war’s das auch schon.
Hier sieht man mal wieder die Stärke der “Immer-4-Strategie”. Wenn Günther eine 4 vorgegeben hätte, hätte Walter auch noch eine plausible Chance zum Erhöhen bzw. zum Nachwürfeln sehen – und damit verlieren – können.
Was wäre aber gewesen, wenn Günther ganz brav 1 mal die Eins vorgelegt hätte? Auch dieses Trivial-Problem ist spieltheoretisch noch nicht entschlüsselt. Mini-Mäxchen, es gibt noch viel zu tun!
Keine neue WPG-Wertung für ein Super-Spiel.

reviewed by Moritz Eggert

Jack Bauer grinned as he gripped the man who called himself Carey Grayson in his deadly armlock.
"So you hid the code in a game about me, have you? What is this evil plan of yours, and why do
you want to release the deadly Elvis virus in a wedding chapel in Reno and kill millions of
innocent Elvis impersonators?".

"No, all is a misunderstanding" screamed Grayson, "it's just a game, just a
game, you see…".

Jack Bauer pulled the steely-cold gun from his holster and pressed it to the cheek of the
trembling man.

"I know you're an evil terrorist in fact. Calling anything "24" the game is a
clear violation of copyright laws. This is why I might torture you to get information about your
world domination plans. In fact I might start with it this very moment."

"No, the name is 24-7, you know like 24 hours in a day, 7 days a week. It's just a
title! You see, my wife, she's not a geek gamer, but she enjoys gaming. I just wanted to create
a game that I can play with her, and that can be enjoyed by gamers and non-gamers alike, that is
simple to explain, and doesn't take hours to…"

"Stop! Why don't you shut-up and show me what the heck you're talking
about!".

"It's in the bag" said Carey.

Bauer pulled out the hefty box with a clock tower. Hell, it didn't even have a picture of
him on the cover. That was clearly a case of bad merchandising.

He noted that the box had a nice weight to it. There was a clinking noise inside. When he opened
it, carefully of course, because he feared a deadly trap might explode into his face, Bauer
quizzically looked at the contents.

"What, no cheap cardboard counters? No armies with SS-Runes, no map of the world? What is
this, an un-American game? What are these white domino like tiles for?"

"These are the white number tiles that are the basis of the game. You see we took great
care to produce them so that they would look and feel especially nice. We even included little
wooden holding boards like in Scrabble that you can place them in, one for each of the up to 4
players!".

"And why are they numbered from 1-10? And why does the board have a 7×7 grid? Is this some
secret code or something?"

"There are 40 tiles in total, one for each number. At the beginning of the game one tile is
randomly selected and placed in the middle, also 3 more tiles are removed, so that one never really
is sure if a certain tile will appear."

"You talk like a commie traitor, why would anybody want to hide that information?"

"You see, it makes the game more exciting. It is a simple but effective rule that works
great. We added it very late in the design process."

"What does one do with the number tiles?"

"Each player places one when it's his or her turn. You either place them orthogonally
or diagonally to already placed tiles. And you try to score by creating certain combos."

"Huh, I knew it – a combo to take over the world!"

"Not exactly – it's all in good fun. Gamers are peaceful people, you know? The most
coveted combo is to get a diagonal or orthogonal row of numbers that adds up to exactly
24."

"I knew it! Your secret plan!"

"…but there are also other combinations." continued Grayson, unperturbed.

"7 for example. Or a run of three, or 4, or 5. Or a set of 3 or 4. It's a little like
in Poker or that other great game by Sunriver Games, "Havoc – The Hundred Year's
War". A wonderful game, you should try that out some time…"

"Silent! What is this pad for? To jot down the locations of our nuclear power
plants?"

"No, it is to keep track of each player's score. The different combos that I mentioned
give points, we call them minutes, from 20 to 60, like 60 minutes per hour."

"Bah, Humbug! Everybody knows that an hour has only 42 minutes in which something happens,
the rest is commercials and toilet breaks, although never for me strangely enough….What are these
hourglass symbols for?"

"They double the score, a little like in Scrabble. When you place a scoring tile there you
simply get twice the score of what you scored. Even better, when you manage to create a 24 and a 7
scoring in one go you get a 60 point special bonus. That is a true killer move."

"Hah, now I know where you lied – with all these tiles it is easily possible to go beyond
24 as a sum, you were trying to deceive me!"

"This is where the beautiful red gem stones come in. When a 24 scoring took place these
stones are placed at both ends of the scoring row, therefore blocking the spaces for future tile
play. This can even be done tactically to hinder other players scoring in advance!"

Bauer fell silent. He knew this guy took him for an idiot. He removed the safety of his gun with
a loud click. "Okay, and now to your plan of world domination. Talk. Just talk. I count to 10.
1….2…..3……4….."

Grayson suddenly smiled unexpectedly.

