Kategorie: Spieleabende

Author: Peter

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

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

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. 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)

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.

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

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)

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

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

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

(this article first appeared in Avalon Hill’s periodical GENERAL volume 23, issue 6. It is reproduced here with permission of the author) Take A Ride On The Reading by Alan R. Moon

This is the first time Mr. Moon’s work has graced these pages since he left The Avalon Hill Game Company in 1983. Since then, he has relocated to Massachusetts, has married, and now does free-lance game design and consulting.

I first played 1830 in the summer of 1983 at the Detroit Origins. The Tresham brothers had brought the game over for Bruce Shelley and Tom Shaw to look over for possible publication by The Avalon Hill Game Company. We played several games of the original version that weekend, and while the game had some great ideas and a lot of potential, it just didn’t quite work right. Still, a contract was negotiated and Bruce began work on the development. Three years and many versions later, the game became a reality. Was it worth the wait? Well, would I be writing my first article in over four years if it wasn’t?

The biggest problem in the original design was the seeming inevitability that every game would end wish one player going bankrupt, rather than the game ending with the bank exhausted. It is certainly still possible for the game to end in bankruptcy, but it is unlikely. Outfoxing a player on the stock market, the type of action that used to spell doom for that player, now usually just ruins his chances of winning instead.

Of course, there have been numerous changes in the game since 1983, but since I was not directly involved in the playtest, I am not the best person to describe them. Perhaps Bruce will volunteer some day. What I do have to offer is a variant for the game which consists of changing a few hexes and tiles, and adding a ninth company.

After you’ve played five to ten games of 1830, you will have probably been president of each of the eight corporations in the game. At this point, you have also probably figured out all the best tile combinations and possible stock manipulations. For some people, the game is then „learned“ and there is not enough variety and incentive to play it much more. Others, however, will go on in an attempt to master the game, rather than just „know“ it. I think this variant offers something for both types of players. The „Reading“ variant adds some variety to the game. It also places a premium on player decisions involving the purchase of diesels, since they are now slightly cheaper and probably even more valuable, especially if you prolong the game by adding the extra $8000 I suggest.

The Reading, like all the corporations, has definite advantages and disadvantages. Its major drawback is the number of tokens, allowing it to place only one station besides its home base. This will make the placement of this station extremely crucial because of the almost certain competition with the B&O, PA and C&O over the same routes. The main advantage lies in the president’s triple-share certificate. Perhaps the best way to run this corporation is to bring it on late in the game and set the price at $100. With the $1000 the company receives as operating funds, it will be able to buy a diesel and place the extra station, and run for cash each turn.

The proposed tile changes make the southeast section of the mapboard a hotbed of activity instead of confining it to simply B&O runs. In addition, there will be fierce competition for Boston and more chances for the B&M to expand to the north and northwest, and more chance for the CP to build southeast to New York City.

The new rules regarding obsolete trains are to ease the pain of the player who buys a new engine one turn before it becomes obsolete. Now he at least gets one turn to use it and can get some of his money beck. This also gives each player a chance for the trade-in for a diesel.

Taking A Ride

1. The Reading is added as a ninth railroad for purchase. The Reading’s base hex is H14. This hex is now a permanent grey hex (as shown on the New Tiles Chart). All routes may be traced through this hex; the Reading base station does not prevent a route being traced through this hex. Any corporation may begin or end their route by counting the Reading station as in the normal rules of play, but only the Reading itself can count the base station as an intermediary stop on a run. The Reading President’s Certificate is a 30% share. (Note that this modifies several rules, especially 13.0.) The Reading has two tokens.
2. The Pennsylvania’s base hex, H12, is changed to a different permanent grey hex, similar to the Reading’s base hex, as shown on the New Tiles Chart. All the rules in 1.a now apply to this hex as well.
3. Baltimore and Boston have different green and brown tiles. Grey tiles K15 and D24, and the red section for the Deep South (K13) are also changed. Consult the accompanying New Tiles Chart.
4. Train Changes: Add one more „4“ train. Use the Optional „6“ train. Diesels now cost $750 with a trade-in engine, or $900 without. Trains that become obsolete are not removed until after the owning corporation’s next operating turn. For example: Player A buys the first „4“ train making all „2“ trains obsolete; Player A, who owns a „2“ train, does not have to remove it until after his next operating turn. And if Player A owns a „2“ train, he would not have to remove it until after his next turn of operation.
5. The player who buys the Camden & Amboy private company now has a choice of taking a share of either the Pennsylvania or of the Reading.
6. Increase the number of certificates each player can hold by one, regardless of the number of players in the game.
7. Optional Rule: add $8000 to the game bank. This will guarantee al least three more operating rounds in the game and will make the decision of whether to buy a diesel more important.

Reading shares and new tiles: reading.zip

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

DRACHENGOLD – DRAGON’S GOLD

Publisher: Eurogames

Author: Bruno Faidutti

Tester: Aaron Haag

Game Tested: published 2001, advanced rules

Scenario: Three to six players use their adventurers to slay dragons. Every dragon guards a treasure, which is distributed between the participating players by negotiation and diplomacy. Once all dragons have been slain the player with the most valuable treasure collection wins the game.

