Archiv der Kategorie: Spieleabende

Das Tal der Mammuts Valley of the Mammoths

Das Tal der Mammuts

Das Tal der Mammuts

Valley of the Mammoths

Publisher: Eurogames/Jeux Descartes

Author: Bruno Faidutti

Tester: Aaron Haag

Game Tested: 1st release 2001

Scenario: Will your tribe be the first to vanquish its enemies? Can it
prosper, multiply and seize vast territory? Are you ready to battle rival tribes and
confront ferocious beasts? To hunt, fish, forage and farm in order to provide the
necessary food for the survival of your tribe? Then welcome to the Valley of the
Mammoth… and good luck!
This quote from the English rules nicely describes
what this game is all about: controlling a tribe of humans in prehistoric times with the
aim to not only avoid starvation (difficult!) but also extend your control of the map
board by setting up camps.

The Game: Ten years after the first release of this game (“La Vallée des
Mammouths”, 1991, Ludodélire) the German version became available at Spiel 2001 in
Essen. An English release (“Valley of the Mammoths”, 2001, Eurogames Descartes USA) is
also planned and should be available by the time you read this. Compared with the French
version there have been some slight modifications to make the games more balanced and in
some respects easier to play (e.g. animals all have the same strength now).

The games is set up on a board with 37 hex spaces depicting three types of regions
(plains, forests, mountains). As a nice touch the board comes in two pieces and is
printed on both sides using different regional setups – so there are a total of 4
different maps to play on. Each of the two to six players controls a tribe of 10 warriors
and 6 females of which at the start of the game 5 warriors and 2 females are placed in a
camp on the board . The players then receive 5 fate cards each. Fate cards provide a
tribe with one-time abilities or options and may be used when the appropriate turn is
played. The player’s task is to set up a total of four camps on the board and keep
them for one complete round. The first player achieving this goal wins the game.

The game is played in turns consisting of up to 10 phases each. The actions in a phase
vary depending on the current season of the year: each game year is divided in a three
turn summer season followed by a three turn winter season.

The phases of a turn are:

  1. Events

    Depending on the season a summer or winter event is drawn from the appropriate event card
    pile. Most of the events have a negative effect on all tribes on the board, some
    affecting only a particular region or have a lasting effect for a whole season. For play
    balance events are not drawn in the first two turns of the game.

  2. Arrival of new animals

    New animals arrive on the map by randomly drawing them from a sack. Their numbers vary
    depending on the season (and the number of players) with less animals arriving during the
    winter turns. Each animal drawn has a defined starting location at the border of the map.

  3. Movement of animals

    The roll of a die determines the direction in which all animals move across the board.
    Depending on the type of the animal (wolf, tiger, bear, bison, rhino or mammoth) they
    move a different number of hex spaces and are able to traverse different regions.
    Whenever an animal moves into a hex occupied by humans its movement stops.

  4. Movement of tribes/setting up camps

    Starting with the strongest tribe on the board (number of camp then number of tribe
    members are considered) players may move there tribe tokens one or two hex spaces on the
    map. If any enemy tokens (animals or enemy tribes) are in the same hex a token may only
    be moved if the enemy is outnumbered because a player must leave at least as many tokens
    in such a hex as there are enemies present. Instead of moving a player may set up a new
    camp if there are at least one warrior and one female and no enemy tokens in a hex space.

  5. Combat

    Combat takes place in hexes occupied by different tribes or by tribes and animals.
    Combats are resolved by die rolling with a modifier for each warrior, animal or camp.
    Combats between tribes are resolved first and finish when there are only warriors of one
    tribe left in the hex concerned. Females finding themselves in a hex with enemy warriors
    and no warriors of their own tribe are replaced with a female token of the
    “capturing” tribe. Camps may be captured in a similar way. After all tribe
    combats have been resolved combat with animals takes place. Killed animals provide food
    points which can be used in the next phase.

  6. Survival

    In this phase the tribe first collects food points when occupying hex spaces in forests
    (gathering) or near water (fishing) or for harvesting any previously cultivated plain
    hexes with camps. Then they consume food points. Each tribe member requires one food
    point to survive the turn. If insufficient food points are available the player must
    remove any surplus tribe members from the map.

  7. Births

    At the end of each season (not at the end of each turn) up to two females per camp give
    birth to new tribe members. The gender of the new member is determined by a die roll with
    a small chance (roll of a 6) that twins are being born. New-borns are immediately
    considered adults.

  8. Cultivating land

    In the last turn of winter tribes may cultivate any plain hexes with camps at the cost of
    one food point.

  9. New fate cards

    Players with less than 5 fate cards may drawn one new card from the fate card pile. Fate
    cards usually provide an advantage to a tribe by either strengthening the own tribe or
    harming enemy tribes.

  10. End of turn

    The season marker is now moved one space clockwise. If a player controls four camps that
    player must notify the other players about this condition. If the same player still
    controls four camps at the end of the next turn that player wins the game.

Playing Time: The game can be explained in 15 minutes and played in about 60
minutes to 3 hours depending on the number of players and the type of players (fighters
vs. builders).

Similar Games: La Vallée des Mammouths, Vinci,
Ursuppe

Westpark Gamer’s Opinion: In many respects this a typical Faidutti game
with a strong strategical component plus some equally strong chaotic elements added (the
fate and event cards). Players who like this kind of mixture will definitely like this
game. The potential for clever strategies is quite high and as long as one does not mind
too much to be hit by some ill fate or event at the worst possible time this game
provides a lot of fun.

