Spielbericht 11.9.2002

Autor: Aaron

am Tisch: Peter, Hans, Walter, Moritz, Basti, Aaron

auf dem Tisch: Star Wars – Epic Duels, Öl für uns alle, Der wahre Walter,
Nimm’s Leich!, Bluff

1. Star Wars – Epic Duels
   
   Diesmal spielten wir Epic Duels zu sechst in der Variante “dunkle” gegen
   “gute” Macht, d.h. es spielten 3 (Walter, Basti, Hans) die gute Seite und 3
   (Peter, Moritz und ich) die dunkle Seite.

   Peter begann das Spiel und hatte mit dem Imperator gleich gute
   Spezialkarten zur Verfügung, die er sofort gegen Walter einsetzte. Der verlor damit alle
   seine Handkarten und war schutzlos, ohne überhaupt am Zug gewesen zu sein. Als Peter dann
   in seinem zweiten Zug dies ausnutzte, um Walters ersten Charakter zu töten stand Walters
   Meinung über das Spiel fest: keine Möglichkeit, das Spiel zu beeinflussen – man wird
   gespielt. Hier spielte sicherlich eine Rolle, dass wir zu wenig als Team spielten, um uns
   gegenseitig zu schützen.

   Die übrigen Spieler lieferten sich einen spannenden Kampf, der letztendlich nach 30
   Minuten Gesamtspielzeit mit dem Sieg Peters und damit der dunklen Seite der Macht endete.

   Bis auf Walter waren alle der Meinung, dass “Epic Duels” ein spannendes,
   kurzweiliges und sehr stimmiges Spiel mit ausgewogenen Charakteren ist, das wir gerne
   wieder spielen werden.

   Westpark-Gamers-Bewertung: 7.75

2. Öl für uns alle
   
   In the 1960s I played this game quite often and I remember
   that I liked it a lot at the time.
   Ravensburger published the first release in 1960 (apparently in co-operation with
   British Petrol) and decided to re-release it in 1976. The second issue came with large
   separate boards for the oil drilling and market value markers but overall I liked the
   1960 material better – it delivered a less abstract flair to the game (I particularly
   liked the little oil drilling towers, which although a bit fiddley to use were a lot
   nicer than the abstract plastic pawns used in the 1976 release). We played the 1976
   release of Hans, who has equally good memories about the game as I have.

   Basically, this a business game about oil exploration and transportation. Players roll a
   die to move their pawn across a track on the main board. The space they end their move on
   indicates an action they can or must make. Some spaces trigger actions just when moved
   over – these actions apply to all players. Possible actions of the first kind are buying
   the next available oil drilling right and to start drilling for oil, or to take one of
   the two kinds of event cards. A possible action of the second kind is that all oil wells
   belonging to players produce oil, which increases the level of oil in the storage tanks
   of each well.

   Once a player has moved his/her pawn (s)he may charter a
   tanker to transport oil from a well’s storage tanks to a refinery. Two types of
   tankers with different capacity (and charter price) are available and no ship may be
   chartered if there is insufficient oil to completely fill it. Tankers move one space
   across the world map on the board per player’s turn. Shipping routes have different
   length depending on the location of the well and the chosen refinery. Whenever a ship
   moves the owner has to pay operating costs, which are on top of the initial charter cost
   for the tanker, making it important to always have sufficient money available – so
   players have to carefully watch their cash flow. Once a ship reaches its destination the
   refinery pays the current market price for that location and the price drops one step
   thereafter. This is a simple mechanism to simulate supply and demand.

   Players start with one working oil well and may start as many oil drilling operations as
   they like – provided they end their move on the appropriate space and have sufficient
   money to buy the exploration rights. Drilling for oil is a chancy business and will fail
   or incur additional costs in about 40% of the cases.

   The game ends once the first player has successfully completed 10 oil deliveries to the
   refineries.

   All the good memories about the game disappeared during playing for about 90 minutes
   after which we aborted the game. The conclusion was that it would last at least another
   90 minutes if not a lot longer. This in itself would not have been a problem if the game
   provided at least a minimum of player interaction. Instead, players have to wait
   endlessly for the other players to complete their moves without being able to plan ahead.
   Most of the time players would be able to plan and perform their moves completely
   independently of each other as hardly any of the player’s choices has an impact on
   the other players. Even the oil price changes due to supply and demand variations were
   found to be of little tactical implication as shipping routes are too long to be able to
   seriously plan ahead. So the game comes down to the simple principle: start an oil
   exploration whenever you can and ship oil whenever possible using the shortest possible
   route, and most importantly “beat” your opponents when rolling the die. Not
   enough substance for a game that lasts 3 hours or more…

   Westpark Gamers Score: 2.34

3. Der wahre Walter
   
   Fata Morgana, the publisher of this game is best known in the English
   speaking parts of the world by their game Kreml, which was
   published in English with slightly modified rules by Avalon
   Hill under the name of “Kremlin“.
   Many Fata Morgana games are card games (like their famous “Anno
   Domini” and “Tichu“) and “Der wahre Walter”, too, comes as a set of
   156 cards with 3 statements each on either side of the card. Each of the statements
   refers to the person reading it to the others (the Sphinx). A keyword of a statement is
   blanked out by the word “Walter”.

   The game works like this: in sequence each player for one turn resembles the
   “Sphinx”, takes the next card from the shuffled deck, selects one side of the
   card and reads the 3 statements to the other players. Example: “Having won a million
   in the lottery I would Walter.” Using their knowledge about the person
   playing the Sphinx the players (including the Sphinx) write down what they think is the
   most appropriate replacement for the word “Walter”. This can be a single word
   up to a complete sentence.

   Once all players have written down their “Walter” words the Sphinx collects all
   notes and reads them (including her own) in random order to the players. The players (of
   course excluding the Sphinx) then guess what the Sphinx’s “Walter” words
   might have been. Players who guessed correctly receive a point (the Sphinx also receives
   a point for each correct guess of another player). In case a player guessed wrong the
   player who wrote down this (incorrect) word receives a point.

   Basically the game implements the same principles as the lexicon game or the German
   “Nobody
   is perfect“. The only difference is the more personal touch by having to guess
   what the Sphinx will write down. The Sphinx will try to write down something that is
   likely to be guessed by the others and the other players will try to write down words
   which sound convincing to all other players in order to trick them into selecting this
   word. So it is of some benefit to know the person that plays the Sphinx quite well.

   All of this is by no means a new idea or principle – it works fine all right but does not
   have a “lasting effect”.

   Westpark Gamers Score: 5.67

4. Nimm’s Leich!
   
   Although already 5 years old this is the first time we played
   the game. The title is a pun using the German idiom for “Take it easy” and by
   removing just one letter changing it to the equivalent of “Take a corpse” –
   well…

   The game uses 6 different “Leich” cards which are shuffled and placed face up
   in a line on the table. One end of the line is marked as “top” by turning the
   card (the highest ranking “Leich”) by 90 degrees. Each player receives 6 cards
   from a deck of 36. Each of these cards has 6 spaces for a representation of a
   “Leich” card. The distribution of “Leich” pictograms on these cards
   varies significantly, some show only 2 different “Leichs” but each of them 3
   times. Others show 3 “Leichs” each of them twice and so on. Each player takes
   the first card of his/her deck (which lies face down in front of the player) and the task
   of the players is to make a bet on how many “Leichs” of a particular kind are
   represented in total on all of the players drawn top cards. The start player makes the
   first bet. The next player now has three choices: either raising the bet for that
   “Leich” by at least one, or quoting a new bet for a higher-ranking
   “Leich” or challenging the bet of the previous player. If a bet is challenged
   all players vote on this bet by simultaneously showing a “thumbs up or
   down”. Those choosing “thumb up” believe in the bet, those with their
   thumb down disbelieve it. The cards are then revealed and the players who guessed
   correctly discard their card, the other players take back the card and place it as the
   last card in their deck.

   Twice in the game each player has the opportunity to ask two players to show him/her
   their card. This must happen before a bet is challenged, though.

   The game ends once a player has discarded all of his/her six cards.

   If all of this sounds familiar: yes, the principle is very similar to “Liar’s
   Dice” or “Bluff” as it is called in Germany. In comparison, we much prefer
   Bluff – it plays faster and is a bit more predictable with respect to the odds, and last
   but not least the suspense of the fact that the number of dice (and players!) is
   constantly reduced is unsurpassed.

   Westparkgamers Score: 4.5

5. Hence we decided to play our favorite “last game of the
   evening”:
   
6. Bluff
   
   After having some extreme results regarding the number of dice showing the same value
   last time round, this round was more of the usual matter. Our first round was slightly
   off the usual as it showed an surprisingly fast reduction of dice during the first few
   turns.

   Westparkgamers Score: 7.58

Spielbericht 5.9.2002

Autor: Moritz

am Tisch: Peter, Hans, Andrea, Moritz

auf dem Tisch: Legend of Zagor, Star Wars – Epic Duels

Der 2. „Orkabend“, diesmal wesentlich erfolgreicher als der erste (siehe
„Undead“-Kritik
), mit 2 schönen Spielen:

1. Legend of Zagor (Kurzkritik)
   
   Dieses Spiel aus den 80er Jahren ist in Deutschland kaum
   bekannt – Es basiert lose auf der berühmten Fighting Fantasy – Buchreihe (man
   denke an „Warlock of Firetop Mountain“), und wurde speziell für einen jungen
   Spielerkreis konzipiert (sprich: picklige 12-jährige). Daß man dieses Spiel auch als
   Erwachsener spielen kann, liegt nicht nur daran, daß wir im Herzen IMMER NOCH picklige
   12-jährige sind.

