Madison Board Gamers Session Report, September 4, 2002

Games on the table:
Manitou, Galaxy: The Dark Ages, Tenjo, Carcassonne, Apples to Apples, Mutineer, Vinci, La Citta, Carolus Magnus, Management Material, Kingdoms, Heimlich & Co., Ivanhoe, Mexica, El Grande, the Traders of Genoa, and a few unplayed Cheap Ass games.

Players:
Matt, Dale, Steve, Scott, David, Everett, Joel, Sarah, John, Mike, Tim, Josiah, Bill, Joe, Chris, and Kevin.

WOW! This was the biggest turnout that we've had so far, do mostly to the U.W. students being back in town, but not having any homework yet. Also, many people brought a couple of games, so we had a good choice of what to play. We had some administrative stuff to do before we actually started, such as getting volunteers to be contact members so that we could be an official student organization. I also introduced my session log forms that I made so that I could keep better track of the games that I don't participate in. Most people were leery of them to begin with, and I received more than one comment about it being too anal-retentive, but in the end, everyone humored me and went along with filling them out. On to the games!

Ivanhoe: John, Joel, Sara, and Dale (1st game)
John, Joel, Sara, Dale, and Matt (2nd game)

Right away we had enough people to split into 2 groups, with several people jumping at the chance to play one of the new games on the table, Ivanhoe. John was the only person who had played it before, but that didn't help him much as he came in last place both games.

1st game scores: Sara 4, Dale 3, Joel 1, John 1
2nd game scores: Dale 4, Matt 3, Joel 2, Sara 1, John 1

Ratings: Sara 8, Dale 7, John 6, Joel 5, Matt 4

Kingdoms: Josiah, Bill, Dave, and Everett

This was our other warm-up game. This was Josiah's and David's first playing, but the rules and strategy of the game are fairly easy to grasp, so being familiar with the game is not a big advantage. By the end of the second round, David was in the lead, and I came in a close 2nd. However, this just encouraged Josiah and Bill to join forces in the final round, and they did a good job at it. David ended up scoring -24 points in the third round. My third round score was positive, but both Josiah and Bill scored very well in the round to overtake both David and myself.

Scores: Josiah 221, Bill 210, Everett 205, David 148

Ratings: David 6, Everett 5, Josiah 5, and Bill 5

Heimlich & Co.: Tim, Mike,Josiah, Bill, Dave, Everett, and Scott

While we were playing Kingdoms, we had quite a few more people show up, so we decided to play Heimlich & Co. as it could handle all seven of us without splitting into two games. David and I were the only ones to have played it before, but we decided to play with the advanced rules anyway.
Scott did the best job of getting his spy to score, having the lead before guesses were revealed, and getting two guesses correct was enough to keep him in the lead. Bill did the best at guessing who was which spy, getting three correct guesses. I, on the other hand, did horrible. Not only was my blue spy in last place by a lot before guesses were revealed, I also guessed incorrectly on everybody. The randomness of the game turned a lot of people off, and I personally think it is a better game with fewer players, where not every color is owned by someone. Bill's quote for the game "It is unlike any other espionage game you've ever played."

Bill's additional comments - "I made a glaring tactical error leading to my loss- I had the game in my pocket, with a huge lead, and was going to end the game, but for some reason chose not to. I immediately realized the error, but there wasn't that much I really could do about it. I still came close, so I'm proud of my progress.

Other than that, this game seems to really bog down at times- not enough bluff and counterbluff, too much Candyland with unknown identities. I imagine the non-advanced game isn't fun at all, basically a pawn moving game where you just don't know who's what. I don't pick on players, I pick on the leader, so where's the fun in simple hidden identities?"

Scores: Scott 56, Bill 54, Josiah 48, Tim 41, Mike 40 David 35, Everett 18

Ratings: Mike 5, David 5, Everett 5, Bill 3, Tim 3, Scott 2.5, Josiah 2

Carolus Magnus: Josiah, Bill, Tim, Mike

After Heimlich & Co., and with Steve joining us, we split into 2 smaller groups while the Ivanhoe players were still going at it. Josiah and Bill decided to teach Tim and Mike how to play Carolus Magnus. The only notes they left me about the game was from Bill: "It's unlike any game about France you've ever played."

Winning team: Josiah and Tim
Not winning team: Mike and Bill

Ratings: Bill 10, Josiah 7, Mike 7, Tim 5

Vinci: Steve, Everett, David, and Scott

This was my response to Scott's comment that he wanted to play a rating "10" game. It is still one of my all time favorites, even though I haven't played it much recently. Scott was the only person who hadn't played it before, and got a little glazed-eyed while explaining the rules, but he did fairly well, placing a strong second. Steve went first and took a port building civilization and started in Finland. I took the Vikings (barbarian/navigators) and took over England. David took a slaving civilization and started in Turkey, and Scott took a medicine/mining civ. and went through Italy to settle in Austria. For the first several turns it was a fairly even game. David snatched up every slaving civ.; Scott keeping his original civ throughout the game, never going into decline; and Steve and I taking whatever was opportune at the time. Scott and I stayed neck and neck for the lead for most of the game, but I jumped out to a good lead near the end of the game when I took a currency civ while putting a civilization into decline that had agriculture with the broken column symbol. On the turn after that I scored a total of 18 points, putting me in the lead for good.

Score: Everett 132, Scott 110, Steve 99, David 96

Ratings: Everett 10, David 8, Steve 5, Scott 5

La Citta: John, Joel, Sara, Chris, and Kevin

The Ivanhoe group started to play this with a couple of our late arrivals. However, it took longer to get going than they expected, and they had to call it off early as John had to get home. I believe that I heard comments that they would like to try playing the game again sometime now that they knew the rules.

Management Material: Joe, Tim, Mike, Bill, Josiah

After Carolus Magnus, that group decided to break out a new game that none of them had played before. The only notes that they left me are written in either Chinese or Japanese, so I can't include them here (Josiah - if you want to send me a translation, I'll post it.) They did seem to be enjoying themselves, and Mike did say that they were unsuccessful at avoiding work. Since I haven't played the game, I'm not sure if the scores that they gave me make any sense.

Bill's comments - The game works as follows: you have a task with a number. You must play excuses with a total value greater than this number. If you do, the player to your left is delegated the task, and must try to play excuses. Other players have cards to make tasks hard to get out of. It's important to conserve your cards, and know who to screw over. The game is fun and has a lot of funny cards, and would probably have gotten higher ratings (especially from Josiah) if not for the shift- left and shift-right cards, which totally change your score and make previous work all for naught. The scores DO make sense, sort of, because points make you get promoted, which is bad, and we all got promoted, except for Josiah (who, conceptually, would have been promoted eventually.)

Score: Josiah ∞-a lot, Bill ∞, Mike ∞, Joe ∞, Tim ∞

Ratings: Mike 8.5, Tim 7, Joe 6, Bill 6, Josiah 4

Battle for France: Bill, Tim

(These notes are what Bill left me.) Battle of France works just like Paper-Rock-Scissors. Only accommodates 2 players.

Score: Tim 1st, Bill 2nd

Ratings: Tim 8, Bill 6

(To understand Battle for France, you have to understand Bill. Bill has stated that he would be perfectly happy playing the meta-game all night without ever playing any actual games.)