Because some of the fate cards can have quite a big effect on the game (e.g.
“Kindbettfieber” i.e. childbed fever or “Steinschlag” i.e. falling
rocks) Tal der Mammutsit may be a good idea to quickly go through them
before the very first game.Freund This is also recommended for those
(non-Europeans?) who may have problems with the cards’ wonderful cartoonish
graphics (e.g. “Freund”, i.e. “friend”) or theme (e.g.
“Homopower”). Actually, the German “Homopower” card (which
allows a player to establish a camp without the necessity to have members of
different gender present) translates to “Domestic Partners” in the English
version. So its more in line with Lemmon/Matthau’s “The Odd Couple”
and rest assured: in the game females are still required to keep the camp for longer
than just one turn or to propagate ;). And there is a sufficient number of cards in
the deck so you can take out which ever you find inappropriate for whatever
reason.

We found it quite hard to keep one’s tribe strong enough as the food supply is
very sparse. Some bad events during the winter season actually can reduce a tribe to a
mere couple. Combat between tribes therefore is not a common event and usually only
happens once one tribe has become so strong that some of its members will not survive
anyway. In this case its better to loose warriors in combat rather than due to
starvation.

There is certainly room for a number of different strategies: from “empire
building” and avoiding combat with other tribes as much as possible but instead
concentrating on setting up camps and collecting food to agressively “attacking
everything that moves” with the aim to take over as many enemy females and camps as
possible. I still have to see the empire building strategy to really work (I lost twice
trying to do this being unable to defend the 4 camps I set up). Also keep in mind that
the game tends to take considerably longer if all players are of the empire building
kind. I personnally believe that the game is much more fun when played agressively.

There is an optional rule about the usage of fire which I strongly recommend you use.
It makes the game only a little more complex but adds an advantage to combat with animals
which in my opinion is necessary to generate sufficient food. On the other hand this is
counterbalanced by the fact that now 1.5 food points are consumed per tribe member per
turn. Another variant also dealing with food availability is called Health
Food
and is described on Bruno Faidutti’s web pages.

There seems to be a second edition of the rules that state that the game is to be
played with three to six players instead of the two to six mentioned in my 1st release
rules book. The game can be played with 2 players without any problems, however, due to
the fact that there is a lot more room for expansion, fights will occur less often than
with more players, which may suit those “empire builders”.

One word about the German Eurogames edition: although the quality of the game
components is quite high I must say that this game again is a typical Eurogames title. I
wished that they would get the rules right with the first release of a game. The German
rule book has some serious translation errors regarding the camp set-up, fire-taking and
food gathering. The correct rules are that camps may be set up and fire may be taken as
long as there are no enemies in the same hex and fishing provides only one
food point if a hex is located at a river and a lake. Luckily, Bruno Faidutti provides an
errata
page
on his web site.

There is also a tiny flaw with a small number of games of the Eurogames edition: the
crop markers are printed incorrectly showing only one ear of grain on both sides. This
can easily be corrected by marking one side with a bold 2 (or by writing to Eurogames who
will send you a correct set of tokens). One small additional hint here while you are
marking the crop tokens: we also marked the animal tokens with their movement points,
movement ability through terrain and their food points. This speeds up the game a little
as you do not have to look up these values in the rules every time you need them.
Alternatively, you may want to print out Pierre-Nicolas Lapointe’s very nicely done
help card.

Aaron’s Rating: 7 (out of 10)

Westpark Gamers’ Rating: 7.67

Links to further information: Westpark Gamers’ Strategy Tips
Bruno
Faidutti’s page
with english rules, a FAQ and rules errata
Luding link for Das Tal der Mammuts

Der Herr der Ringe – Die Gefährten The Card Game

Der Herr der Ringe – Die Gefährten

The Card Game

Der Herr der Ringe - Die Gefährten

Publisher: Ravensburger

Author: Reiner Knizia

Tester: Aaron Haag

Game Tested: 2001 release

Scenario: Frodo and his friends Sam, Merry and Pippin flee through the towns of
Middlearth to prevent Sauron from taken the ring back from him. Two to four players play
character cards for each town in order to receive victory points.

The Game: Although designed by the same author this game is not an extension or
sequel to the “Lord Of The Rings” game series published by Kosmos/Hasbro. In
fact, there is very little reference in the game mechanics to the Lord of the Rings theme
and one may assume that Ravensburger decided to use the current LotR hype for marketing
reasons only as the game itself is an abstract card-laying game. The cards use
photographs of characters of the LotR movie and this may explain the relatively high
price.

Up to four players use identical sets of 22 cards to gain control over 10 towns of
Middlearth. To do this players in sequence place cards next to the two cards representing
a town from their hand. Das KartenspielOf the 22 cards each player receives 6
randomly drawn cards. Once all ten spaces surrounding a town are occupied players earn
points depending on their relative strength in that town. Each character card has a value
between 0 and 5. Players may play any number of cards valued 1 or one higher
valued card. The one card with value 0 and the Nazgûl may be played in addition. All
character card values of a player on the cards bordering the currently scoring town are
added up and the top scoring players receive the victory points printed on the town card.
Additionally, some towns provide a “ring” to the strongest player. Such a ring
may be used in subsequent turns to protect a character just played. In addition most
rings provide special powers that influence the character cards played in a town or the
town itself.

The player who placed the card which initiated the scoring of a town is the first
player to place a new town on the table. The two cards of the new town must be placed
next to each other and next to already placed character cards. This means that characters
can score twice in a game. It is therefore a considerable advantage to place the last
card for a town because only then one is able to place the new town cards in a favorable
position.