Summary
Rules:	bilingual (German and English), can be explained in 2 minutes
Game material:	impeccably good
Game length:	20 minutes, and you want to play again immediately

"Not World Domination. We just wanted to create a great game for everybody. Light, but not
dumb. Short, but involving. Mathematical, but so that even a small kid will get it and nobody feels
excluded. A good closer game for a gaming evening. And I think we managed to do just that. We have
achieved our goal. To make something that it is worthwhile spending one's time with.

Speaking of which… I don't think you achieved that goal, my friend. Begone!"

And with this Grayson snipped his fingers and Jack Bauer disappeared in thin air, like a bad
dream.

And then I woke up.

"24-7 The Game" is a great light game of number tile scoring, a bit reminiscent of but
much better than Zatre (which plays much slower). Sunriver Games has again managed to produce a
winner!

Very recommended – for all kinds of gaming groups.

Glück und Unglück in Yspahan

von Günther Rosenbaum

Yspahan ist ein Spiel von Sebastian Pauchon, das im Oktober 2006 im Ystari-Verlag erschienen
ist.

Eine Rezension dieses Spieles ist auf unserer Homepage an anderer
Stelle zu finden – hier möchte ich mich nur mit dem sehr originellen und innovativen
Würfelmechanismus beschäftigen und die Wahrscheinlichkeiten für das Auftreten verschiedener
interessanter Würfelkonstellationen berechnen.

Der Würfelmechanismus

Es ist klar, dass auf der zweitobersten Zeile mit der “Vase” nur selten Würfel liegen werden!

Standardmäßig würfelt man mit 9 Würfeln – man kann aber gegen Abgabe von Gold bis zu 3 weitere
Würfel kaufen.

Der Würfelwurf wird nun sortiert: Alle 1er zusammen, alle 2er, …, alle 6er. Dann werden diese
Würfelgruppen auf das rechts abgebildete Tableau abgelegt:

• Die Gruppe mit dem niedrigsten Wert kommt auf die unterste Zeile mit dem “Kamel”
• Die nächst höhere Gruppe kommt auf die nächste Zeile mit dem “Sack”.
• usw…
• Die Würfelgruppe mit dem höchsten Wert wird allerdings ganz nach oben zu dem Gold
  gelegt!

Ein Beispiel von so einem Würfelergebnis sieht man im Bild rechts: Man erkennt hier, dass
unterhalb der Zeile “Gold” Lücken entstehen können.

Wie hoch ist jetzt aber die Wahrscheinlichkeit, dass auf der “Vase” ein, zwei oder
sogar 3 Würfel zu liegen kommen?

und

Wie erhöht sich diese Wahrscheinlichkeit, wenn ich zu den 9 standardmäßig zur Verfügung
stehenden Würfeln 1 bis 3 Würfel hinzukaufe?

Bei der Planung der eigenen Spielstrategie muss man diese Ereignisse in etwa abschätzen können –
daher werde ich die berechneten Wahrscheinlichkeiten hier aufführen. Bei der Planung muss man
natürlich berücksichtigen, welche “Gebäudeeigenschaften” man zusätzlich nutzen kann, und
dass man gegen Abgabe einer “Karte” die Größe einer Würfelgruppe künstlich um 1 erhöhen
kann.

Erläuterung zu den folgenden Tabellen

9 W6	min 1	min 2
Gold	100	59

Dies ist eine Tabelle für den Wurf mit 9 sechsseitigen Würfeln (9 W6); alle Zahlenwerte sind auf
ganzzahlige Prozentwerte gerundete Wahrscheinlichkeiten.

Da die Gruppe mit der höchsten Zahl IMMER auf das “Gold” gelegt wird (außer in dem
unwahrscheinlichen Fall eines Wurfes von lauter gleichen Zahlen), ist hier die Wahrscheilichkeit
100%, dass mindestens 1 Würfel dort liegt.

Mindestens 2 Würfel (also 2,3, 4, …oder 9) auf dem Goldfeld findet man noch mit einer
Wahrscheinlichkeit von 59%.

Achtung:

Wenn in den Tabellen der Wert 100% auftaucht, so ist dies immer ein gerundeter Wert und in
Wirklichkeit irgendetwas zwischen ca. 99,5% und 100%! Aber solche kleinen Unterschiede sind für die
Strategiediskussionen völlig uninteressant – daher werden hier alle Wahrscheinlichkeiten immer auf
ganze Prozent gerundet.

Tabelle 1 Wahrscheinlichkeiten für den Wurf mit 9 sechsseitigen Würfeln!

Tabelle 2 Wahrscheinlichkeiten für den Wurf mit 10 sechsseitigen Würfeln!

Tabelle 3 Wahrscheinlichkeiten für den Wurf mit 11 sechsseitigen Würfeln!

Tabelle 4 Wahrscheinlichkeiten für den Wurf mit 12 sechsseitigen Würfeln!

