Lord of the Rings:Nazgul - the Wallenstein mashup variation

 Dear friends, in my last missive I laid out my case for Lord of the Rings: Nazgul. Today, I suggest a way to make an unfairly maligned game better still. It does, however, require a rather special item; the cube tower from a copy of Wallenstein (or, failing that, Wallenstein's Japanese retheme, Shogun; not to be confused with the Milton Bradley game Shogun, now known as Ikusa, which gave Lord of the Rings: Nazgul its auction mechanic).

Essentially, this variant simply switches the cup and its cube-drawing mechanic with the more exciting tower-drop of Wallenstein. Not only is this mechanic more physically compelling, but also allows faster combat and greater potential for unexpected outcomes.

Play the game exactly as usual, with the following changes:

Setup

Optionally at setup, seed the tower with a few Free Peoples Armies (returning any that fall through to the supply). I would suggest 2-3 per difficulty level you are playing at above Easy. This will have a small effect in adjusting starting difficulty.

Battles

In general, battles are treated normally, except that the entire location is determined at once using the cube tower, and cubes stay in the tower between rounds (rather than the cup being emptied again).

As normal, all players present at a location decide how many troops they will commit to the ensuing battle. These cubes are taken from the players' army trackers. Players must always commit their Nazgul cube, if they have it. Select cubes for the opposition as normal (i.e. leave Free Peoples Armies and Hero trackers where they are, and pick a number of cubes equal to the respective positions on the track). Select Heroes using cards as normal, and remove cubes of Free Peoples Armies if the total Terror of Nazgul present is greater than Valor of the Heroes.

Now, instead of placing cubes in the cup, throw all cubes into the tower. Thus, in this variant, draw limits mean nothing, and contributing Nazgul fight simultaneously. Cubes which fall through to the tray are treated as if they had been pulled from the cup. Follow damage assignment as normal with these cubes.

This battle didn't go particularly well for those plucky Nazgul

If some Nazgul cubes become stuck in the tower (and they probably will sooner or later), then some Nazgul will not be available to be returned to players. Those cubes which do fall through and are present belong to the players in the battle according to this turn's play order; i.e. if the second and third player this round have contributed to the battle, but only one Nazgul cube has fallen through the tray, then it belongs to the second player. The Witch Lord takes lowest priority. Cubes stuck in the tower thematically represent Nazgul and monster packs drawn away on other minor tasks at the bidding of their dark lord, and will return at some unexpected moment to take the heroes by surprise. Just because a player is without their cube, that does not prevent them sending their armies to a location to battle as normal; the only restriction is that they won't be able to enter a Nazgul cube into the battle.

If there are more Nazgul cubes present than players (which is entirely possible, particularly when there are Nazgul cubes stuck in the tower from previous battles but only a single Nazgul in the current battle), then the extra Nazgul cubes belong to whoever is at the battle but currently without their personal Nazgul cube; again, if more than one player qualifies, then precedence follows the current turn order. For instance, in a four-player game where players who are currently first and third in the turn order are without their Nazgul cubes, a single excess Nazgul cube belongs to the player first in the turn order. The third player will have to wait a little longer for their cube to re-enter play. If there are more Nazgul cubes that players present at that battle, then the extra cube(s) belong to those not at the battle in turn order priority; these have sneakily sent their forces to one battle but made a surprise appearance at this one (thus reclaiming some of the glory they will have lost while sojourning in the tower). Again, the Witch Lord takes lowest priority. A player entering the battle as an extra Nazgul cube contributes battle damage as normal, and receives favor as normal (despite not having sent any armies). Thus those who lose their Nazgul cube, and hence have been at a disadvantage, will have some of that disadvantage repaid when they return. If all players have their cubes, then the extra cube represents the return of the Witch Lord, who will now be available again.