Some towns (black) are more dangerous than others (white) because in black towns
stronger character cards may be placed on top of already played cards. And there is the
Nazgûl card of which each player has exactly one. The Nazgûl is used to remove an already
played card from the table. Frodo (value 3) is however always protected by the ring
against being covered up or being removed.

The game ends when either the last (tenth) town has been completed or all but one
player have run out of cards.

Playing Time: The game can be explained in about 5 minutes. Playing time is 20
to 45 minutes.

Similar Games: Samurai, Corruption

Westpark Gamer’s Opinion: Besides the fact that the game’s atmosphere
bears no resemblance to LotR whatsoever, which may disappoint players looking exactly for
this, “Die Gefährten” is not a bad game at all. Due to the nature of card games
there is an element of luck but the game mechanics provide sufficient room for tactics
and timing. I personally believe that the game is rather more complex than one may think
after one has played it just once or twice – a typical Knizia so to say.

The victory points per town vary from the lesser valued towns (5 points total plus 1
rings) in the beginning to the higher valued towns (13 points) towards the end of the
game. Some careful resource management with respect to character cards is asked for here.
It is also quite important to keep an eye on the card layout on the table. First, this
provides valuable information about the cards other players are still able to play;
secondly, one must avoid that one player gains many “high-valued” sides for
placing new towns and thirdly, the edge of the table is often approaching faster then one
may think. It is a good idea to agree beforehand how this last situation is dealt with –
either towns may only be placed where it is possible to play all character cards (not
quite to the rules though) or the cards are shifted on the table (not as easy as it
sounds). On smaller tables I suggest you move to the floor anyway.

“Finishing” a town by placing a card on the last free space is of a
considerable advantage in this game. On the one hand it enables a player to tip the
scales in this town by playing a high valued card and gaining higher victory points and
on the other hand it enables a player to decide upon the location of the next town. This
“double scoring effect” is what makes the game rather complex and which forces
the players to carefully think and plan ahead. As a consequence there may be very little
player interaction and a lot of thinking and calculating in a group of
“serious” gamers.

Aaron’s Rating: 6 (out of 10)

Westpark Gamers’ Rating: 4

Links to further information: Funagain’s page about Der Herr der Ringe – Die Gefährten
Luding link for Der Herr der Ringe – Die Gefährten

DIE ERBEN VON HOAX

Erben v. Hoax

DIE ERBEN VON HOAX

Publisher: Spielzeit Verlag, Am alten Pastorat 42, 51465 Berg.-Gladbach (under
license of EON)

Author: V. Hesselmann, rework of the original rules by EON (J. Kittredge, P.
Olotka, W. Eberle, E. Horn)

Game tested: German Edition, 1999

Tester: Moritz Eggert

Scenario: Who will inherit the “Legacy of Hoax” (translation of the
German title)? Will it be the fat baron with his ability do declare practically
everything as illegal? The wily judge who turns these accusations into lawsuits mostly
profitable for himself? The preposterous Monk who can pardon the poor punished git…for
a price? The sneaky thief who can steal even the hidden treasures? The shrewd trader who
exchanges goods with you – even against your will? The mysterious magician who can steal
riches with his magic – and basically annoys the hell out of everybody by being immune to
most actions? Or the peaceful farmer, who is the only character in the game who seems to
be happy just harvesting his grain while leaving everybody else in peace?

To find out you will have to assume all this roles – whenever and however you want.
But be aware that you only have one true identity…which makes you an imposter most of
the time, because if anybody finds out who you truly are…you’re out of the
game!

The game: Even today the name EON is almost legendary. This group of dedicated
and imaginative gamers invented more all-time classic games than you can shake a stick
at. One most only mention games like “Cosmic Encounter” (their most famous
game, re-published only recently by Avalon Hill/Hasbro, also in German),
“Dune”, “Runes”, “Borderlands”, “Quirks” to bring
a gleam into the eyes of collectors and gaming buffs. There was always a common trait of
all their games: they were wilder, whackier and more interactive than most other games.
You will never sit quietly waiting for your turn in an EON game – all-round chaos and
player communication are always part of any EON-design. But EON seemed to be a phenomenon
of the 70’s/80’s, slightly out of joint with the current fads of gaming. I was
very intrigued when I found out, that the original EON team was still alive and kicking,
working on an Internet-version of Cosmic Encounter (see link below). And even more when I
was introduced to a German reissue of their classic game “Hoax”. And “Die
Erben von Hoax” is more than a new edition – it is an improvement on an already
genial game done in collaboration with the original authors, adding a point-scoring
system, many clarifications and even a new character, the trader.

Describing the game does not do it justice, but I will try nevertheless…Each player
(up to 8, minimum 4 to be fun) is dealt a secret identity from the ones described above.
To win you must survive (which means nobody discovers your true identity) and also guess
successfully what the other players are (kicking them out of the game and earning
points). When it’s your turn, you can act as any of the characters (apart of one you
choose before the round starts and which is “blackened out” on your game card),
mostly to get some kind of resource (there are three in the game: grain, gold and wine).
You try to get “trio’s” of resources (one of each kind) which you can
exchange into a “question” about another player, which he has to answer
truthfully by secretly passing you a card with an identity he is NOT playing (therefore
increasing your knowledge about the identity he IS possibly playing). All other players
can always react to any statement of identity: for example if a player takes 2 grain as
the farmer, a baron might declare this illegal, another player might punish it as the
judge, and yet another player might pardon you as the monk, but taking one of your grain
as a price. In fact this combination of events will happen all the time, and you will
find it EXTREMELY difficult to gain a trio. Once you have one, you might be safe, as a
trio can not be torn apart…except by the thief. Bummer!