Am Anfang des Spieles oder wenn man die “Karawanenstrategie” verfolgt, braucht man
womöglich nur “Masse” – egal auf welchem der 6 Felder viele Würfel liegen, Hauptsache es
sind viele!

Daher die folgende Tabelle 5:

Tabelle 5 Wahrscheinlichkeit für den Wurf von großen Gruppen!

Schlussfolgerungen

Aus den obigen Tabellen mag nun jeder seine eigenen Schlussfolgerungen ziehen und seine
Strategien entsprechend anpassen. Auf einige Beobachtungen möchte ich aber trotzdem hinweisen:

Bei fester Würfelanzahl unterscheiden sich die Wahrscheinlichkeiten
in den Zeilen für Gold, Kamele, Sack und Fass nur geringfügig ! Als Daumenwert erreicht man dort in
etwa mit der Wahrscheinlichkeit 1, 2/3, 1/3 eine Gruppe von mindestens 1, 2 oder 3 Würfeln.

Interessant sind daher die “Kasten-” und
“Vasenfelder”.

Hier stelle ich noch mal in einer gesonderten Tabelle gegenüber, wie sich die
Wahrscheinlichkeiten verändern, wenn man zu den 9 Standardwürfeln zusätzliche hinzu kauft:

Tabelle 6 Wahrscheinlichkeit für Würfelgruppen auf dem “Kastenfeld” bei steigender Anzahl von Würfeln!

Tabelle 7 Wahrscheinlichkeit für Würfelgruppen auf dem “Vasenfeld” bei steigender Anzahl von Würfeln!

Bei diesen beiden Feldern verändert der Zukauf von Würfeln schon einiges an den
Wahrscheinlichkeiten ! (Daumenwert: knapp 10% pro Würfel bei den “min 1” Werten)

Übrigens

Der Siegpunktwert auf dem Spielplan ist in etwa:

• Sack: 1 bis 1,33
• Fass: 1,33 bis 1,6
• Kasten: 2
• Vase: 3 bis 4

Mit 2 Steinen im “Kastenfeld” erhält man 4 Siegpunkte – genauso viele, wie mit 1 Stein
im “Vasenfeld”. Die Wahrscheinlichkeit, mindestens 2 Würfel im “Kastenfeld” zu
erreichen ist aber durchweg größer, als mindestens 1 Würfel im “Vasenfeld” zu bekommen.
Also werden wohl langfristig im Mittel Steine im “Kastenfeld” etwas ertragreicher sein
als die Steine im Vasenfeld !

Viel Spaß noch bei diesem wirklich schönen Spiel.

(Bad) Luck in Yspahan

by Günther Rosenbaum

Yspahan, a game by Sebastian Pauchon, was released by Ystari in October 2006.

We already published a review ) of this game. This article is
about the interesting and definitely original dicing mechanism and the probabilities of different
dice roll results.

The Dice Placing Rules

It is obvious that dice on the “vase” line will not be seen very often!

Normally, you roll 9 dice. However, you are free to add up to 3 more dice by paying for
them.

The cast dice are sorted: All 1s constitute one group, all 2s, …, all 6s. These groups are
placed on the board which is shown at the right hand side following these rules:

• The dice group with the lowest value is placed on the lowest row, i.e. “camel”.
• The next group is placed on the next row, i.e. “sack”.
• and so on, until
• the dice group with the highest value is always placed in the top row, i.e.
  “gold”

On the right hand side, you can see an example result. You’ll notice that below the
“gold” row, there can be gaps.

So, it’s time to ask some interesting questions:

What is the probability that the “vase” row gets one, two or three dice?

and

What is the effect of buying 1 to 3 dice in addition to the 9 default dice?

When optimising your strategy, it won’t hurt if you have some idea about those results, and
this is why I have created the tables which now follow. However, it should be clear that there are
several other factors in Yspahan which determine who wins. Besides, I did not take into account the
rule which allows you to add another die to an existing dice group in exchange for a special
card.

Notes on the tables

9 W6	min 1	min 2
Gold	100	59

This is the table for rolling 9 six-sided dice (9 W6). All quoted numbers are rounded
percentages of probabilities.

Since the group with the highest number is always placed on “gold”, the
probability for having at least one die there is 100%. (The latter statement is technically not
true. In case all dice show the same number, they are put on the camel row. However, this is so
improbable an event that the rounded probability for “gold” stays 100% in all considered
cases.)

The event of “at least 2 dice (i.e. 2, 3, 4 … or 9 dice) on the the
‚gold’ row” has a probability of 59%.

Attention:

If you notice a value of 100% in those tables, it is (the camels excepted) a rounded value being in
reality a number between 99,5% and 100%. Of course, for real gaming strategies, such details are
irrelevant, and that’s why I kept to rounded values.

table 1 Probabilities when using 9 dice!

table 2 Probabilities when using 10 dice!

table 3 Probabilities when using 11 dice!

table 4 Probabilities when using 12 dice

At the start of the game, or when employing the “caravan strategy”, you will probably
go for “mass”. You won’t be picky about which spot to chose, as long as there are
really lots of dice on offer!