   Das Spielmaterial ist erst einmal umwerfend: Ein grosses Dungeon mit 3 Leveln wird
   aufwendig aus tollen und farbigen Plastikfiguren aufgebaut. Es gibt sogar eine richtige
   Hängebrücke, alles ist plastisch in 3D gestaltet, und gut konzipiert und durchdacht.
   Herzstück des Ganzen ist die Gruft von Zagor: Ein schwarzes, schweres Gebilde mit einem
   riesigen Knochenknopf obendrauf. Diese Gruft ist auch der „Kopf“ des Spieles:
   denn Zagor spricht!

   Am Anfang schaltet man das Spiel ein und eine dröhnende Computerstimme
   ertönt (übrigens ein echter Sprachchip, keine Samples): „Who dares challenge
   me?“. Die Spieler melden sich mit Knopfdruck auf einen jeweils ihnen zugeordneten
   Knopf an, dann geht’s los. Zagor bestimmt per Zufall wer anfängt.

   Es gibt 4 „Charakterklassen“: Wizard, Barbarian, Warrior, Dwarf. Diese haben
   nicht spezifisch andere Fähigkeiten, sondern benötigen unterschiedlich viel Geld für die
   sehr wichtigen Gegenstände, die man sich am Anfang und während des Spiels besorgen kann
   (es gibt sogar einen richtigen Händler mit eigener Plastikfigur, der die Waren im Dungeon
   an den Mann bringt! – das „Ding“ neben ihm ist übrigens eine Katze!).
   Dieses System resultiert in unterschiedlichen Schwerpunkten, die dann doch wieder
   charakterspezifisch sind, so zahlt der Barbar am wenigsten für Waffen, am meisten für
   Magie, etc.. Ein interessantes und dennoch simples System!

   Im Dungeon gibt es ausser den Monstern in den Haupträumen auch „Tiles“ zu
   entdecken, die nach Memory-Manier auch mehrmals verwendbar sind, d.h. man muß sich gut
   merken, was aufgedeckt wurde. Dies sind dungeontypische Gefahren und Hilfen: Gold,
   Fallen, Wachen, etc..

   Die Monster in den Haupträumen sind jedoch am Wichtigsten, denn nur dort gibt es die
   wertvollen Schatzkarten zu finden, mit denen man letztlich den bösen Zagor schwächen kann
   (man braucht möglichst viele davon).

   Der Kampf ist extrem kultig: je nach Level drückt man einen bestimmten Knopf, das
   allseits bekannte „Who dares challenge me?“ erklingt, dann drückt man den
   eigenen Knopf, und der Computer „würfelt“ ein Monster aus „SomeTHING
   approaches: you hear a NOISE behind you!“ (oder Varianten hiervon) . Dann sagt der
   Computer die Statistiken des Monsters an, und los geht’s. Den Rhythmus des Kampfes
   gibt der Computer vor: erst sagt er eine Zahl (nach der man bestimmen kann, ob das
   Monster trifft), dann würfelt der Spieler. Durch die ulkigen Soundeffekte kommt hier
   wirklich Stimmung auf, obwohl es hier wirklich simpel zugeht: entweder man trifft, oder
   man trifft nicht. Immerhin kann man Gefolgsleute für sich kämpfen lassen, magische Pfeile
   einsetzen, Zaubersprüche sprechen, etc.. Aber selten war es so still an unserem Tisch
   – fast kommt eine hypnotische Atmosphäre auf!

   Noch kultiger ist die Tatsache, daß der Computer das Spiel immer wieder mal vollkommen
   überraschend mit Zufallsereignissen unterbricht, die irgendeinen Spieler ausserhalb der
   Reihe betreffen. Das Unheimliche ist, daß das Spiel sich die Aktionen der Spieler zu
   merken scheint: so wurde ich gleich zu Anfang vom Computer als „Coward“
   beschimpft, der sich vor den Monstern versteckt (ich hatte tatsächlich weniger Kämpfe als
   die Anderen).

   Natürlich ist das alles viel mit Glückselementen versehen, man hat dennoch das Gefühl,
   einigermaßen über sein Schicksal zu bestimmen. Zusammen mit den Sounds, dem tollen
   Ambiente und einer gut gestimmten Abenteurergruppe, die sich darauf einlässt, kann dies
   wirklich ein sehr unterhaltsames Spiel sein.

   Entdeckt das Kind in Euch und besorgt Euch ZAGOR!

   WHO DARES CHALLENGE MEEEE?????

   Westpark-Gamers-Bewertung: 7.75

2. Star Wars – Epic Duels (Kurzkritik)
   
   Dieses Spiel ist momentan der letzte Schrei auf der immer besser
   werdenden „BoardgameGeek“ – Seite, was überrascht, denn es hat die 2
   Attribute, die normalerweise wenig Spielspaß versprechen: 1. Filmlizenz, 2. MB-Spiel!

   Hinter der poppigen Fassade versteckt sich jedoch ein geheimes „Avalon
   Hill/Hasbro“-Spiel (diese Lizenz ging ja jetzt an „Wizards of the
   Coast“ und versauert dort) – Aufwendiges Spielmaterial (in diesem Fall
   einigermaßen ansprechend bemalte Figuren aller wichtigen Star-Wars-Charaktere und viele,
   viele bunte Karten) verbunden mit einfachen Regeln, die jedoch auch Freak-Spieler
   ansprechen können – und ein guter Designer: Craig van
   Ness, machen „Epic Duels“ zu einem echten Knaller, nicht nur für Star
   Wars-Fans, aber natürlich besonders für diese.

   Die Idee ist simpel: Man nehme die Hauptcharaktere aus allen bisherigen Filmen, und
   lasse diese, auf der dunklen oder bösen Seite, in einer von 4 Arenen gegeneinander
   antreten, bis kein Pflänzchen mehr wächst. Jedem Hauptcharakter sind 1 oder 2
   Nebencharaktere zugeordnet (so umgibt sich Count Dooku mit 2 Robotern, Luke hat Leia
   dabei, etc.. „Was, Leia ist ein NEBENcharakter???“ sagt hier meine zornige
   Frau). Das Spiel ist als Teamspiel für entweder 4 oder 6 konzipiert (theoretisch könnte
   man wohl auch 8, 10 oder sogar 12 spielen lassen), funktioniert aber natürlich auch gut
   zu zweit.

   Nachdem die Spieler sich für gleichviel gute wie böse Charaktere
   entschieden haben, wobei nichts dagegen spricht auch z.B. Gute gegen Gute antreten zu
   lassen, geht’s direkt zur Sache. Jedem Charakter ist ein eigener Kartenstapel
   zugeordnet, der aus Angriffs-und Verteidigungskarten besteht, sowie einigen aufgewerteten
   „Power-Angriff“-Karten und „Special“-Moves. Kein Stapel gleicht
   dem Anderen, und alle vorkommenden Eigenschaften sind filmspezifisch und schön umgesetzt.
   So ist Darth Vader vor allem offensiv ausgerichtet, hat aber eine schlechte Verteidigung,
   Yoda blockiert wie kein Anderer, Boba Fett schiesst Fangseile ab, etc.. Manche der Karten
   sind extrem stark, immer gibt es aber einen anderen Charakter, der speziell diese
   Fähigkeit unterwandern kann (so ist Lukes Fähigkeit der Offensivkartenschwächung eher
   schwach, aber besonders nützlich gegen Darth Vader, etc.). Man würfelt erst für die
   Bewegung (die simpel ist, aber sehr wichtig und sogar recht taktisch- die Arenen sind
   übrigens relativ klein), und hat dann 2 Aktionen: entweder a) eine Karte ziehen, b) mit
   einer Karte angreifen oder c) sich selbst mit einer Karte eines schon gestorbenen
   Nebencharakters heilen. Letztere Fähigkeit ist eigentlich nur eine „Last
   Resort“ wenn man nichts besseres zu tun hat.

   Karten sind immer Charakteren zugeordnet, d.h. man braucht eine
   Greedo-Verteidigungskarte, wenn Greedo angegriffen wird, etc. Karten haben Angriffs-und
   Verteidigungswerte, die Differenz wird als Schaden ausgeteilt (es wird also nicht
   gewürfelt). Wenn man keine passende Karte hat, ist man verteidigungslos, und der
   Angreifer macht automatisch Schaden. Die häufigste Aktion wird also Kartenziehen sein
   (maximal kann man 10 haben).

   Nebencharaktere sterben meistens schnell, und dann hockt man auf deren Karten (wie
   gesagt: Heilung ist selten gut).

   Natürlich gibt es einen Sieg erst, wenn entweder die Dunkle oder die Gute Seite der
   Macht vollkommen vernichtet ist!