But of course nobody forces you to believe any identity declared by a player. You can
always “hoax” him, which means raising your finger and stating “I
don’t believe you are the…”. If 50% or more of the other players join in, the
so accused has to say the truth: Either he “blackens out” the false identity
for the rest of the round, unable to use it anymore, or he indeed IS the identity he
stated – meaning he is out of the round, but with 3 safe victory points more than you.
There is also the real “accusation” “I believe you ARE the…” which
is dealt with secretly by passing accusation cards, and which is extremely dangerous as
either the accusing player (if he was wrong) or the accused player (if the suspicion was
correct) gets kicked out. The surviving player of this duel gets 1 VP, which isn’t
half-bad as well. If you make it to be one of the 2 last players in a round you get at
least 1 VP extra, if you are THE last, you get 3 VP.

Several rounds (usually 3) are played to determine the winner – you win the moment you
have 10 VP’s.

Playing time: The first rounds will be very confusing for new time players –
This is not a complicated game, but you have to know all 7 roles well to act
convincingly. A game, once in flow, will last about an hour, not more, take 10-15 minutes
for explaining the rules thoroughly. The rules (in German) are very complete and might
seem overly detailed at first glance, but in fact are very intelligently done and
unambiguous.

Similar games: “Sein oder Nichtsein” (first German edition, closer to
the original hoax – as a curious side note: This game used caricatures of the then German
game-of-the-year jurors as pictures for the various identities), “Hoax” (the
original game published by EON)

Westpark Gamer’s Opinion: This is a highly enjoyable game with lots of
laughs. It is mostly a game of psychology – each player slowly develops his own strategy
of deception and bluff. One of the most obvious ones will be to use your true identity to
do something extremely annoying to as many players as possible (like the baron raising a
tax), therefore provoking the “finger” “I don’t believe you
are…”. If you indeed are, you will have 3 points, and be normally well off. But to
be successful you’ll also have to understand the strategies of the other players,
though, and that will be much more difficult. This makes just watching the game and the
other players as important and fun as being active in it. The best strategy will have
everybody insecure about your identity all the time, therefore preventing the
“finger” and the unwanted blackening out of identities (which reduces your
action possibilities). The Victory-point element is a brilliant improvement on the
original game, as it now also induces tactical thinking – sometimes it’s better to
doubt a player even if you’re not sure, if it makes you one of the last 2 players
with the potential to garner even more points. This prevents the stand-still-situations
sometimes apparent in the old game, when everybody was scared to doubt as it was an
automatic win for the wrongly doubted player. Now “tactical out-doubting” is
crucial to the game.

“Die Erben…” might wear off slightly if you constantly play it with the
same people, but even one single new player changes the whole complicated equilibrium of
doubt and certainty. In short: a wonderful classic which everybody should know and play
again and again. And a truly innovative game design unlike no other game.

Moritz’ Rating: 10 (ok, you guessed it)

Westpark Gamers’ Rating: 8 (19.9.2001)

Links to further information:

Spielbericht vom 23.1.2002

Spielbericht vom 23.1.2002

Autor: Moritz

Ort: bei Walter

anwesend: Günther, Aaron, Moritz, Andrea, Peter, Walter, Hans

auf dem Tisch: Die Erben von Hoax, Der Grosse Dalmuti, Ein solches Ding!,
Bluff!

  1. Die Erben von Hoax

    Immer wieder gern gespielt: Die geniale Neuausgabe (mit vielen Verbesserungen) des alten
    EON-Klassikers “Hoax”. Das Motto ist “the more the merrier”, und so war
    dieses Spiel eine gute Wahl bei dem vollen 7er-Tisch dieser Woche. Dadurch das gerne und
    viel gezweifelt wurde, verliessen viele Spieler mit 3 Thronpunkten die Runden, dadurch
    entstand in der 3. Runde eine interessante Patt-Situation – da Hans und ich
    (Moritz) als einzige am Tisch jeweils 7 Punkte hatten, war es für uns die beste Taktik,
    jeden anderen Spieler anzuzweifeln, da die anderen Spieler maximal 9 Punkte erreichen,
    und damit nicht mehr gewinnen konnten. Dagegen mußte man uns alles durchgehen lassen,
    denn sonst wären wir eventuell sofort Sieger mit 10 Punkten (7+3=10). Leider durchbrach
    Peter in gewohnt chaotischer Manier diese Situation, indem er Hans anzweifelte, und
    natürlich Unrecht bekam – sudden death victory für Hans!

    Bewertung: 7.45

  2. Der Grosse Dalmuti

    Auch als “das schlechtere Karrierepoker” bekannt, oder als das Spiel, bei dem
    vollkommen unklar ist, wer es eigentlich erfunden hat, denn mindestens 3 Spiele
    (“Karrierepoker”, “Dalmuti” und das meiner Meinung
    nach deutlich beste “Zoff im Zoo”) benutzen quasi die gleichen
    Spielmechanismen. Bei Dalmuti stellt sich ein gewisser Ernst ein, da es ein strenges
    Punktsystem gibt, welches Fehler nicht verzeiht, und das Aufholen sehr schwer macht.
    Trotz unglaublich mieser Blätter (zumindest gegen Ende des Spiels) gelang es mir
    (Moritz) über 6 Spiele die meisten Punkte zu machen.