Therefore, I’ve put together another table:

table 5 Probabilities for dicing groups of a certain size!

Conclusions

Everyone is free to draw his own conclusions from the tables above, and to adjust his game play
accordingly. However, there are some remarks I have to make:

If the number of dice is constant, the probabilities of the lines for
gold, camel, sack and barrel are, more or less, the same! As a rule of thumb, expect a group of at
least 1, 2 or 3 dice with a probability of 1, 2/3 and 1/3.

This leaves the lines of chest and vase as, stochastically, somewhat
more interesting.

Here is another table. It shows how the probabilities are changing when you decide to pay for
adding dice to your default of 9 dice.

table 6 Probabilities of groups of dice on the chest line, depending on the number of dice used.

table 7 Probabilities of groups of dice on the chest line, depending on the number of vase used.

You will notice at first glance that paying for additional dice really does change those
probabilities!

And while we’re at it…

The victory point value on the game board is more or less like this:

• Sack: 1 bis 1,33
• Barrel: 1,33 bis 1,6
• Chest: 2
• Vase: 3 bis 4

2 cubes in the chest line yield 4 victory points – just as 1 cube in the vase line. Now, the
probability for having at least 2 dice in the chest line is invariably higher than having at least
one dice in the vase line. Hence, in the long-term average, cubes in chest line might seem somewhat
more advantageous than cubes in the vase line. However, don’t forget that I didn’t take
into account some rules (see above).

I wish all of you as much fun with this wonderful game as we’ve had when playing it!

“1860” – Railways on the Isle of Wight

reviewed by Aaron Haag

It was Queen Victoria’s love for the island south of the United Kingdom, just 30
km long and 20 km wide, which triggered the building of railways on the Isle of Wight. It
all started in “1860” when two British railway companies, the LSWR and the
LBSC, bitter rivals at the time, connected Cowes in the north with Newport in the centre
of the island and Ryde with Ventor down the east coast and Freshwater in the west.

Life was not easy for the presidents of the railway companies. Terrain was difficult,
especially in the southwest and the majority of the building materials had to be imported
from the mainland using one of the three ferry lines of the time. Traffic was a problem,
too, as most of the population lived either at the east coast or in the central city of
Newport, and the revenue generated was barely enough for the companies to survive.
Therefore, bankruptcy was not unusual and some companies even went bankrupt more than
once but still managed to survive.

This is the setting for the latest addition to the “18xx” series of games,
which are all based on the original design of Francis Tresham’s “1829”. The
object of all of these games is to invest cleverly in railway companies that build
railway networks to generate profit for their shareholders. Since its first release more
than forty years ago, “1829” has seen more than twenty successors using the
same basic game mechanics. All follow a common naming convention: the year of the first
railway operation in the respective area.

Quite a few of the “18xx” games have been released as game kits by hobby
game designers and especially in recent years there has been no release of an
“18xx” game by larger publishers. While game kits often come with high quality
components and a well tested game system (e.g. see our preview
on “1895”) they need several hours of assembly time because most of the
components need to be cut out, mounted or laminated.

In contrast, “1860” is produced by the small UK based games publisher JKLM
who until today has produced ten games; this is their first one of the “18xx”
series. As one would expect from a professional publication the game is – besides
punching out some tokens and tiles – ready to play. Most components seem to have been
produced using a colour laser printer, the material either being cardboard or plain
paper. The map is mounted on sturdy cardboard and all components rest perfectly flat on
the table. Credit is given to Chris Lawson for inspiring playing aids like the revenue
chart and the calculation tables on the company charters, which help speeding up game
play. It is also a nice idea to provide two different types of currency, one for the
companies, and another one for player money. Unintentional mixing of the two can no
longer happen and buying trains in the later phases of the game has no effect on the
length of the game.

The rules are well written and provide enough information also for “18xx”
novices. There is only a small glitch when they state, that the game comes with £500
notes, when in fact there are £200 notes provided. According to the publisher the latter
is correct. There is also a small omission in the description of the initial auction
round. This round also ends if no player wants to buy or can buy any of the remaining
stock of that round.

Let us look at the main features, which differentiate “1860” from the other
games of the series. The first thing experienced “18xx” players will notice is
the small size of the map in terms of track hexes. There is space for 42 track tiles
only, less than in “1849 – Sicily” but still twice as many as in “1876 –
Trinidad”, both also island based games. Even more significant is the huge number of
37 cities, villages, and halts on the map. This leaves only 9 tile spaces without a stop.
Combine this with the total of eight railway companies and it is obvious that the
resulting railway network will be rather complex and the calculation of revenues will be
difficult. Hence, it is wise to make use of the revenue chart provided with the game
(note: by mistake the column for revenues ending on 80 has been omitted in the
chart).