   „Epic Duels“ spielt sich schnell, und entfaltet einen eigenen Reiz. Echte
   Star-Wars-Stimmung kommt auf, wenn Darth Vader Schrotteile prasseln lässt, und ein
   zorniger Wookie einen besonders heftigen Armbrustschuss loslässt, weil sein Freund Han
   Solo gerade das Zeitliche gesegnet hat (ja, auch hierfür gibt es Karten!). Das Spiel ist
   exakt so komplex, daß es sich flott spielen lässt (in ca. 1 Stunde), und man gleich Lust
   auf mehr hat (wir spielten es spontan gleich zweimal, was selten ist). Die vielen
   Kampfkombinationen der 12 Charaktere tuen ein übriges, um dieses Spiel wirklich jeder
   Spielergruppe empfehlen zu können, die Lust auf ein flottes und vor allem lustiges
   Duellspiel haben.

   Die Macht™ sei mit Euch!

   Westparkgamers-Bewertung: 7.75

Game Session Report 4.9.2002

Author: Moritz

at the table: Walter, Peter, Hans, Günther, Moritz

on the table: Sternenhimmel, Titan – the Arena, Forum Romanum, Adel
verpflichtet

This evening was full of German games, two of them with the „most german of all
german game inventions“ – the „Kramerleiste“ (“Forum
Romanum” and “Adel verpflichtet”), and two of them (“Forum
Romanum” and “Sternenhimmel”) with the “most german of all german
gaming principles”: scoring with the majority in areas!

1. Sternenhimmel
   
   This “majority in areas” scoring principle takes an
   almost freeform approach in this game, as circles of star signs are randomly placed until
   all have been scored (meaning: all players have placed a numbered token – or
   “star” – on each space of the star sign). As star signs go, some of them are
   longish affairs (like the “snake” or the “scorpion”), some of
   them consist only of four spaces (“libra”). The larger the sign, the more
   points it will bring upon it’s “completion” – the player who owns
   the majority gets the most points, but has to “pay” all other players who
   didn’t make 1st or 2nd place (one per placed token). This makes 2nd place the most
   interesting prospect, as it usually only gives 2 points less than the leader gets –
   without having to pay the others!

   Spaces on the signs come in two groups: “secret” (value of token is hidden)
   and “open”. Each player has a selection of tokens, mostly numbers (the
   highest being 10), two doublers (doubling the value of all surrounding tokens) and
   “black holes” (destroying all surrounding counters). The latter two are
   mostly placed on the secret spaces – If a player starts to surround a
   “secret” token with numbered tokens you can be pretty sure he has a doubler
   placed there. And other players can profit as well! The design of the starsigns makes for
   different tactical situations, “node” points become more important than
   “line” – points etc.

   But the problem is the “freeform” aspect – it
   can happen (it did happen to me) that you invest in star signs that will not be
   “cleared” by other players (usually it is desireable to place the LAST token
   on each sign, as this gives the most control of the scoring) – they simply place
   their tokens on other signs. This means your tokens are not freed for other uses – as
   long as the sign is not totally occupied the tokens remain on the board. If the group –
   and this is simple “peer pressure” – decides to let a player
   “hunger” on a sign, they can block him out for several rounds. Of course in
   our game this was partly my own fault, as I placed too powerful combinations (apparently)
   that didn’t make it attractive for other players to “invest”.

   The bigger problem though is the simple repetitiveness of it all: place a
   “secret” token – it is either a black hole or a doubler (mostly).or
   place an open number token. That’s all. With more convoluted star signs the outcome
   is totally random, as you can never really be sure who places what on the secret spaces.
   And then you feel slightly bored by the strange use of the “star” theme (and
   attractive playing materials) for a totally abstract game with little strategy.

   Not a winner….

   Westpark-Gamers score: 4.6

2. Titan – the Arena
   
   Günther kannte dieses Spiel noch nicht (obwohl er natürlich
   die „Knizia-Urversion“ durchaus kannte). Immer wieder wird dieses Spiel gerne
   bei uns auf den Tisch gebracht – es ist perfekt in seiner Mischung aus Komplexität,
   Abwechslung und Spiellänge. 8 Monster kämpfen in einer imaginären Arena – die
   Spieler repräsentieren die Wettenden, die ihr Geld auf die Monster setzen. Es wird
   mehrere Runden geben, in der jeweils ein Monster ausscheidet. Am Spielende bleiben 3
   Monster übrig, und die überlebenden Wetteinsätze werden gezählt (Wetteinsätze auf
   sterbende Monster werden vernichtet). Jeder Wetteinsatz wird auf ein Monster in einer
   bestimmten Runde gesetzt (ein anderer Spieler kann dann nicht mehr setzen), und zählt
   mehr, je früher er eingesetzt wurde (natürlich ist die Chance, daß der Wetteinsatz
   überlebt, bei früherem Setzen geringer). Es ist auch möglich, in der ersten
   „Kampfrunde“, geheime Einsätze auf ein einziges Monster zu machen, die zählen
   am meisten am Ende. Man macht immer EINEN Wetteinsatz und spielt EINE Karte (nicht
   notwendigerweise auf das selbe Monster).

   Jedes Monster hat 11 zugeordnete Karten (von 0 – 10). Nur diese Karten können unter
   das Monster gelegt werden, es zählt immer die oberste Karte. Nachdem alle Monster in
   einer Runde eine Karte „besitzen“, wird das Monster mit der niedrigsten Karte
   entfernt. Natürlich ist das kein einfacher Prozess, denn die Spieler versuchen je nach
   Wettinteresse Monster zu stärken und zu schwächen. Es gibt auch einen Satz Jokerkarten,
   die auf jedes Monster gelegt werden können, und 2 Spezialkarten, mit denen man gespielte
   Karten regenerieren, und geheime Wetteinsätze entdecken kann.

   Der eigentliche Gag des bisher recht abstrakten (Knizia!) Spiels
   ist aber eine Weiterentwicklung Don Greenwoods von Avalon Hill: Jedes Monster hat eine
   Spezialfähigkeit, die von einem Spieler ausgelöst werden kann, wenn er a) die meisten
   offenen Wetteinsätze auf dieses Monster hat, und b) eine Karte auf dieses Monster spielt.
   So ermöglicht die Hydra das Ausspielen einer weiteren Karte, der Troll kann gespielte
   Karten früherer Runden wieder auf die Hand nehmen, der Ranger zieht 3 Karten usw. Obwohl
   diese Fähigkeiten im Spiel seltener eingesetzt werden, als man auf den ersten Blick
   glaubt, so geben sie doch die entscheidende Würze, die dieses Spiel so unterhaltsam und
   spannend macht. Beim Platzieren der Wetteinsätze spielt natürlich die Zugreihenfolge eine
   grosse Rolle: Spiele ich gegen einen Spieler, der direkt nach mir dran ist, so wird er
   mir höchstwahrscheinlich die Tour vermasseln. Viel schöner ist es, den Abschluss einer
   Kampfrunde „vorzubereiten“ (man kann es ja wirklich selten alleine steuern),
   und erfolgreich darauf zu spekulieren, daß der linke Nebenspieler mit den selben
   Interessen auf jeden Fall „dicht macht“.

   Wir haben dieses Spiel sicherlich schon knapp 20 mal gespielt, und es verliert nie seinen
   Reiz, daher:

   Westpark Gamers Bewertung: 8.25

3. Forum Romanum
   
   This is again a typical German „majority in an area
   scoring” – game, with a geometrical twist. Forget the Roman Theme, this is a
   very abstract “Advanced TicTacToe” with no relation to history or senators,
   like “Republic of Rome”.

   Players have a set number of tokens which they can place anywhere on the board (after all
   tokens are placed, they can move any token to anywhere). The rectangle map is diveded
   into 7 “houses” (square areas), with an overlay of vertical and horizontal
   lines, and two diagonal lines. Each of these “areas” is scored, after all
   tokens in it have been placed. The winner is rewarded points, the others get nothing, the
   players who have NO token in the area are punished with negative scores (especially
   negative if they are the only one, who does not have a token). As the various areas
   overlap (for example you could place a token that fills up a house, but at the same time
   a vertical, a horizontal and even a diagonal line), you have to think ahead, and
   sometimes surprising scorings take place, especially in a 5 or 6 player game. After an
   area is scored it is marked with a token and cannot be scored again, but still a token
   placed there could be important for another scoring, so you have to think about what
   token to remove and when. Deadlocks are not scored, but at the end of the game (when all
   areas have been filled at some point) they are rewarded as if there were several winners
   in each area (mostly decisive in winning). So basically you place tokens, are surprised
   by sometimes unforeseen scorings, and attempt to have enough tokens in the final areas to
   get a good “deadlock scoring” – that’s all!

   The game keeps your interest because of the “gobang” element, but is not
   really very exciting. And Wolfgang Kramer went on to create much more interesting
   “majority scoring” games, like “El Grande”.

   Westpark-Gamers-Score: 5.4

4. Adel verpflichtet
   
   One of the most famous “German
   Style”-games, and rightfully so, as it is still enjoyable and fresh more than a
   decade after it’s publishing.

   Players represent Art collectors who collect “series” of hopefully long
   (large) collections that they can exhibit. Cards are labeled A-F, and also have a date as
   a tiebreaker (oldest exhibits win, if two players tie in the size of exhibits).
   Exhibitions are a series of cards, and have to be played in an alphabetic series (so you
   could not play A-D-F, but for example A-A-B-C-D-F).