    Bewertung: 6.25

  3. Ein solches Ding

    Die neue Ausgabe dieses Evergreens ist merkwürdigerweise auf 2 Schachteln verteilt, mit
    der Anmerkung “mit der 2. Ausgabe sei das Spiel für 8 Spieler erweiterbar”
    – natürlich ausgemachter Blödsinn, vor allem, da die 2. Box die alten Karten
    enthält, und die 1. die neuen, nun ja…

    Die einfache Spielidee besticht, doch wird das Spiel mit “kämpferischen”
    Spielern wie uns eine einzige Diskussionrunde, vor allem, da die Kartentexte doch recht
    ungenau gehalten sind, und es viele Interpretationsprobleme gibt …”fasziniert
    Männer” z.B.: heißt das, daß es NUR Männer fasziniert, oder VOR ALLEM Männer, oder
    genausogut auch Frauen, aber eben auch Männer? Trotz interessanter Dingfindungen seiner
    Gegner (Maibaum, Verona Feldbusch, der mit einer Goldkette die Gliedmaßen
    zusammengebunden wurden, etc.) konnte Hans den Sieg souverän für sich ausmachen.

    Bewertung: 5.43

  4. Bluff

    Kaum ein Spiel eignet sich so sehr für einen “schnellen” Absacker wie Bluff….
    Diese Partei sah schon gleich am Anfang schwere Verluste durch “Anzweifeln” und
    ging schon recht bald in ein langwieriges Endgame zwischen Aaron und Günther über. Würde
    Aaron seine Statistik verbessern können? Nein – Günther gewann knapp aber
    bestimmt…

    Bewertung: 7.73

Spielbericht vom 17.1.2002

Spielbericht vom 17.1.2002

Autor: Moritz

Ort: bei Moritz

anwesend: Peter, Hans, Andrea, Moritz

  1. SuperpowerSuperpower

    In meiner endlosen Suche nach alten “Klassikern” stieß ich auf dieses wenig
    bekannte Spiel von Games Workshop, das in der kurzen Phase erschien, in der GW viele
    interessante Brettspiele herausbrachte, darunter auch das legendäre “Talisman”
    und “Fury of Dracula”. Leider ist “Superpower” eine totale Gurke, und
    nach der Bewertung sogar der “Tiefeinsteiger der Woche” auf unserer Liste! Die
    Regeln klingen gar nicht mal uninteressant: In einer Art globalem Monopoly versucht man
    Länder des Erdballs erst unter ökonomischen, dann unter militärischen Einfluss zu
    bringen. Mit Staatstreichen können die Machtverhältnisse jederzeit wechseln, aber ein
    Land kann auch “befestigt” werden, das kostet allerdings “World
    Opinion”-Scheine, die Währung des Spiels. Durch ein ausgesprochen merkwürdiges
    System können manche Länder, wie z.B. Brasilien (!), überhaupt nur bei einem Wurf von 12
    auf 2 Würfeln unter Einfluss gebracht werden, das Spiel endet aber erst, wenn alle Länder
    “vergeben” sind! Da es zusätzlich noch möglich ist, andere Spieler wieder aus
    Ländern herauszukicken (mit dem Feld “Diplomacy”), findet das Spiel effektiv
    nie ein Ende. Da wäre viel “tweaken” der Regeln notwendig gewesen, um aus
    diesem Flop ein gutes Spiel zu machen, leider geschah dies nicht….schade!

    Bewertung: 2

  2. Anno Domini: Lifestyle Edition

    Dieses Spiel wird immer wieder gerne von unserem Historiker Peter verlangt, der
    allerdings meistens nie bis zu Ende spielt, sondern sich dann auf den Weg zur U-Bahn
    macht. Diesmal blieb er allerdings bis zuletzt, machte aber nur den 3. Platz – gewinnen
    konnte überlegen Andrea (weibliche Intuition?). Die “Life-Style”-Edition dieses
    an sich sehr guten Spiels wurde nicht so begeistert aufgenommen – einige Fragen
    schienen doch sehr “fragwürdig”, und manche Schweizer Formulierung (ist
    “pflästern” etwas anderes als “pflastern”?) sorgte für Verwirrung.
    Dennoch eine tolle Spielidee, die immer wieder Spaß macht.

    Bewertung: 6.25

Spielbericht vom 17.1.2002

Spielbericht vom 17.1.2002

Autor: Moritz

Ort: bei Moritz

anwesend: Peter, Hans, Andrea, Moritz

  1. SuperpowerSuperpower

    In meiner endlosen Suche nach alten “Klassikern” stieß ich auf dieses wenig
    bekannte Spiel von Games Workshop, das in der kurzen Phase erschien, in der GW viele
    interessante Brettspiele herausbrachte, darunter auch das legendäre “Talisman”
    und “Fury of Dracula”. Leider ist “Superpower” eine totale Gurke, und
    nach der Bewertung sogar der “Tiefeinsteiger der Woche” auf unserer Liste! Die
    Regeln klingen gar nicht mal uninteressant: In einer Art globalem Monopoly versucht man
    Länder des Erdballs erst unter ökonomischen, dann unter militärischen Einfluss zu
    bringen. Mit Staatstreichen können die Machtverhältnisse jederzeit wechseln, aber ein
    Land kann auch “befestigt” werden, das kostet allerdings “World
    Opinion”-Scheine, die Währung des Spiels. Durch ein ausgesprochen merkwürdiges
    System können manche Länder, wie z.B. Brasilien (!), überhaupt nur bei einem Wurf von 12
    auf 2 Würfeln unter Einfluss gebracht werden, das Spiel endet aber erst, wenn alle Länder
    “vergeben” sind! Da es zusätzlich noch möglich ist, andere Spieler wieder aus
    Ländern herauszukicken (mit dem Feld “Diplomacy”), findet das Spiel effektiv
    nie ein Ende. Da wäre viel “tweaken” der Regeln notwendig gewesen, um aus
    diesem Flop ein gutes Spiel zu machen, leider geschah dies nicht….schade!