Trains come in 8 different sizes and can travel between 2+1 to 9+5 (large + small)
stations. As 9+5 trains are available in an unlimited quantity railway companies are able
to travel across most of the map in the end game – station markers permitting – and will
rake in large revenues per operation round. This is also supported by the rule that a
company may pass through one, but only one, “tokened out” station per operation
round.

A combination of three stock market and company related features derived from the
historical background of “1860” makes the game unique. First, there is the
possibility that a player sells the Director’s certificate to the bank, thereby being
able to get rid of all stock of a company even if no other player holds more than 10% of
that company’s stock at the time. The railway company goes into receivership and
while in this state retains the complete income generated in operation rounds.
Eventually, the company will be attractive enough to find a player willing to buy the
Director’s certificate. This feature was already present in the original
“1829” game but has not been adopted by many “18xx” games since.

Secondly, if a company has lost all its trains and has insufficient funds to pay for a
new one it becomes insolvent, a new feature to the “18xx” series. Insolvent
companies use (“lease”) the smallest available train from the bank without
actually acquiring it but in return receive only half of the income generated in an
operation round. Insolvent companies do not pay dividends. There is no longer the need
for a director to finance the buying of a train out of his own pocket making the game
much less cutthroat than for example “1830”. However, if shares of a company
with no trains are sold during a stock round, the selling player receives only half of
the current stock price. Deciding on whether to keep or sell the shares of an insolvent
company is one of the tougher choices players are faced with during the course of the
game.

Finally, companies may go bankrupt. This concept is new to the “18xx”
series, too. In other “18xx” games players will go bankrupt if they have to buy
a train for one of their companies and have insufficient funds, thereby ending the game.
In “1860” company bankruptcy arises if the share price of a company reaches
zero either because the director has chosen not to pay any dividends for several
operation rounds or because dividends may not be paid due to the company being either in
receivership or insolvent. When a company goes bankrupt, all of its shares are returned
to the bank’s IPO and become available again for sale and re-floatation. Former
shareholders receive no compensation for lost shares in any way. Interestingly, bankrupt
companies keep all their assets (money and trains on the company’s charter and any
station tokens already placed on the map) making them very attractive for re-floating. A
formerly bankrupt company most of the time is a tremendously good deal as it not only has
a route with stations but also lots of money and possibly even a train or two.

Looking at these three features and their effect on game play one may think that much
of the thrill and suspense in the correct timing of share transactions and train
acquisition has been eliminated. But during play one quickly realises that taking
advantage of these new features requires just as much good timing skills and proper
planning and strategy as in other “18xx” games.

The concept of “feeder lines” comes to mind here, which are used to provide
money and/or trains to other companies of the same player but which do not pay any
dividends to other players. Players deliberately shift money from one company to another
by buying nearly obsolete trains from a company for large amounts of money, giving that
company the opportunity to buy a better train while still paying dividends. In
“1860” the other company will eventually become insolvent and if timed
correctly, the player will be able to sell all stock of the company before this happens
and re-float it after it has gone bankrupt. None of this is as simple as it sounds and
requires a constant look at the stock market, the priority deal and of the availability
of trains, but if timed correctly it is a real moneymaker. Bankruptcy will eventually hit
one or the other company so it is wise to make the best out of it.

Three conditions signal the end of the game. Like in most “18xx” games it
ends if the bank runs out of money. However, the game also ends if a railway
company’s stock price reaches the top score of £340 making it an attractive
possibility to accelerate the game’s end. The third condition is unique to
“1860” and simulates the nationalisation of the railway companies on the Isle
of Wight. Nationalisation begins as soon as the first 9+5 train has been bought and all
companies own at least one train. From then on, no more stock rounds are played and at
the end of each operation round the two companies with the least revenue cease to
operate, maintaining their current stock price. As soon as all but two companies have
been nationalised this way the game ends. In our games this was the common type of ending
and it is wise to plan ahead for it by creating attractive routes for one’s companies
in order to prevent their early nationalisation.

“1860” offers a well-balanced combination of ideas which at the same time
makes it challenging for “18xx” die-hards and not too cutthroat for beginners.
The game components are of high quality and support the game play very well. For those
who are “18xx” aficionados this is a must-buy as it provides plenty of room for
new strategies; for those who want to get into the “18xx” series I can
recommend it as a good introduction into the game system.