   There is a “race track” around the board, with an ingenious twist: Depending
   on the position of the leading player the scoring for the exhibitions is different. This
   encourages purposefully falling back for tactical reasons and using the new position of
   the leader to surpass him again. At the end of the game there is a final exhibition in
   which the largest and 2nd largest collection wins additional points on the track, mostly
   deciding the winner.

   Doesn’t sound very interesting yet, but there is more:

   Each round each player secretly plays a card to show where he will go: either the
   “Auktionshaus” (auction house”, for acquiring art cards) or the
   “Schloss” (castle, for making an exhibit). The two places are dealt with
   seperately: in the auction house players try to play the highest “cheque” to
   acquire one of two open art cards, but halt!, you can also play a thief to steal the
   highest played cheque. Two or more thieves block each other out, and yes, the
   cheques/thieves are played face down, at the same time!

   The castle is more complicated, you can make an exhibit (the largest and the second
   largest are awarded spaces on the track), you can play a thief who can steal a picture
   from EACH exhibit, and you can play a detective, who only comes into action if there was
   a thief (the thief is taken temporarily out of the game) and gains you spaces on the
   track depending on your actual position (the farther you’re behind the more spaces
   you gain). If there was no thief: well, what a bummer!

   Again, this is a guessing game, as all players play their cards secretly.

   “Adel verpflichtet” really is a fun game, with elements of bluffing,
   prediction and possibilities for naughtiness. Generally it is adviseable to play
   “against the flow”:if you predict most people will make an exhibit it will be
   good to be the only one in the auction house (to get a very cheap art object). Also one
   can try to predict the cards played in the castle – players desperate for art
   objects are very likely to play a thief, as in the final analysis it is impossible to win
   the game without a good collection. If everybody predicts, something totally
   unpredictable can happen, like everybody playing detectives, which is of course good fun.

   A game to be recommended for anybody who is interested in “German style”
   games – you can tell it is good by the fact that it is popular in the UK and US,
   although the name of the game is totally unpronounceable for English speakers”!

   Westpark-Gamers-Score: 6.75

Game Session Report 20.08.2002

Author: Peter

at the table: Aaron, Günter, Andrea, Moritz, Hans, Peter

on the table: Undead, Ohne Furcht und Adel, Hornochsen

1. Undead
   
   Since Walter wasn’t available for this session, we thought this might be a
   wonderful opportunity for some dice-driven fantasy game. Crazed as we are for Nightmare
   House, Moritz did not meet with much trouble when he tried to convince us of Undead. The
   description of Undead is breathtaking: Based on Bram
   Stoker’s Dracula novel (indeed, meticulously following it), this game was said
   to combine elements of role-playing games (Moritz took the job as neutral dungeon master,
   Hans acted as vampire and the rest of us formed the hunter party) and board games (board,
   dice). Moritz told us a lot of blood transfers, battling vampires, Sherlock Holmes and
   everything else that makes a romantic’s heart beating faster and faster.

   However, the game play of Undead was painfully boring, at least for us hunters. We
   finished ten “days” (which equals two real hours). They nearly always had the
   same sequence. First, Moritz would secretly roll the dice and pronounce: “Nothing of
   interest in the newspaper”. Then, we would err on a map of London and keep searching
   (searching implied secret dicing by Moritz, so we never could be sure that we
   hadn’t simply overlooked something). Movement cost one hour, searching the same.
   Since a day had twelve playing hours (if I remember correctly) and we had to return home
   before nightfall (or search for a new home), we were able to check 4-5 boroughs a day. As
   you will instantly see, we hardly ever found anything. Thus, game play can be described
   more less with this structure:

   1. Hunters: “We advance versus west (etc.) and check for coffins – anything
      there?”
   2. Secret dicing, then “No”
   3. Advance time chit two hours, go back to step 1 if it is before dawn.

   Remember, we played ten days. In all this time, we found: a) a coffin, b) some destroyed
   coffins (we kept wondering about those secret allies – after the game, Moritz told
   us that this destruction was the consequence of a die roll which indicated “coffin
   vandalism” – imagine Walter’s reaction on this) and c) a female vampire
   (which we could instantly slay, without trouble but also without consequences) –
   however, this vampire affaire was one of two times that the newspaper had hints for us.

   The second time was “prowler seen at dead corpse”. We went there and kept
   desperately searching – to no avail. When Moritz felt our frustration, he
   adumbrated that we shouldn’t believe everything in newspapers…

   There were annoying game pauses for us when Moritz played through the night with Hans,
   and the same was true for Hans when it was our turn.

   Games can’t get much duller than this. After two hours, we finally stopped this. If
   you own a copy of this vain effort of game design, sell it on Ebay before others read
   this review. Granted, this may sound harsh and cynical, but this game really
   doesn’t deserve other. It is devoid of any virtues and deformed by dreadful design
   flaws.

   Peter’s score: 1 (the other hunters scored the game 1, 1, and 2, Moritz and Hans
   scored 5 each, so this game may be more interesting from the vampire’s and
   DM’s point of view)

   Westpark-Gamers score: 2.5 (Median 1.5, the lowest median of any game ever scored)

2. Ohne Furcht und
   Adel
   
   After the Undead trauma, we needed some good, ol’, German-style, down-to-earth game
   for our successful atonement. After some minor squabbling we agreed on “Ohne Furcht
   und Adel”. Refer to Aaron’s review of this game.

   I succeeded this time in winning (perhaps the first time ever, not sure about this) by
   following a low-profile approach. The results of this game are a further confirmation of
   Moritz’ theory that “Ohne Furcht und Adel” cannot be won if you ever
   happen to fall victim to the assassin. Moritz proposed a rule change: If you are the
   assassin’s victim, you won’t lose your turn, you just won’t be able to
   use your character’s special ability and you won’t get the extra money for
   matching buildings. This really might work out, because the assassin is still a powerful
   character: The thief can’t prey on you, and you’re the first to act (of
   tremendous importance in the final round if you can raise an 8^th building).

   Westpark Gamers score: no new scoring.

3. Hornochsen
   
   Hornochsen may be described as the intellectual version of “6 nimmt”. The main
   differences are that (1) the 5^th card makes you take a row of cards, (2) a
   card lower than the lowest row of cards is added to the highest row of cards, (3) Players
   have special cards (+5, x2) they can add to a row of cards, (4) Players take turns (so no
   simultaneous playing!) and (5) they can play either 1, 2 or 3 cards.

   The resulting game play is very different from “6 nimmt”. The “6
   nimmt” strategy can basically described by the “höchste-niedrigste”
   (“highest-lowest card”) approach: The card you play must fit in a row and still
   not be the 6^th one – this can rarely be guaranteed; therefore, your card
   must be lower then a card one of your opponents is likely to play (otherwise you’re
   the hapless fellow to take the row) but high enough to make someone else take the row. Or
   conversely, your card must be so high that someone else takes the row before you and you
   can start a new row.

   This strategy is voided in Hornochsen since there is no simultaneous play and you can
   play 1-3 cards. In Hornochsen, you need cards to complete rows on your own without
   external interference. If you were able to get a completely green row with your +5 and
   your x2, this should win the game. Alas, you can play only three cards at a time so the
   secret is careful preparation of your winning move. Try to prepare a row in a way that
   no-one can complete it except you, and then play your two special cards and the final,
   fifth card. Of course, this actually never works out… So you have to aim at less
   ambitious goals, trying to secure at least one 2x. Combined with some positive points,
   this should win the game.

   There is something we have noticed: Aaron was the first to quit the game, and he won. I
   was second to quit, and I was second. The same is true for Moritz who quit and ranked
   third. Only for Günter and Hans, this was the other way round. This basically means: The
   longer you stay in game, the more probable it gets that you will swallow all those nasty
   “Hornochsen” cards (negative points, that is).

OHNE FURCHT UND ADEL (CITADELLES)

Publisher: Hans im Glück

Author: Bruno Faidutti

Tester: Aaron Haag

Game Tested: German 2000 edition, 1st rule release

Scenario: Set in a mediaeval surrounding each player aims to build the
strongest and most valuable city. A city is composed of districts of different attributes
and values. Assuming the role of one of seven possible characters in the game a player
performs the actions of that character to build and extend his or her city.

The Game: The game basically is a card game played using character cards and
district cards. At the start of the game each player receives four district cards from
the shuffled deck plus two gold coins (the coins are made of plastic, look nice and can
be stacked easily). The character cards are distributed amongst the players in a similar
fashion as in the game Verräter (which is actually referenced in the rules because of this): the
deck of character cards is shuffled, cards are discarded in order to leave just one more
character card in the deck than players in the game. The cards are then passed around for
each player to select a character, starting with the current king.

Following this, the “character action round” begins. There is a fixed
sequence in which the characters act: the assassin, the thief, the magician, the king,
the priest, the merchant, the architect and finally the mercenary. Each character has one
special ability which he can use in his turn in addition to the normal actions common to
all characters. The common actions are to either take a district card by selecting one of
two cards drawn from the face-down district deck or to take two gold. Then, if he wants
to, the player builds a new district in his town by playing one of the district cards
from his hand open in front of him and paying the amount of gold printed on this card.
Districts cost between one and six gold, the costs usually reflecting the value of the
district at the end of the game (there are actually two exceptions where a district at
the end of the game counts 2 more than the building costs).