The Game: Each player has four hero cards of different strength (two knights, a thief and a mage) in front of him, which are used in combat against the dragons. Dragons, too, come in different strengths with stronger dragons guarding a larger number of gems. Numbers printed on the dragon cards indicate the amount of visible gems and the number of gems still „covered“ by the dragon – latter will only become visible once the dragon is slain.

Fighting a dragon is straight forward by playing one of your hero cards next to a dragon. Once the total number of hero strength points matches or exceeds the strength of the dragon it is killed and the treasure is distributed. Most of the time several players will have participated in a fight, i.e. will have played cards on a particular dragon. Therefore the treasure needs to be distributed amongst those players. This is the zest of the game! Distribution of the gems (gold, silver, magic plus 6 different colored gemstones) is done through a negotiation process between these players. In order to avoid having endless discussions this process is controlled by a timer (about 1 minute), which is started once the negotiations begin. If the participating players do not reach consent about how they want to distribute the gems before the timer elapses the complete treasure is discarded.

Since at the end of the game extra points are awarded for complete sets of gems and to those holding the most gems of any of the colors each player tries to maximize the value of his set of gemstones. This can lead to situations where players have a hard time to agree about a distribution as all of them know that a particular gem is of high value to one of them (which of course is heavily denied by that player). Every now and then one of the players may deliberately refuse to agree on any distribution proposal – a tactical move that sometimes may come as a surprise to the rest.

In the advanced rules a special meaning is given to the red gems: whenever a mage is in the party that killed a dragon the player who played the mage gets all red gems in the treasure plus a magical item card providing that player with a special ability (all but one may be used exactly once throughout the game). If more than one mage is present then the red gems are distributed equally between them if possible (otherwise they are included in the negotiation process).

Playing Time: The game comes with a well written set of rules plus a description of the scoring system on the back of the shields used for hiding one’s gems from the eyes of the other players. Hence the game is explained in a short time. Playing time is about 30 minutes.

Similar Games: Ohne Furcht und Adel (Citadels), Democrazy, Shipwrecked, OrcZ

Westpark Gamers‘ Opinion: The game plays fast and everybody feels involved most of the time. Even those not participating in the gems distribution negotiations are, because they have a high interest in watching the timer just hoping that the others cannot cut a deal before it elapses. This negotiation process is actually the best part of the game if you play with the right people. What you want is a group that is not too easy going on finding compromises. If possible there should at least be one not following the principle „you scratch my back, I’ll scratch yours“.

Killing dragons is simple and straight forward – not a lot of decisions here. You want to be part of many adventure parties, taking care though not to join a group that will take several rounds to slay the dragon. Go for the quick kills with small parties.

The magical items cards add a little bit of extra flavor. The effect of playing a card is rather limited and certainly not powerful enough to win the game (although played at the right time during the last few rounds a card may tip the scales). What needs to be mentioned here is the one card which has more than a one-time effect. This card allows a player to steal one gem at a time from any of the dragon cards (and only from there) for as long as no other player catches him red-handed. The gems stolen until then do not have to be returned. Some pick-pocket skills are beneficial here and may actually guarantee a sure win. I very well remember when we played the game for the first time and nobody was aware of the existence of this card. The Westpark Gamers are a group of players that hate cheating (unless its part of the rules) and when I drew this card I did not feel comfortable at all. I will never forget Peter’s face of sheer disbelieve when he caught me stealing a gem from one of the dragon cards…

Aaron’s Rating: 8 (out of 10)

Westpark Gamers‘ Rating: 8.25

Links to further information:	FAQ about the game (in German)
	Luding link for Drachengold
	Bruno Faidutti’s page about Drachengold (including a link to the English rules)

Autor: Peter

am Tisch: Katrin, Alex, Walter, Aaron, Peter

auf dem Tisch: Drachengold, Carcassonne, Res Publica, Bluff

Da diverse Westpark Gamers unabkömmlich waren, war der ganze Spielabend ein Weilchen gefährdet, bis sich meine Etagennachbarn erbarmten und mich zu Walter begleiteten.

1. Drachengold
   Der Abend begann mit einem Drachengold, das nicht nur die extrem gute Westpark-Gamers-Wertung von 8.25 für sich verbuchen kann, sondern sogar dank Mingde, der wieder zurück in Singapur ist, auf der anderen Seite des Erdballs gespielt wird. (In Singapur gewinnt übrigens meistens Mingde, weil die Ereigniskarten Deutsch sind und die armen Singapurer ihn dann immer fragen müssen, was da draufsteht).

   Während Aaron, Walter und Katrin sich gegenseitig über den Tisch ziehen wollten, teilten Alex und ich regelmäßig und fair die Edelsteine auf, die wir zu zweit abräumen konnten (also 6-8er Drachen). Dass ich zum Schluss mit ganz knappem Vorsprung vor Alex gewann, lag daran, dass ich ihm doch irgendwann mal ein Goldstück mopste.