    Bewertung: 2

  2. Anno Domini: Lifestyle Edition

    Dieses Spiel wird immer wieder gerne von unserem Historiker Peter verlangt, der
    allerdings meistens nie bis zu Ende spielt, sondern sich dann auf den Weg zur U-Bahn
    macht. Diesmal blieb er allerdings bis zuletzt, machte aber nur den 3. Platz – gewinnen
    konnte überlegen Andrea (weibliche Intuition?). Die “Life-Style”-Edition dieses
    an sich sehr guten Spiels wurde nicht so begeistert aufgenommen – einige Fragen
    schienen doch sehr “fragwürdig”, und manche Schweizer Formulierung (ist
    “pflästern” etwas anderes als “pflastern”?) sorgte für Verwirrung.
    Dennoch eine tolle Spielidee, die immer wieder Spaß macht.

    Bewertung: 6.25

Das Amulett

Amulett

Das Amulett

Publisher: Goldsieber

Author: Alan R. Moon, Aaron Weissblum

Tester: Aaron Haag

Game Tested: 1st release 2001

The Game: Travelling as one large group three to six players move across a
board depicting a fantasy world with town and rural areas. In each of these areas
gemstones are for sale (3 in a town area, 2 in a country area). The inhabitants of this
world are willing to part with their precious gems if they are offered the resource they
desperately need: metal. Each area of the map indicates the type of metal required (gold,
silver, copper or iron). In their strive to collect 7 different gemstones (or any 8 of
the 10 types) to win the game by filling the empty slots of a players amulet, hence the
name of the game, players bid metal cards for the right to take one gemstone from the
currently visited area. It goes to the player bidding the highest amount of the required
type of metal. The group then moves on to an adjacent area of the map.

The third resource in this game are spell cards. The most important attribute of each
spell is the amount of metal cards it creates per round (from 0 to 4). Most spells have
additional effects, mostly on the bidding phase for gems (e.g. declaring a particular
metal as a joker). Again, these spell cards are distributed to the player via a bidding
round. And here the fourth and final resource comes into play: energy stones. At the
start of the game each player receives 10 of these stones, which are used for bidding on
spell cards and simultaneously as “energy” for a spell successfully bid on.
Spells use up energy – high value spells at a higher speed than lower valued ones.
“Used” energy stones are returned to the player and are again available for
bidding on spells.

The game components are very well designed with plastic gemstones in easily
distinguishable 10 colors and nicely drawn spell cards and a map board design that
underlines the fantasy theme of the game.

Playing Time: The game can be explained in 5 to 10 minutes and played in about
60 to 90 minutes depending on the number of players.

Similar Games:
Cosmic Encounter
,
Der Weisse Lotus

Westpark Gamer’s Opinion: What sounds like a rather dry resource management
game really is an excellent bidding game. As usual with this kind of game all players are
permanently involved and there is hardly any waiting for a player to finish his or her
turn. Since there are no real “killer” combination of spell cards the decision
on whether to bid and if so how much is usually straight forward. Care must be taken
though to not acquire too many spells that yield no metal cards as this can have a
disastrous effect: you not only get no metal cards for bidding on gemstones but you also
have insufficient energy stones for a few rounds to bid on better spells (because they
are allocated to your spells).

Where bidding on spell cards is straight forward and fast (there is just one bid per
player) we found a small problem with the bidding on gemstones: since only the amount of
metal cards in a player’s hand need to be disclosed but not their type a player may
be tempted to drive up the price for a gemstone by bidding more than he/she is actually
able to pay. In our opinion the rules should state what happens if a player cannot pay
the required amount of metal cards.

Aaron’s Rating: 7 (out of 10)

Westpark Gamers’ Rating: 6.75

MUNCHKIN

MUNCHKIN

Munchkin

Hersteller: Steve Jackson Games (neu!)

Autor: Steve Jackson (einer der populärsten amerikanischen Spielerfinder,
Designer von “Car Wars”, “GURPS”, “Ogre” und und
und…)

Getestet: 1. Auflage, erschienen 2001

Tester: Moritz Eggert

Szenario: Ein “generisches” Dungeon (oder für den Uneingeweihten: Ein
Verlies…im Grunde nur aus Türen bestehend, die wir öffnen). Wir sind Abenteurer, die
versuchen, als erster den 10. Level zu erreichen (oder: die 10.
“Erfahrungsstufe”, nicht etwa den “Level” des “Dungeons”,
also das “Stockwerk”). Dazu hilft es Schätze zu raffen, Monster zu plätten, und
alle anderen Mitspieler zu verraten, betrügen und zu berauben. Alle
“Orkspielhasser” müssen von hier an nicht mehr weiterlesen, allen anderen sei
schon einmal gesagt, daß es sich hier um ein nettes, nicht allzu bahnbrechendes kleines
Spielchen handelt, daß sich gottseidank selber nicht sehr ernst nimmt.

Das Spiel: Wir fangen ohne “Klasse” (also Beruf, zum Beispiel
Priester, Dieb oder Krieger) und “Rasse” (also Fantasyklischee Elb, Zwerg,
Hobbit, Entschuldigung: Halbling) an, außerdem haben wir keinerlei Besitz, und nur den
ersten Erfahrungslevel (was uns effektiv eine Stärke von 1 im Monsterkampf gibt). All
diese Attribute können wir jederzeit aus der Hand spielen, auch wenn wir nicht dran sind.
Wenn es uns also gefällt, ein Zauberer zu sein, spielen wir einfach die entsprechende
Karte (wenn wir sie denn haben), und schon sind wir’s. Wenn nun dieser Zauberer
später einem Monster begegnet, das gegen Zauberer besonders allergisch ist, können wir
diesen Beruf jederzeit durch einen anderen ersetzen. Nur: das Kärtchen müssen wir auf der
Hand haben.