The special abilities of the characters add tactical opportunities as well as
uncertainty to the game:

1. Assassin: may announce that he kills another character. The player playing the
   assassinated character may not act at all during this round.
2. Thief: may announce that he steals all gold from a character. The player
   playing that character hands all his gold to the thief at the beginning of his turn.
3. Magician: may announce that he wants to exchange all his district cards with
   those of another player or any number of his cards with the deck.
4. King: gets one gold for each yellow district in his town and he plays king in
   the next round, meaning that he is the first one to select a character.
5. Priest: his districts are save from the actions of the mercenary and he gets
   one gold for every blue district in his town.
6. Merchant: gets one extra gold plus one gold for each green district in his
   town.
7. Architect: gets two extra district cards from the deck and may build three
   instead of just one district per turn.
8. Mercenary: may destroy one district of another player paying the districts
   value minus one in gold to the bank (i.e. value 1 districts are free) and he get one gold
   for every red district in his town.

The final round of the game starts when one players has managed to have eight
districts in his town at the end of his turn. The game ends once all characters have
completed this round.

Playing Time: The rules are explained in less than 10 minutes, the game plays
in about 60 to 150 minutes depending on the number of players. A six player game usually
lasts 2 hours.

Similar Games: Verräter (Marcel-André Casasola-Merkle)

Westpark Gamers’ Opinion: The rules state that the game can be played by
three to seven players. Although there are sufficient cards in the game to actually do
this I believe the game suffers if played with more than five players. First of all the
playing time becomes way to long for a simple game like this – two to two and a half
hours – if played with six or more players. Secondly, with so many players nearly all of
the characters are in play most of the time. This leads to a situation where it is almost
inevitable that players try to hit the current leader and are able to do so. This makes
the game drag on for longer than it actually should. The final scores reflect this, too:
more often than not the scores are very close with the winner being the player who just
happened to get a lucky draw, scoring the four extra points for building eight districts
first.

With fewer players there is a lot more planning involved in order to get the timing
right for building that eighth district. Although the element of luck is somewhat higher
with respect to the availability of characters this actually improves the game. Now it
needs some thinking ahead to be able to get that architect character right at the moment
you need it to finish the game early. I believe that four or five players is what you
want to play this game with.

The character selection process is what makes the game so much fun. You can never be
absolutely sure which character has been selected by a particular other player, although
very often there seems to be an obvious choice for most players. But what if this obvious
choice is too obvious to the player concerned and he or she deliberately chose a
different one? Therefore you are faced with the problem of constantly thinking ahead of
your fellow players – who are exactly doing the same…

Aaron’s Rating: 8 (out of 10)

Westpark Gamers’ Rating: 7.5

Links to further information:	Luding Link for Ohne Furcht und Adel
	Bruno Faidutti’s webpages about Ohne Furcht und Adel with a FAQ, the English rules and some variants

Game Session Report 14.08.2002

Author: Moritz

at the table: Basti, Aaron, Moritz, Hans, Peter, Walter

on the table: Medici, Vinci, …und Tschüss!, Bluff

1. Medici (Reiner Knizia)
   
   This is an earlier effort of Reiner Knizia, a very abstract game of bidding
   and trading. It is played in three rounds, each of these rounds is divided into a bidding
   and a scoring round. There are 36 cards depicting 5 differently coloured wares in values
   0 to 5 (0-1-2-3-4-5-5), and one “neutral card” with the value of 10. In turn,
   every player turns over 1, 2 or 3 cards (s/he can decide to turn over additional cards
   after seeing what card was turned over). The player to her/his left starts bidding (each
   player starts with 30 “gold”). There is only one bidding round, so the last
   player in the round (incidentally the card turner) can always make the bid if s/he wants.
   The maximum amount of cards you can own is 5, and you can not bid for cards which would
   bring your assembled cards to more than 5. This makes for an interesting decision for the
   card turner, as s/he can exclude certain players from the bidding by turning over more
   cards than they can take!

   At the end of the round the players count the value of their cards and
   get the most money for the highest sum, less money for the second highest and so on. Then
   the scoring round begins: Now the colours come into play. Each player advances tokens on
   different “ware pyramids”, one step for each card s/he owns at the end of the
   bidding round. Again each pyramid brings money after scoring – but only to the two
   highest tokens. The “10” card doesn’t move any token at all (but will
   assure you profits at the end of the bidding round, which is also important). Who has the
   most money after three rounds wins.

   The dilemma is obvious: Should you collect cards to advance tokens, accepting bad values
   like “0” and “1”? Or should you concentrate on winning the
   bidding rounds (which gives, in the short term, more money).? And that’s about it
   – what we have here is a purely mathematical game, which doesn’t have
   anything to do with the historically fascinating exploits of the real
   “Medici”. The game could be called “Grocery Store Empire” or
   “Chewing Gum – The Game” and would play the same. But well, that
   wouldn’t sell wouldn’t it?

   A capable effort from Germany’s most prolific game designer, that’s all we
   could say after playing it. It works as a mathematical dilemma, but doesn’t really
   make for an exciting or colourful game.

   Westpark-Gamers score: 5.67

2. Vinci
   
   Definitely one of the most successful of the “Euro-Games” line
   (surviving atrocious rules translations and counter misprints). The game is like a small
   version of “History of the World” – on a relatively small map (for this
   kind of games) of Europe various cultures and empires rise and fall, with the goal to
   accumulate as many victory points as possible. The Empires are created by an ingenious
   random (counters are drawn from a bag) combination of “cultural traits” which
   results in immensely various player powers. For example you could have the combination
   “galleys” and “mines”. The galleys bring you additional attacking
   power when attacking along coast lines, the mines bring you additional victory points
   when occupying spaces with a “pickaxe”. Other traits could be
   “fortresses” which bring defensive forts, “spies” which give you
   the ability to make an especially cheap attack, or “diplomacy” which prevents
   one player from attcking you (and you from attacking her/him) each round. The
   combinations are virtually limitless. Of course they are not all eqally powerful, which
   is partly dealt with by giving the more powerful traits less “people power” –
   you see, each counter also determines how many tokens you get when founding the empire
   – the more tokens you have, the more expansive power is apparent in an empire (you
   need tokens to conquer spaces and to occupy them after conquest).

   But there is an even more ingenious idea: there are always 6 empire
   combinations to choose from, the ones that are the “furthest away” cost more
   than the “nearer ones”. If you take any empire, the gap is filled by adding
   another empire at the topmost position, and moving the others down. Everytime you take
   more expensive empires, the point cost you pay is added to the empires “jumped
   over”. This means that empires which seemed uninteresting at first become more
   attractive later in the game as you will get the accumulated points as a bonus when you
   take these “nobody-wants-me” combinations. Playing an empire is easy – you
   start somewhere on the rim of the board and try to conquer spaces through combat. The
   latter is handled totally deterministic: the number of tokens necessary to conquer a
   given space is calculated by taking the number of defending tokens, terrain and special
   abilities into account. If you can match that number, you conquer the space – easy!
   The problem is you have very few tokens for an empire, and each attack on you will result
   in you losing one token permanently. And to get victory points for spaces needs you to
   occupy a space with at least one token. This means that most empires “max
   out” after 2 or 3 rounds. Any attack after that will always weaken you without you
   ever having the chance to build up again. This is when you decide to put your empire into
   “decline” to start a new one. The old surviving tokens become passive (like
   in “History of the World”), but will give you additional points as long as
   they survive.

   In a normal game you play 2-4 different empires – if a culture survives 4 or 5
   rounds it can already be described as being very succesful. In a 6 player game the final
   round begins when 1 player reaches the score of 100 – the round is played to
   it’s end and the player with the most points wins. This will normally not take longer
   then 2 hours, and you have seen dozens of empires rise and fall (think of the endless
   “Civilization” in comparison!).

   The game is good, no doubt, the mechanisms work, and it is easily explained and played
   even with novices. But… and that’s a big “but”, it is one of the
   WORST “kingmaker games I’ve ever seen. As the scores are open and the moves
   totally calculable, every player can hurt the position of any player badly, if s/he
   decides so. If you want to play aggressively against one player because you already lose,
   you will most probably prevent her/him from winning . At least with our gaming group
   there is constant bickering about who should attack whom at any given point. It
   doesn’t have to, but it can degenerate into a kind of “bullying” game, in
   which not the playing style but pure group dynamics decide who will win in the end.
   Because of this this game has recently taken some flak, and there have been some attempts
   to remedy this problem (hidden scores, for example).

   Still, it is one of the few “grand-style” empire building games, that is
   playable in a very short time without feeling cheated. If you can bear the fact that the
   game is totally ahistoric (the empires don’t have names, although the combination
   “farmer/mountaineer” will bring certain Swiss traits to mind, for example)
   you will be in for a treat.

   Westpark Gamers score: 7.5 (lowered)

3. …und Tschüss!
   