Zwei Siemens-Manager und ein Sublieferant waren heute im WPG-Quintett angesagt. Spannend war die Frage, ob sie alle die heutige Großrazzia am Standort München überlebt hatten. Hatten sie! Mit weißer Weste standen alle pünktlich um 20 Uhr am Westpark auf der Matte.
1. “Salamanca”
Die Spieler legen Landschaftsplättchen in die Pampas und bauen Villen darauf. Dann grasen sie die benachbarten Wein-, Wald- und Wiesengrundstücke ab und machen damit Kohle.
Die bösen Mitspieler können mit Wühlmäusen oder Heuschreckenschwärmen die besten Ernten vernichten. Manchmal schickt man auch einfach sein Kondom (Conde = Pfalzgraf) vorbei, um sich von fremden Ernten den Zehnten abzuholen.
Kurz und gut: Villen zu bauen ist lebenswichtig. Das Kondom rundet ab. Bei diesen beiden Spielzügen hat jeder Spieler sein Schicksal in der Hand. Doch bei den Plagen und den weiteren Katastrophen unterliegt man hilflos den Ambitionen der Mitspieler. In einer 5er Runde beträgt die Fremdbestimmung also rund 80%.
Ganz lustig, wenn man alles nicht so erst nimmt.
WPG-Wertung: Aaron: 7 (8 Punkte für eine 3er Runde), Günther: 6 (eigentlich mehr wert), Loredana: 6, Peter: 5 (nach 6 Punkte beim ersten Eindruck), Walter: 6.
Walter schreibt eine Rezension.
2. “Kabale und Hiebe”
Peter wünschte sich ein halbstündiges Zwischenspiel. Was lag näher, als in unsere Kontroverse um das neue HiG-Spiel neue Gutachter einzubringen.
Peter stellte zunächst mal einen Anachronismus fest: Maiskolben stammen aus Amerika und waren im Mittelalter wohl noch nicht auf dem Speisezettel. (Nur als Randbemerkung.)
Ohne Denker spielte sich alles sehr viel flotter. Und dann sogar einigermaßen lustig. Auch wenn es nach wie vor für die Nicht-Gewinner einer gewissen Frust-Toleranz bedarf. Aaron gewann. Warum? “Ich habe es gespielt wie ‚Hol’s der Geier’!” (Das dürfte wohl bedeuten: Sich ganz locker auf wenige, lukrative Stiche konzentrieren.)
WPG-Wertung: Aaron: 7, Günther: 7, Loredana: 7, Peter: 7, Walter: 5 (legt einen Punkt dazu).
Moritz und Walter haben schon je eine Rezension geschrieben.
3. “Yspahan”
Nein, wir haben es nicht gespielt, wir waren ja eine 5er Runde und das Spiel geht nur bis 4 Mitspieler. Doch Peter hat es kurz vorgestellt, es ist sein neuer 10-Punkte Favorit und Loredana steht mit 9 vergebenen Punkten ganz dicht dahinter.
Das Spiel enthält einen neuartigen Würfelmechanismus zum Auswürfeln der zulässigen Spielaktionen. Günther hat schon seine Formelsammlung ausgegraben und wird demnächst ein Tableau mit den zugehörigen Wahrscheinlichkeiten veröffentlichen.
Noch keine WPG-Wertung.
Peter (!) schreibt eine Rezension.
4. “Bluff”
Im Endspiel 1:1 legte Loredana gegen Walter 1 mal die Eins vor. War das Naivität, Verarschung oder genialer Bluff. Wenn Loredana wirklich eine Eins gewürfelt hatte, so war das die einzige Vorgabe, mit der sie sofort und unweigerlich verloren hatte. Wenn sie aber keine Eins hatte …?
Schon vor einem Monat (18.10.) war Walter von Aaron mit der gleichen Vorgabe reingelegt worden. Damals hatte er eine Zwei, diesmal eine Drei. Was tun? Er zweifelte an und … hatte verloren, Loredana war wirklich mit einer Eins ins Rennen gegangen.
Verarschung war es von ihr sicherlich nicht gewesen, aber ob Naivität oder geninaler Bluff, das kann ich bis jetzt noch nicht unterscheiden. Über dem Epsilon-Durchgang durchs Unendliche liegt das ja auch ganz dicht beieinander.
Keine neue WPG-Wertung für ein Super-Spiel.

Italia

reviewed by Moritz Eggert

Phalanx continues to manage a successful line of Euro games and “geek” games, or even
a combination of the two, like in the excellent “War of the Ring”.

Since the time when Lew
Pulsipher was inspired by the now forgotten hex and counter wargame “Ancient
Conquest” to create a comparatively simple wargame that creates what he calls a “sweep of
history” the mechanics of “Britannia” have been a fan favourite, and there are now
many variants of the game that recreate other place’s histories.

For an excellent overview on Britannia-like games please visit the website of one of the world-wide
leading “Britannia”-experts, Rick Heli.

Andreas Steding, designer of Italia I and II, has already created one of the best known
Britannia variants, the monster game “Hispania”, which recreates the history of Iberia,
today known as Spain. There are “Britannia” variants which simplify the basic system –
“Hispania” and “Italia” certainly do not go this road but rather add chrome and
special rules that give the players more choices but also more headaches.