Munchkin

Der Spielablauf ist immer gleich: Wir öffnen eine Türe (ziehen eine
“Abenteuerkarte”), hinter der Türe ist entweder ein Monster (meistens), oder
auch ein Klasse oder Rasse, manchmal auch ein Fluch oder eine Spezialkarte. Letzteres
lassen wir einfach auf uns wirken oder nehmen es an uns, ersteres müssen wir bekämpfen.
Dazu sind meistens mehrere Spieler nötig, daher fragen wir brav (ähnlich wie bei
“Cosmic Encounter”), wer beim Monsterplätten mitmachen will, am besten mit dem
Versprechen, Schätze abzugeben. Aber Vorsicht: Wer nicht eingeladen wird, rächt sich
meistens mit hinterhältigen, das Monster stärkenden Karten. Oder kann auch als Dieb von
hinten zustechen und uns schwächen (nicht etwa das Monster, das versteht sich von
selbst). Gelingt es uns aber, das Monster (ebenso wie wir durch einen simplen Stärkewert
dargestellt, also zum Beispiel “14”) zu besiegen (das heißt, allein oder
zusammenaddiert mit anderen einen gleichen oder höheren Stärkewert zu erlangen), bekommen
wir eine auf der Monsterkarte angegebene Anzahl von Schatzkarten, die wir offen (falls
andere mitmachten), oder auch geheim (wenn wir allein waren), verteilen oder auch an uns
nehmen. Nur der Hauptabenteurer steigt dann noch zusätzlich einen Level – das geht später
dann auch jederzeit mit dem Verkaufen von genug Schätzen. Natürlich können wir auch
versagen – dann können wir immer noch versuchen, wegzulaufen, nämlich auf einem Würfel
eine 5 oder 6 würfeln. Falls auch das nicht gelingt, schädigt uns das Monster, und zwar
jedes auf seine Weise. Interessanterweise sind nämlich die allerstärksten Monster (zum
Beispiel mein Liebling, der “Bullrog”) gar nicht so scharf drauf, allzu
schwache Gegner zu verfolgen, damit verhindert das Spiel, daß man am Anfang nur
heruntergemacht wird. Aber auch das Sterben ist nicht so schlimm – man verliert
allenfalls seine Karten, Level, Klasse und Rasse bleiben. Falls kein Monster anzutreffen
war, kann man immer noch den Raum “durchsuchen”, d.h. eine verdeckte Karte vom
Abenteuerstapel ziehen. Nur so kommt man z.B. an Monster, die man mit der entsprechenden
Karte “wandering monster” auf andere Spieler hetzen kann (oder sogar auf sich
selber).

Spieldauer: Die Erklärung geht flott (ca. 5 Minuten), die Komplexität ergibt
sich allein aus der Vielfalt der Kartenwirkungen, deren Erklärung das Spiel je nach
Sprachkenntnis ein wenig ausbremsen kann. Am Anfang ist jeder Level hart errungen, und
das Spiel wirkt ein wenig zäh. Ab dem ca. 7. Level kippt jedoch der Spielverlauf, denn
nun kann man durch entsprechenden Schätzeverkauf plötzlich überraschend gewinnen. Dennoch
sollte keine Partie länger als 1 Stunde dauern…

Ähnliche Spiele: Cosmic Encounter, Quest for the Faysylwood, Drachengold,
Heroes of Asfar

Kommentar der Westpark Gamers: Zuerst einmal sollte man ein bißchen den Begriff
“Munchkin” erklären – der kommt natürlich aus dem “Wizard of Oz”, und
beschrieb die kleinen Bewohner des Landes (im Film dargestellt durch anscheinend leicht
psychopathische kleine Menschen). Im Spielerjargon beschreibt “Munchkin” eine
Art verschrobenen “Powergamer”, also jemand, der viel an sich rafft, jede
Regellücke ausnutzt, und grundsätzlich nicht vertrauenswürdig ist. Im populären US-Comic
“Knights of the Dinner Table” wird dieser Spielertypus ironisch verherrlicht,
auch John Kovalic’s (der auch die schönen Kartenzeichnungen von “Munchkin”
gemacht hat) “Dork Tower” huldigt dem Mythos des “Munchkins”. Steve
Jackson hat selber einen “Munchkin’s guide to power gaming” herausgegeben,
auf den sich dieses Spiel direkt bezieht.

Ich mache diesen Exkurs, weil sich die Meinung über dieses Spiel nicht auf einen
klaren Nenner bringen lässt – es ist schlicht “love it or leave it”.
Grossartige Taktiken werden in diesem Spiel nicht zum Erfolg führen: man braucht
Kartenglück und ein dickes Fell, sonst wird man wenig Spaß haben. Wer führt, wird von
allen mit Flüchen und Monstern beworfen, wer hinten ist, kann durch glückliche
Kartenkombinationen jederzeit wieder in Führung gehen. Spaßig sind die Kartentexte und
Bilder auf jeden Fall (zu nennen wäre hier zum Beispiel der “Leperchaun”, nicht
etwa “Leprechaun”, und das “gelatinous octahedron”), und sie werden
das Spiel einige Zeit lang frisch halten. Darüberhinaus gibt es wenig Spieltiefe, und
sogar einige Regellücken (Darf man z.B., nachdem ein Monster überraschend
“gestärkt” wurde, noch weitere Spieler in den Kampf bitten? Die Regel hüllt
sich hier in Schweigen).