   One of our group commented “he must have a lot of time”
   when reading about Martin Wallace’s (this game’s designer) job as a grammar
   school teacher! Well, he certainly designs an impressive number of games – not all
   of them winners, but excellent games like “Lords of
   Creation” or “Empires of the
   Ancient World” come to mind when thinking of Wallace.

   This game is a relatively minor effort of his – a simple “trick-taking”
   card game of no great inventiveness. 9 cards are dealt out to each player, ranging from
   15 (highest) to -10 (lowest). Then one card less (from the same -10 to 15 stack) than the
   number of players is dealt out openly. Each player now plays one card face down, then the
   cards are turned over, and the lowest played card takes the lowest open score card (the
   “trick”). S/he is “out” and greeted by a rule-enforced (!)
   “… und Tschüss” by the other players (which means “good
   riddance” in German, well that reminds me of the games I had to endure as a grammar
   school kid…). In subsequent rounds the sum of the cards played until then is counted,
   not only the newly played card. Sounds easy and stupid (well it is, a little), but
   don’t forget there is 1 card less than the number of players. You see, there will
   only be two players left who compete for the last card, and one of them will get…
   nothing. So it might be more clever to drop out early on and be satisfied with a low
   card, than to spend lots of cards on nothing.

   Cards unused are kept, you fill up to 9, and a new turn begins. The player who dropped
   out first also has the opportunity to exchange cards s/he doesn’t want. After the
   deck has been exhausted a certain number of times, the player with the highest collection
   of score cards wins.

   If this sounds not particularly exciting you’re right. The question is, as there are
   so many interesting German card games around (think of “6 nimmt!” for example), do we really “need” a
   half-baked effort like this? Well, Goldsieber seems to think so. Not atrociously bad, but
   not a winner either.

   Westpark Gamers score: 3.0

4. Bluff
   
   Again we delved into this favourite of ours – I have already described it
   abundantly, so let it be said that this game had two “historical events”
   –

   Let me describe the end game of game 1: Aaron and Walter had one dice left each, I had
   two. We roll, Walter places the die on two “2’s”. Hmm… interesting.
   Aaron shoves the die immediately to three “2’s”. Even more interesting!
   Without hesitating I bid four “2’s”, which Walter, as there were no more
   dice than 4, had to challenge. I had two “2’s”, and Walter and Aaron each
   had a star or a 2! Nice win for me….

   The next game was totally wild. It immediately became clear that there were a lot of
   “5’s” around in one particular roll. People kept “saving”
   5’s outside their dice-shaker and re-rolling. In fact, we ended up placing nearly all
   of our dice into the open, which moved the “bidding” BEYOND the count printed
   on the track (which ends at 20). Only when we reached 24, somebody disbelieved
   (rightfully) the illusion. In my experience this has never happened in a game I know of
   – any similar experiences out there? A new record?

   Westpark Gamers score: 7.58 (lowered, Basti didn’t like it that much)

Spielbericht vom 08.08.2002

Autor: Moritz

am Tisch: Andrea, Aaron, Walter, Peter, Hans, Moritz

auf dem Tisch: Falling, Castle of Magic, Bluff

1. Falling
   
   Eines der allerersten Cheapass-Spiele (in der letzten Zeit sind ja die
   Neuerscheinungen dieser Firma stark unter Beschuss – „zu viele und zu
   schlechte“ Spiele ist der Tenor), noch in „aufwendiger“ Aufmachung (mit
   Farbkarten). Tatsächlich verdient dieses Spiel auch heute noch seinen innovativen Ruf,
   denn es ist eines der wenigen gelungenen Spiele, bei dem quasi alle gleichzeitig spielen.

   Um was es geht? Eine etwas problematische Thematik nach 9/11: Alle
   Spieler fallen aus einem Hochhaus, alle werden unten ankommen und sterben. Es geht nur
   darum, wer dies als letzter tut! Einer ist der Geber (der in diesem Spiel nicht
   mitspielt, und alle Timing-Fragen klärt). Er verteilt einen Kartenstapel gleichmäßig auf
   die Spieler, an dessen Ende so viele „Ground“-Karten kommen, wie Mitspieler
   (was jeweils das Ende bedeutet). Nun dealt er die Karten in gleichmässigem Rhythmus aus.
   Die Spieler können die Karten (mit einer Hand) aufnehmen und gleich wieder spielen, und
   zwar auf jeden den sie wollen. Da mit einer Hand gespielt wird, ist es nicht möglich,
   mehr als eine Karte aufzunehmen – man muß also die Karte spielen, die man genommen
   hat, um eine andere zu bekommen. Die Karten kommen in 2 Typen: „Rider“
   (Querformat) und „Action“ (Hochformat). Die Rider
   beeinflussen die Kartenverteilung des Dealers – er teilt den Stapel in 2 auf, er
   spielt 2 Karten auf einmal, er überspringt den Spieler. Die Action-Karten schnappen
   andere „Rider-Karten“, stoßen „Rider-Karten“ ab und verhindern
   den Aufprall auf den „ground“, zumindest für kurze Zeit. All diese Aktionen
   gehen kreuz und quer, was „Falling“ zu einem der hektischsten Spiele macht,
   die ich kenne! Es geht also darum, miese „Rider-Karten“ auf einen selber zu
   verhindern oder diese anderen zuzuschustern. Gleichzeitig versucht man Karten zu
   „sammeln“, die ein frühes Ende verhindern, wobei man natürlich auch den
   Stapel des Gebers im Auge behalten muß. Tatsächlich braucht man ein gutes
   Reaktionsvermögen, um hier den Durchblick zu behalten, und es ist sogar eine gewisse
   Taktik vonnöten…

   Alles in allem also ein wirklich unterhaltsames, empfehlenswertes und vor allem billiges
   Spiel. Man braucht 1, 2 Partien, um den neuartigen Mechanismus zu begreifen, wenn das
   Spiel aber einmal ins Rollen kommt, gibt es kein Halten. Eine Partie ist in 5 Minuten zu
   schaffen!

   Westpark-Gamers Bewertung (aufgewertet): 7.17

2. Castle of Magic (mit Expansion: „castle cursed“)
   
   Hier begeben wir uns wieder auf kontroverses Terrain, denn „Castle of Magic“
   ist definitiv kein „Walter-Spiel“!!! Walter wird sich hierzu vielleicht noch
   selber äußern (hier ist Walters Meinung zum
   Spiel), es sei nur gesagt, daß es große Liebhaber dieses Spiels gibt (z.B. Andrea,
   Hans, Peter und mich), denn es verquickt auf interessante Weise Elemente aus mehreren
   Spielegattungen (Mystery, Fantasy, Rennspiel), ist relativ leicht erklärt doch komplex im
   Spielverlauf, ist schnell, lustig und bis zum Schluss spannend.

   Worum es geht: In einem magischen Schloss kommt es zum
   letzten Duell mehrerer Fraktionen, die um die Macht über 3 Länder kämpfen. Am Ende dieses
   Duells steht die Durchführung eines arkanen Rituals mit 8 Ausgangsmöglichkeiten, wobei es
   3 zu manipulierende Objekte gibt: Bell, book und candle. Ausserdem wird um die Kontrolle
   dreier magischer Gegenstände gekämpft, die die jeweils die Herrschaft über ein anderes
   Land erlauben. Je nachdem wie das Ritual ausgeht, hat das auf den letztlichen Herrscher
   über das Land verschiedene Auswirkungen. Es ist auch möglich, das alle sterben (und ja,
   sogar dies kann einem nihilistisch angelegten Charakter am Ende nützen!). Die
   Ritualausgänge (also welche Kombination welches Endergebnis bringt) sowie die Zuordnung
   der magischen Gegenstände sind am Anfang geheim, und müssen von den Spielern
   herausgefunden werden, zum Teil durch Deduktion, oder auch durch geheime Konferenzen mit
   anderen Spielern.

   Jeder Spieler gehört einer der Fraktionen an (oder
   scheint es, und verfolgt in Wirklichkeit andere Ziele, auch das gibt es), und hat ein
   bestimmtes Ziel, das sich aus den jeweiligen Punkteangaben auf seiner (für die anderen
   Spieler geheimen!) Karte ergibt. Meistens will man, daß man selber (oder einer seiner
   eigenen Fraktion) ein bestimmtes Land beherrscht, und die anderen verflucht werden, aber
   manche Charaktere haben auch komplexere Ziele.

   Man bewegt sich auf einem (für ein Fantasy-Spiel erstaunlich schmucklosen) Brett in
   „Talisman“-Manier (würfeln, links oder rechts rum gehen), wobei man,
   ebenso wie in Talisman, vom äußeren zum mittleren und schließlich zum Inneren Ring
   vordringt. Jeder Ring hat andere Gewichtungen: so dient der äußere Ring zum Beispiel vor
   allem der Stärkung der Zaubersprüche, mit denen man die Objekte deduzieren oder
   kontrollieren kann, und der Informationssuche. Der mittlere Ring stärkt einen im Kampf
   und ermöglicht viele Kontrollzauber, der innere Ring schließlich befördert das Spielende,
   denn man kann dort das Ritual in Bewegung setzen. In die inneren Ringe kann erst
   vorgedrungen werden, wenn einer oder alle Ritualgegenstände bewegt worden sind.