“Italia” is – no surprise here – a recreation of the history of Italy from ancient
times. Unusual for a “Britannia” game it comes in two completely different versions that
cover two different time periods. The first one – another first – is especially designed for THREE
players, and once you consider the history depicted here it makes sense. In 10 rounds the players
play the rise and fall of the Roman Empire, from the Götterdämmerung of the Greeks to the final
days of the empire. One player will mainly be busy with the Romans, and his task is to hold and
expand the Roman position and deal with pesky revolts and upstarts. The other two players play all
the minor or big empires that constantly threatened Rome, most notably the Carthaginians with
Hannibal, whose campaign is actually a major event in the game.

The interesting thing is that the game system constantly forces the two non-Roman players to
either gang up against Rome – which certainly has some power to defend itself – or to go for quick
victory points against each other.

The second game, Italia II, recreates the history AFTER the fall of the Roman Empire, and is
designed, like most Britannia games, for 4 players.

I will not go too much into the rules here, but instead add a list of major differences between
the “Italia” and the “Britannia” system (it’s not a short list) below.

Summary of what is missing in Italia (VERY minor grapes, as the production value of this game is very high – beautiful counters, sturdy board, etc.)

A handy overview of when the units/nations of all players appear in which round – something that is usually found with any “Britannia”-style games. This info is only found on the nation cards themselves, which are covered with tiny print. A turn order list of nations on the gameboard itself. This is only found on a separate sheet that is used to look up many other things. Some nations easily amass more than 5 gold. There is a +5 counter for the money, but even with that only 10 gold can be recorded, large nations like Carthaginians and Romans easily exceed this limit. Any kind of historic reference (i.e. what time period a turn represents) – this is a glaring omission that is kind of surprising when one thinks about the detail and chrome that went into this game.

Andreas Steding has added a lot of chrome to the “Britannia” game system here,
avoiding some overly complicated mechanics that made “Hispania” very long to play. Still,
this is “Britannia” on steroids – the decision making is much more difficult as there are
lots of things large nations can do on each turn: raiding, naval moves, building cities,
campaigning. The latter mechanic simulates the long campaigns of Hannibal and the like, something
like a mini game in the game as other players can react to the ongoing campaign moves, also
something that has not been seen yet in “Britannia”.

All this might be too much for some. “Italia” certainly isn’t a game that makes
“Britannia” more accessible for the common market, rather the opposite. But there are
many interesting ideas here – the campaign system for example.

Where the game shines is in its 3-player scenario (or rather “game” – as the 3-player
version is completely different from the 4-player version, there are different nations, even partly
different rules). This is the first time it has been done right, with basically two sides
representing the nations oppressed by the Romans that constantly struggle among themselves, and the
third player representing mostly the Romans in their struggle to dominate the peninsula.

Game material is top notch, as usual with the “Phalanx” line, which is always put
together with great care and love, although there are some strange omissions (like a historical
reference or an overview over when all nations/armies appear). The rules are not for the
faint-of-the-heart – even Britannia veterans will have some new concepts to struggle with, although
they will still feel at home. Recommended, but not for the casual gamer. You should have a day free
for your first game, 8 hours recommended.

MAIN DIFFERENCES BETWEEN “BRITANNIA” AS WE KNOW IT AND “ITALIA I/II”

NEW PLAYING PIECES

• Consular Legions/Knights (2 hits, regenerate after combat)
• Fleets (transport, naval supremacy bonus)
• Elephants (scare/destroy additional units)
• Cities (earn gold, give defensive advantage)

NEW LANDSCAPE

• there are sea spaces in which battles can be fought
• Marshland gives defensive bonus, but is no hindrance to movement
• Highland works similar to “mountains” in “Britannia”

INCOME/SPENDING

• All areas produce one “gold” (instead of population points)
• Cities also produce one gold.
• Gold can be saved indefinitely.

Income can now be spent on:

• Infantry legions, fleets (4 gold)
• Consular Legions (see limit in Italia I, 6.3), Knights, Elephants
• City in standard area (6 gold)
• City in “difficult” area, marshland or highland (8 gold)

NEW UNITS

May appear in “massing areas” which have to be left, otherwise pretty similar
(7.2).

POPULATION LIMIT (2 per space)

Does NOT exist!

STACKING LIMITS

Works very differently.

In short:

• Cities/Leaders do not count against the stacking limit
• Normal/marsh: 3
• Highland/massing area: 2
• Sea area: unlimited
• Declaring as “capital” (like in “Britannia”, presence of a city is
  strangely enough NOT required): +1
• Capital declaration can be changed at any time, like in “Britannia”
• Rome is always the capital of the Romans

In addition:

• When moving into combat: +1
• When moving with a leader: +1
• When doing a major invasion: +1

(all cumulative)

In a campaign:

• Unlimited stacking with leader, or also for the other players during some “reaction
  moves”.

Stacking limits are pretty much always in effect, even in retreating.