Also eindeutig kein “Walter”-Spiel, und auch nicht der schon lange nach
einigen schwachen Titeln wie “Chez Dork” erwartete neue wirkliche Hit für den
einstmals großen Steve Jackson…aber mit den richtigen Leuten macht’s Spaß, vor
allem, wenn die vielen Anspielungen auf Rollenspiele verstanden werden!

Moritz’ Bewertung: 7 (es ist halt nett!)

Westpark momentane Bewertung: 5.63

Weiterführende Informationen:

Showbiz

Showbiz

Showbiz

Publisher: Hexagames

Author: Derek Carver

Tester: Aaron Haag

Game Tested: 1988 release, OOP

Scenario: As the title suggests: its all about show business. Each player acts
as an agent who tries to get those artists under contract which marketing experts predict
to meet the public’s opinion. After 10 to 12 years the game is over and the player
who gained the most victory points wins.

The Game: ShowbizThe public’s opinion and the artists styles are
represented by 6 different colors. At the beginning of each round 6 opinion markers each
are randomly drawn for the next two years from a sack and the roll of a die determins how
probable it is that the public’s opinion will change at the end of the next year. So
there is some possibility to plan ahead for two years. Artists, too are drawn randomly
from a sack – the number of artists equalling the number of open positions for all agents
(6 per agent at the start of the game). Different to the public’s opinion the
distribution of artists styles is not uniform – some styles are rare, others are
common.

Once the appropriate number of artists has been drawn from the sack a player selects
one of the artists that he wants to hire. Players then bid for this artist by secretly
placing a number of chips in their hands and the player with the highest bid receiving
the artist. All chips bid by all players are lost for that round. The player who
received the artist now selects one of his open positions and the number of years he
wants to hire this artist – an important decision since the public opinion might change
and the artist becomes useless in the following years.

When all artists have their contracts the round ends by awarding victory points to the
players. Depending on the number of artists in a players “portfolio” that
matches the public opinion each player receives between 0 and 26 VPs. The chips used for
bidding in this round are then distributed equally between all players and a die
roll determines if the public opinion changes or not.

Playing Time: The game can be explained in about 10 minutes and played in about
1 to 2 hours depending on the number of players.

Similar Games: Modern Art , By Hook or by
Crook

Westpark Gamer’s Opinion: The mechanics of the game match very nicely the
theme selected although the game is basically of an abstract nature. Although the game is
heavily luck based (random drawing of opinions, artists’ styles and public opinion
change probabilities) one never feels “played”. Each player is permanetly
involved in the game and one has the overall feeling of “being in control”.

The bidding for agents sometimes becomes unnerving: it will seriously harm your
chances of winning the game if you are outbid by just a chip or two by another player.
You paid nearly the same amount of chips as the other player but received nothing in
return. There is really not a lot you can do about this besides not bidding at all
because bids are made secretly. Not bidding, though, means you end up with a lot of
artists in your portfolio that do not match the public opinion. Keeping track in your
memory of how many chips each player has available for bidding will certainly help but is
not at all easy with a higher number of players.

Showbiz is one of a few games which can be played very well with any number of players
up to eight. The more players there are the more luck based the game becomes (due to the
afore mentioned bidding mechanism) but the fun factor remains high, nevertheless.

Aaron’s Rating: 5 (out of 10)

Westpark Gamers’ Rating: 6.0

Links to further information: BoardgameGeek’s review of the Avalon Hill release of Showbiz
Luding link for Showbiz

Spielbericht vom 9.1.2002

Spielbericht vom 9.1.2002

Autor: Moritz

Ort: bei Walter

anwesend: Hans, Aaron, Peter, Günther, Moritz, Walter

  1. Zombies!!!Zombies!!! cover

    Erster Eindruck: Eine Art “Advanced Malefiz”…lustige (und viele)
    Zombiefiguren, auch das Erforschen der Stadt macht Spaß (bei unserem Spiel entstand
    allerdings ein riesiger Bereich voller Zombies und ohne “Extras” – da wollte
    dann keiner hin). Zombies!!! boardSpielt sich schnell und flott, wie so oft bei
    amerikanischen Spielen ruinieren allerdings die überzogenen Ereigniskarten jeglichen
    Minimalansatz von Taktik. So bleibt ein chaotisches, nicht ganz reizloses und nettes
    Glücksspielchen übrig – mehr aber auch nicht. Walter gewann mit dem überlegenen Einsatz
    der “Alternate Food Source”-Karte – sehr mächtig, denn die Zombies greifen dann
    eine Runde nicht an, so dass man an ihnen vorbeihopsen kann…

    Bewertung: 5.17

  2. ShowbizShowbiz board

    Ein alter Klassiker von Derek Carver: sieht aus wie Mastermind, spielt sich aber anders.
    Ein durchaus spannendes Versteigerungs-, Bluff- und Risikospiel, etwas langwierig
    vielleicht in den Bietrunden, und mit nicht unbeträchtlichem Glückselement, denn
    jederzeit kann ein Würfelwurf die Planung für die nächste “Absahnrunde”
    zunichte machen. Positiv wurde aber bemerkt, dass es keine Kingmaker-Elemente gibt, und
    man bis zum Schluss die Chance zu gewinnen hat, selbst wenn man hinten ist. Ich konnte
    aus einer recht hoffnungslosen Startposition in die Führung gehen, die auch lange haltbar
    war. Am Schluss zog jedoch der in solchen Spielen stets souveräne Günther mit einer
    5-fachen Übereinstimmung an mir vorbei zum Siegerthron.

    Bewertung: 6