   Die Spannung im Spiel entsteht durch das
   langsame Herausfiltern der Informationen: Was will ich? Womit kann ich es erreichen? Wer
   sind meine Freunde, wer meine Gegner? Wie in einer Kritik richtig bemerkt wurde, sind
   Freunde sehr wichtig. Die Wahrscheinlichkeit, daß jemand ähnliche (nie gleiche) Ziele
   verfolgt, und daher z.B. den selben Ritualausgang will, ist sehr hoch. Ein Freund kann
   also sehr hilfreich sein! Umgekehrt ist destruktives Spiel gegen bestimmte Spieler sehr
   schwer, Teamarbeit wird also belohnt. Am Ende entbrennt meistens ein heißer Kampf um die
   Kontrolle bestimmter Gegenstände und um den endgültigen Ritualausgang. Wenn das Spiel
   beendet ist, setzt je nach Informationsstand ein grosses Staunen über die wahren Ziele
   der jeweiligen Spieler ein – die relativ komplizierte Abrechnung endet meistens in
   negativen Punktzahlen! Wer hier „positiv“ ist, und am meisten Punkte
   gesammelt hat, ist Sieger.

   Die Mischung aus „Cluedo“ und „Talisman“
   funktioniert sehr gut – das Spiel ufert nie aus, und hat eine bis zuletzt
   ansteigende Spannungskurve (und eine gar nicht mal extreme Spieldauer – 2 Stunden
   für 6 Spieler). Wer dieses doch recht obskure Spiel finden kann, sollte es also unbedingt
   mal ausprobieren – es kann der Beginn einer „langen Freundschaft“ sein.

   Wir waren uns allerdings einig, daß das Expansion Set „The castle cursed“ mit
   neuen Fraktionen und zusätzlichen „Wild Magic“-Karten das Spiel nicht
   bereichert sondern eher undurchsichtiger und glücksbetonter macht. In unserer
   „Bestenliste“ gab’s für diese Kombination weniger Punkte.

   Link zu
   Boardgamegeek

   Link zu Walters Reaktion auf diese Rezension.

   Westpark-Bewertung: 6.17 (3.17 Punkte weniger von Walter!)

3. Bluff
   
   Let it be said: This is the definitive “starter” or “finishing”
   game. It is easily explained, lots of fun, and ideal if you want to get in the mood for a
   game evening, or if you want to “chill out” after a longer game.

   “Bluff” incorporates many ideas from similar dice-rolling and
   deduction games, but with the twist of the “star” die. All players start out
   with 5 dice which they roll in secret. One player then makes a “bid” by
   placing a red die on the board. This bid tells the amount that s/he think has been rolled
   IN TOTAL by all players. Of course s/he only knows the own rolled dice, so there is
   always a lot of statistical guessing involved. Especially because of the
   “star” die (which replaces the “6” and can mean ANY other
   number). This means the chance of any number being rolled is 1/3. Of course you can also
   bid on the number of “stars” rolled (1/6).

   Whatever you bid, the next player has either to bid higher, or disbelieve. If s/he
   disbelieves, all dice are shown, and the real amount checked. Now either the
   “rightfully disbelieving” or “cheating” player loses the
   difference in numbers rolled in dice, which will reduce their future prediction skills,
   as they have less dice to work on. The last “surviving” player who has still
   dice left wins.

   Simple principle, great game – but you should definitely play it with the
   “unofficial” variant: It is possible to place some of your rolled dice in the
   open, and to reroll the others in secret, IF you place a higher bid on the number you
   “revealed”. This results in more exciting and crazy bids than in the
   “official” rule.

   Regarding this variant Günther reports:

   I looked for my copy of “Liars Dice” (MB/USA), the original “Bluff”
   game. Here you can find the OFFICIAL “Show and Reroll Rule”:

   Immediatly after opening or raising a bid, you may place one or more of your dice
   outside of your dice cup for all players to see, then reroll and hide all of your
   remaining dice. any rerolled dice that match your bid will count toward it. Showing and
   rerolling could improve your chances for winning a possible challenge.

   You can show any amount of dice outside of your cup, as long as you have at least one
   die left to reroll. The dice you show don´t have to match your bid. They stay in view,
   outside your cup, for the rest of the round, and count toward the challenged bid if they
   match it.

   Westpark Ranking: 7.73

Spielbericht vom 01.08.2002

Autor: Moritz

am Tisch: Hans, Peter, Andrea, Thomas, Moritz

auf dem Tisch: Nightmare House!

1. Nightmare House!
   
   Das vollkommen obskure aber unglaublich atmosphärische Horror-Brettspiel „Nightmare
   House“ (SPI ARES – „nur“ ein Magazinspiel!) entwickelt sich bei
   uns immer mehr zum Kultklassiker. Immer neue Scharen von „Huntern“ betreten
   das Haus der Horrors, um letztlich doch dem Bösen (also mir, hähähähä) anheim zu fallen.
   Diesmal wurden wieder oft die unglaublich konfus angeordneten Regeln konsultiert, doch
   man kann insgesamt sagen, daß wir absolut regelgetreu spielten, vor allem mittels der
   unverzichtbaren Errata von Web-Grognards.

   Diesmal erlaubte ich als Haus (warum muss ich immer das Haus spielen???), dass die Hunter
   sich den besten von 2 Charakteren auswählen durften, was eine quasi perfekte
   Hunter-Truppe erzeugte. Die 4 fackelten auch nicht lange und verteilten ihre Gegenstände
   gleich auf der Veranda so, daß sie quasi unangreifbar wurden. Der erste Zug brachte
   gleich einen harten Schlag für das Böse: Andreas „Potter“ drang sofort
   unerschrocken in den Turm vor, wo es ihr gelang, gleich eines der besonders fiesen
   „immobile haunts“ (unbewegliche Geister) nicht nur im Kampf zu besiegen,
   sondern auch gleich zu exorzieren. Nach einer kurzen Phase des Suchens kommandierte Peter
   die Truppe wieder zu seiner Lieblingstaktik: mit Pentagramm einigeln und konzertiert in
   der Astralebene angreifen. Diesmal wurde die Entität arg gebeutelt: Angriff auf Angriff
   folgte, eine Achse nach der anderen fiel. Da die Spieler 2 Heiler ausgewählt hatten,
   wurde auch die übliche Taktik, die Guten durch gezielte Angriffe in der Astralebene auf
   die Seite des Bösen zu ziehen, vereitelt. Im Grunde musste ich ständig total defensiv
   spielen, nur gelegentlich gelang es mir, die Angriffe abzuwehren. Bis auf ein kurzes
   Intermezzo mit einem physischen und psychischen Monster war dieses Spiel vollkommen
   kampffrei, denn es lohnte sich für das Haus nicht, teure Monster aufrechtzuerhalten, die
   die Spieler letztendlich nicht angreifen konnten.

   Auf diese Weise gespielt wird das Spiel vor allem zum Glücksduell – wer zieht die
   besten Chits, wer würfelt besser beim Exorzieren. Man kann sagen, dass die Würfel gerecht
   fielen – beide Seiten mussten eine gleiche Anzahl von Verlusten hinnehmen. Und
   dennoch: Trotz der Übermacht der Hunter scheiterte deren Angriff letztlich doch in der
   letzten Runde, als es Andrea nicht gelang, in die Astralsphäre einzutauchen, und daher
   nur 2 Hunter – Thomas und Peter die Entität angreifen konnten, als noch 2 Siege
   nötig waren (um zu siegen, muss die Entität dreimal besiegt werden). Während Hans, der
   sich in dieser Runde in der Astralebene verirrt hatte, tatenlos zuschauen musste, warf
   ich all meine letzte Energie gegen Thomas, da er der schwächer ausgerüstete Angreifer
   war. So kam Thomas (der uns übrigens die nächsten Monate wegen seiner Finnlandreise
   fehlen wird) sogar noch in den Genuss, mit mir Sieger zu werden, denn obwohl Peter seinen
   Exorzismus erfolgreich durchführen konnte, war es halt einer zu wenig. So triumphierte
   wieder einmal das Böse….wenn auch so knapp wie noch nie!

   Beim nächsten Mal, so waren sich alle einig, will man doch versuchen, die Hunter mehr
   ausschwärmen zu lassen, denn in dieser Form wird das Spiel zum zwar spannenden aber
   letztlich doch zu wackligen Würfelduell für die Hunter.

   So sammelt also das böse Haus der Darkholms wieder seine Kräfte, dunkle Wesen erheben
   sich schlurfend in klammen Gängen, etwas unnennbar Grauenhaftes streckt seine Fühler
   aus…das NIGHTMARE HOUSE wartet, denn es weiß, es wird wieder siegen!!!! Wieder einmal
   ein spannender Abend mit diesem tollen und vollkommen unterschätzten Spiel – Ich
   kann jedem nur empfehlen, eine Kopie dieser ARES-Ausgabe zu ergattern. Sie sind manchmal
   gar nicht mal teuer bei EBAY zu
   finden…

   Nightmare House Spielhilfe

   Westpark-Gamers Bewertung (aufgewertet): 7.3

Spielbericht vom 16.07.2002

Autor: Moritz

am Tisch: Walter, Peter, Aaron, Günther, Andrea, Moritz

auf dem Tisch: Thunderin’ Guns, Heimlich und Co.