MOVEMENT

• highland stops like mountains, can be overcome with leader
• Straits stop movement like in “Britannia”
• marshland does NOT stop movement
• naval transport: ships may carry 2 land units each, can do naval move if starting in a coastal
  space, and then do nothing but naval move, may stay on sea indefinitely
• friendly cities negate terrain effects (work like Roman Roads in “Britannia”)
• leaders increase movement by 1 (of their group)
• units have different movement capabilities that are printed on the counters
• Overrun like in “Britannia”
• Ships move through each other, after all moves other players and the active player have to
  declare combat in spaces the active nation moved in. If anybody declares combat, combat takes
  place, otherwise no combat in sea areas (has to be done immediately after movement)

COMBAT

• Units have different “to hit” numbers (printed on the counters), that have to be
  rolled on 10-sided dice, like in “Hispania”.
• Elephants, Knights and Consular Legions have special abilities.
• Cities don’t defend with dice, they just add defensive capabilities.
• If victorious, city can be “sacked” and is destroyed (flipped to “ruin”
  side). The pillager gets 4 gold. A city that is “sacked” can’t be rebuilt in the same
  turn.
• Rebuilding: remove one unit (not leader) in the ruined space when it’s your turn, city is
  rebuilt from ruins.

Modifiers to the hit roll:

• highland/marsh -1 on roll
• City is defending -2 on roll
• Leader +2 (and this is CUMULATIVE – several leaders can create a super army!)
• Naval Invasion (landing with ships) or strait combat (like in “Britannia”): +2 for
  the defender in the 1st round only
• Fleets get +1 per transported unit
• Naval Supremacy (if adjacent sea area/s to combat space contain/s fleets of the nation in LAND
  combat and total number of fleets of that nation is at least double the number of fleets of the
  nation it fights against in those adjacent areas – I know, it sounds complicated, but that’s
  how it is, folks…) +1
• Raid combat (see below): one combat round only, and no modifiers to attacker, hits on a 7

Raid combat is a new concept and is directed at pillaging cities if at least one damage is
created. Defending land units are NOT hurt. If city is pillaged, attacker receives 4 gold, and the
city is “raided”, which is different from “sacking” in that it can be rebuilt
IMMEDIATELY out of turn sequence.

RETREAT

Like in “Britannia”, but Attacker can also retreat to OTHER spaces than the one he
entered from, if they are either free or occupied by his own people.

VICTORY POINTS

Nation victory points are much more complicated than in “Britannia” and often
differentiate between “areas” and “cities” controlled.

CAMPAIGNS

This is a new concept. At certain moments in history nations can start campaigns, basically a
huge stack of units (no stacking limit) with leader that has to be paid 1 gold for each move. After
each of these moves nations adjacent to the campaigning leader can, in turn order, do reaction
moves.

Either:

Move to Battle: move any number of units adjacent to the campaigner’s space into battle,
disregarding stacking limit.

Or:

Move and See: Move one stack to one adjacent space ANYWHERE on the board, without initiating
combat, or to join an already existing combat (either the space with the campaigning leader or an
overrun space).

ATTENTION: it seems stacking limit is in effect here!

It is also possible to leave the space the campaigner has just entered, thereby giving ground
(think of the real Romans reaction to Hannibal’s campaign).

Raiding in Overrunning spaces are possible, but only during a campaign (again think of
Hannibal).

“BLOCKING” is a new concept that benefits the campaigner: for 1 gold AND 1 unit
sacrifice he can prevent movement in ONE adjacent space to the campaigning leader.

SUBMISSION

In general different rules for each nation, like in “Britannia”. Otherwise very
similar. The subjugated nation’s income is halved and rounded UP, the subjugating nation gets
the rest.

Areas controlled by the subjugated nation do NOT count as controlled, only in certain
circumstances. Some nations get the possibility to REVOLT. They can be subjugated AGAIN after such
a revolt. Sometimes submission is FORCED when falling below a certain threshold of units/areas. It
is sufficient to simply move one unit into an area of a nation that has forced submission. No
combat will take place and the nation immediately submits.

ADDITIONAL RULES

ITALIA I

Is a 3-player game and totally different from the 4-player game (ITALIA II). It has completely
different nations and time periods, so one can say that Italia is 2 games in one, not one game with
a 3-player variant. Some gamers actually prefer the 3-player game to the 4-player game.

• Rome can only be permanently occupied in Round 10, and is always automatically rebuilt.
• Hannibal campaign has some special rules for elephants and unit drafting (see 13.2)
• Game Turn 10 (the last) has only campaigns, and only three nations move, for all the other
  nations game turn 9 is the last one where they can act
• Roman legions may defect to another player’s side if controlled by Marius or Sulla
  (leaders), see 13.4
• Major Battles: is a new concept that describes battles with 3 or more units ON EACH SIDE. Some
  nations get extra points for winning major battles.

ITALIA II

Is a 4-player game.

• Knights have 2 hits like Consular Legions, but may not retreat after receiving such a hit
• Patrimonium Conversion: Twice per game the Patrimonium player can convert any one unit of
  another adjacent nation.