   Westpark-Gamers Bewertung: 8.25

2. Carcassonne
   Carcassonne hatten Katrin und Alex selbst mitgebracht. Wir spielten es zum ersten Mal wieder nach den Originalregeln, nicht nach den Turnierregeln (Unterschiede der Turnierregel: 1. Man hat zwei Plättchen auf der Hand. 2. Jeder darf genau gleich viel Plättchen setzen. 3. Bauern werden nach Städten, nicht nach Wiesen gewertet). In der Originalregel ist die Bauernmehrheit auf der größten Wiese meist spielentscheidend. Mit vorausschauender Planung konnte Katrin sich diese sichern und gewann das Spiel zurecht. Es zeigt sich, dass wir mittlerweise wahre Meister im Verhindern geschlossener Städte geworden sind. Wenn man die Teilchen ein bisschen kennt, kann man schnell Konstrukte bauen, die nicht mehr schließbar sind. Dass man nach Originalregel nur ein Plättchen zieht und dieses sofort setzt, ist in der Tat keine gute Festlegung: Dies längt das Spiel (weil die Entscheidung oft schmerzhafter ist – „wie mache ich aus diesem bescheuerten Teil doch noch was Gutes“), raubt viel taktische Möglichkeiten (mit zusammenpassenden Teilen kann man ein paar Züge vorplanen und verbundene Wiesen etc. planen) und gibt dem Spiel einen viel friedfertigeren Charakter, da unwillkürlich alle Spieler helfen wollen („da könntest du’s aber auch hinlegen, wäre 1 Punkt mehr“).

   Westparkbewertung: 7.71

3. Res Publica
   Walter war verwundert, da ich mir einerseits dieses Spiel wünschte, andererseits meinte, es sei „eigentlich kein gutes Spiel“. Naja, es ist ein Knizia-Spiel, was es über 70% der Spiele heraushebt, aber es ist andererseits doch das schwächste Knizia-Spiel, das ich kenne.

   Wie immer bei Knizia ist die Story notdürftig aufgepeppt, weswegen ich mal all‘ die Perser, Germanen und Künste beim Beschreiben weitgehend ignoriere: Jeder Spieler fängt mit fünf Karten Typ A („Völker“) an. Jede Runde darf er nach formal festgelegten Regeln handeln, nämlich entweder ein Gesuch à „Suche einen Römer“, „Suche vier Hunnen“ etc ODER aber ein Gebot „Biete einen Germanen“, „Biete zwei Perser und einen Germanen“ etc., NICHT aber einen komplettes Gebot mit Gesuch. Die anderen Spieler dürfen darauf wiederum ritualisiert einzeln antworten (z. B. „Für deinen einen Römer biete ich einen Germanen“). Sobald man fünf einer Sorte zusammen hat, legt man sie aus und bekommt dafür eine Karte Typ B („Kultur“) Einkommen pro Runde. Auch hier muss man wieder fünf zusammen sammeln durch Ziehen und Tausch. Legt man fünf Karten Typ B ab, erhält man eine Punktekarte. Die erste Punktekarte ist die 9, die zweite und dritte jeweils 8, dann zweimal 7, etc. bis zu 3. Wer am Ende am meisten Punkte hat, hat gewonnen.

   Walter war am Ende der Meinung, es sei kein gutes Spiel, und nicht einmal meine Knizia-Manie sollte meine Begeisterung rechtfertigen. Vermutlich hat er Recht. Leider ist bei Res Publica ziemlich bald klar, wer gewinnt, denn wer am Anfang einen Vorsprung hat, hält ihn bis Ende durch. Kingmaker-Effekte könnte es theoretisch geben, praktisch eher nicht, weil sich jeder selbst der nächste ist und selbst dem Führenden die richtige Karte gibt, wenn der die entsprechende Gegenkarte hat – trotz verweifelter diplomatischer Versuche Aarons wider mich: „Alex, du darfst dem nicht zwei Hunnen für eine Karte geben – schau dir den an: Student, Eigentumswohnung, Versace-T-Shirt, der zieht dich nur über’n Tisch“. Wie gesagt, ich bekam die zwei Hunnen doch und gewann das Spiel.

   Westparkbewertung: noch keine Wertung

4. Bluff
   Zum Absacken noch die üblichen zwei Runden Bluff. Einmal gewann Aaron, einmal ich (wow – letzte Woche auch schon – mein Bluff-Bann scheint gebrochen). Wirklich erstaunlich war aber eine Runde, bei der der Setzwürfel tatsächlich durch abwechselndes Legen von Fünfen und Sternen in die letzte Bahn (nach drei Ecken) gelangte und dann dort angezweifelt wurde – zu Unrecht! Mit 23 Würfeln (wenn ich mich recht entsinne) hatten wir 10 Sterne zusammen 19 Fünfen.