1. Thunderin’ Guns
   
   Jeder, der den Spielbericht über „Villa
   Paletti“ gelesen hat, weiß, daß wir eine nicht unpekuliäre Spielgruppe sind.
   Das kann sich in durchaus extremen Spielverhalten äussern, oder auch in endlosen
   Diskussion über unklare Regeln (leider oft durch unklare Regelhefte verursacht, wie man
   sich denken kann). Gelegentlich kommt es deswegen zu absurden Spielerlebnissen, in denen
   das Spiel selber fast in den Hintergrund tritt, oder sogar gänzlich abgebrochen wird
   – so auch hier, bei dem extrem obskuren „Thunderin’ Guns“ von
   Standard Games, einst erfolgreich mit der „Cry
   Havoc“ und „Dark Blades“-Reihe. Wie bei anderen Spielen dieser
   Firma gibt es einen schön gezeichneten Spielplan, schön gezeichete Counter (allerdings
   aus meist schlechtem Material) und eine ultramiese Regel. Allerdings steckt immer
   irgendwo dahinter ein gutes Spiel, so zum Beispiel auch bei dem von Peter und mir so
   geschätzten „City of Sorcerers“, dem ersten Standard-Games-Spiel überhaupt.

   In „Thunderin’ Guns“ geht es um ein Westernthema. Die Spieler spielen
   entweder den Sheriff, den Outlaw (Banditen) oder einen von 4 Revolverhelden, die jeweils
   unterschiedliche Ziele verfolgen. Der Sheriff bekommt fürs Einbuchten von Gaunern (der
   Outlaw ist schon einer, die anderen Spieler können zu Gaunern werden, wenn sie morden und
   rauben) Ruhmespunkte, und auch für das Fortschreiten des Spiels (je länger das Spiel
   dauert, desto eher gewinnt der Sheriff). Der Outlaw versucht durch Bank-, Postkutschen-
   und Zugüberfälle an 20 Goldsäcke zu kommen – ein nicht leichtes Unterfangen! Die
   Revolverhelden wollen allein zu den besten Schützen werden – mit 25
   „Gunskill“-Chit-Punkten sind sie jeweils Sieger. In der kleinen Stadt tummeln sich auch einige Gestalten wie
   der „Undertaker“, der Hotelbesitzer, die Bardame usw. Ausserdem gibt es eine
   Ranch, eine Farm und ein Indianerlager. Alle Nichtspielercharaktere können rekrutiert
   werden (oder soll ich sagen „angeheuert“?-siehe unten!!!). Man würfelt,
   bewegt sich entsprechend, dann gibt es, falls man angreift, Gefechte. Dabei wird auf
   einer simplen Tabelle der Schaden gewürfelt, wer mehr hat gewinnt. Der Gewinner erhält
   Geld, eventuell Ruhm und 2 „Gunskill Chits“ (mit Zahlen zwischen 1 und 3,
   manchmal auch Dynamit Chits, die beim Gefängnisausbruch oder Safeknacken helfen), der
   Verlierer immerhin auch noch einen „chit“.

   Was simpel klingt, spielt sich auch simpel – ausser man zerbricht sich den Kopf
   über Regeln!

   So ist in der Regel abwechselnd von „rekrutieren“ und „anheuern“
   die Regel. Rekrutierte/angeheuerte Charaktere stehen unter der Kontrolle eines Spielers
   (dies können nur Sheriff und Outlaw). Bewegen die sich dann zusammen, wie bei den
   NPC’s auch? Nur so sind ja wirklich gemeinsame Angriffe möglich. Und bekommen die
   bei einem Kampf anwesenden „Bystanders“ auch Gunskill Chits, wenn sie in das
   Gefecht eingreifen? In der Regel steht, man muß „directly involved“, also
   direkt involviert sein, was sich hundertfach interpretieren lässt. Daß ein so einfaches
   Spiel in so wesentlichen Punkten so unklar sein kann, ist vielleicht der Grund, warum man
   es heute kaum noch kennt.

   Dennoch eine erstaunlich hohe Bewertung, immerhin
   
   Westpark-Gamers Bewertung: 4.5

   Die abgebildeten Counter sind übrigens zum Teil aus einem inoffiziellen Expansionsets
   eine damaligen Spielefreundes (Jesko Puls) – Jesko, gibt’s Dich noch? Wenn
   ja, melde Dich doch einmal – Deine Zeichnungen sind immer noch legendär! Und: wer
   eine verbesserte Regel dieses Spiels kennt, melde sich bitte – wir würden dem Teil
   noch eine Chance geben!!!

2. Heimlich und Co.
   
   We switch to English, as this is a former German „game of the year“ (we tend
   to play a lot of these old hits at the moment – are we eager to test their
   durability?). “Heimlich und Co.” is certainly one of the better efforts of
   the then still budding German game industry – a deceptively simple game with
   interesting strategies. Basically it is a race for points – the simple board has
   spaces numbered 1 to 10, one numbered -3, and one numbered zero. There are always 7
   pawns, which colour belongs to which player is decided secretly by drawing cards. When
   it’s your turn you roll the die and distribute the rolled number on any pawns you
   want. If any pawn reaches the space with the safe, it triggers a victory point scoring
   – each pawn gets as many points as the space it’s standing on. The scoring
   player then places the safe on any space, even the same one. After a certain treshold is
   reached, players have to write down who they guess plays which colour. This might or
   might not have become apparent through the movements of the players – of course
   they usually position the pawns in a way that they get many points whenever there is a
   scoring, which can be a giveaway. But it is also possible to bluff, and deliberately
   accept low scoring.

   Reaching the second point-threshold means the end of the game – now each correctly
   identified pawn gives you an additional 5 points. With 6 players in the game this means a
   potential additional 25 points (the seventh pawn is purely a decoy and gives no points)
   – which can influence the final score considerably!

   This is, by the way, the “rule for professionals”, but the only interesting
   way to play the game, really. The designer certainly intended it that way, and the rules
   were probably simply watered down to make it compatible with the usually rules-lazy
   German market (as, in recent history, was the case with “Elfenland” –
   only when the expansion set was released the game was complete!).

   Although everybody agreed that one shouldn’t play this too often in a row it was
   considered a good, but not exceptionally good game – an unanominous vote of
   
   Westpark rating: 7.0

Carcassonne

Publisher: Hans im Glück

Author: Klaus-Jürgen Wrede

Tester: Aaron Haag

Game Type: tactical tile-laying game

The Game: Carcassonne is a nice city in the south-western part of France – not
too far away from Toulouse. It’s quite famous for its historical fortress from the
ancient times of Romans and knights. Two to five players recreate Carcassonne with its
town areas, roads, farmland and monasteries with the objective to score as many victory
points as possible. On his turn a player takes a tile from the face-down stack of area
tiles and places it orthogonal next to the tiles already placed by other players (or the
specially marked start-tile on the very first turn). A tile placed must fit in terms of
roads, farmland and city walls to the already placed tiles it connects to. Immediately
after placing the tile the player may place one of his 7 pawns on the just played tile –
either on a road, a farmland, the monastery or the city itself. This pawn marks the
corresponding area as “under control”. During the turn of the game these areas
extend due to other tiles played (roads get longer, cities and farmland cover a larger
area, monasteries are surrounded by other tiles). Once a road is completed by connecting
cities, villages or monasteries the “owner” of this road scores points
according to the length of the road (2 points per tile). Similarly, once cities are
completed by closing the city walls they also score. Monasteries score points at the
moment all surrounding tiles (i.e. 8) have been placed. Farmland though only score at the
end of the game. In each case the pawn that scored the points is handed back to the
player and is again available for placement.

Playing Time: The game can easily be explained and played in 30 to 45
minutes.

Similar Games: El Caballero (Hans im Glück)

Westpark Gamer’s Opinion: This game is a perfect starter for an evening of
gaming. It plays quite fast (unless you are playing with gamers that just cannot decide
on the perfect spot for laying their tile) but still has a lot of depth. The players are
permanently struggling between short-time tactics and long-term strategy for placing
tiles and pawns. This is certainly an upside of Carcassonne. Players have to watch out
for those extending farmlands which score big points at the end of the game and at the
same time do some housekeeping with their pawns. The decision between quickly scoring a
few points for completing a road and getting back a pawn compared to extending a
structure and scoring later is tough. There is also quite a bit of player interaction
involved when the other players lend their advice for “perfect” tile placement
to the one whose turn it is. On the downside there is definite element of luck introduced
by taking tiles from a face-down stack. If you do not draw monastery tiles or never get
that one matching city tile there is not much you can do to win besides preventing other
players to score – certainly not an empire builder’s game. And destroying the other
player’s plans again requires some luck in tile drawing. There have been suggestions
to place a number of tiles face up (e.g. corresponding to the number of players) as in El
Caballero. We still have to play this variant to judge on it.

Aaron’s Rating: 7 (out of 10)

Westpark Gamers’ Rating: 6.8

Links to further information:	Board Game Geek Caracassonne Review
	Caracassonne homepage by Hans im Glueck (German)
	Funagain page with player reviews of Caracassonne
	Luding link for Caracassonne