More player armies may leave the tower than entered it; these contribute their damage as normal, and also become available if they survive; thus it is possible to end a battle with more forces than you started with (as forces which had previously gone AWOL make surprise attacks on the field of battle). If more cubes of the "good guys" fall out then went in, then that's fine too. Damage is given to Free Peoples Armies as normal (i.e. on the track on the board); extra "good guy" cubes do not need to be killed (but do contribute their damage to the Nazgul forces).

If more Heroes fall out of the tower then went it (and hence there are more Hero cubes than cards), then you must provide further Hero cards (from hand or from the deck). These Heroes are immediately added to the battle; their Valor has no effect, but Hero Calls still function as normal and can draw one more Hero to the battle. As with extra Free Peoples Armies, these extra heroes do not affect the number needed to defeat the area (Hero cubes are still tracked on the location track), but do contribute their damage, and priority order for taking damage follows the normal rules combining all Heroes present.

This battle went rather better.

Once the damage done by both sides has been calculated from the cubes present, Hero/Free Peoples Army tracks are reduced as normal; slain player army cubes are returned to the supply. Favour and VPs are split among all contributing Nazgul irrespective of their level of contribution (rounding up if uneven, as normal), though they must have contributed at least one cube to the battle (which may include their own Nazgul cube).

Nazgul cubes are returned to their owners, as indicated above. Surviving player armies are placed back on player tracks. If more than one player has contributed to the battle, cubes are divided evenly between contributors; first split Orcs, then Trolls, then Mumakil. Do not round up; only the cubes surviving are available. Players may negotiate, with all final decisions being made by the contributor who is nearest the beginning of the current turn order; however, no player can have more than one cube than the worst-off player. Once one player has a cube, they may not take a second until all players present have received at least one, and so forth.

Redraw actions

In case of game effects which cause redraw actions: pick up any cubes which are in the tray, and throw them back into the tower, thus redoing the “draw”.

Difficulty comparison

By comparison to the standard game rules:

• Battles move faster as there is no draw limit; I initially thought this would make the game easier for the players, but...
• Nazgul do tend to spend some time in the tower (and the Witch Lord will frequently be unavailable); with the addition of the surprise Heroes, these changes more than compensate for the quicker battle resolution.
• Generally, this variant is "swingier" and more random, and also I would say is more difficult.

So there you have it. If you are lucky enough to have access to both a cube tower and a copy of Lord of the Rings: Nazgul, have at it, and see if you find it improves the game as much as I have.

In Defence Of... Lord Of The Rings: Nazgul

Lord of the Rings: Nazgul, published by Wizkids (no comment), is a game which attracted a startling level of opprobrium for such a high-profile release under a beloved license. This game is not intended to be a review in the traditional sense, and I will only cover the game's structure itself in the briefest of ways. Instead, this article will address the major areas of complaint... and suggest why the game might be worth your time after all...

The game itself

Picture by the author

Lord of the Rings: Nazgul (henceforth LotR:N) is a "semi-cooperative" game wherein each player
takes the persona of a Ringwraith, simultaneously striving to frustrate do-gooding heroes while competing for the favour of the great lord Sauron.

This is not a simple game, but I shall try to be brief. Player Nazgul must bring themselves and their armies to the battlegrounds of each of three threads of the Lord of the Rings saga, trying to eliminate the armies and heroes of the "good guys" at a variety of Middle Earth locations. Each round also presents a number of smaller mission cards, providing optional battlegrounds which may or may not be worth the focus of the players.

Players then enter a blind auction, highly reminiscent of the auction system of the old MB Gamemaster game Shogun (now known as Ikusa, I believe). Players use the "favour" they have accumulated in a variety of ways; these may be non-competitive (e.g. buying new army units), "winner-takes-all" (e.g. the bid to decide turn order), or auctions where there are consolation prizes for those who do not bid the most (e.g. bidding for Cards of Power).

With their forces and other assets arrayed, players then deploy to the various battle areas and mission cards available this turn, and do battle. Combat is a bit too complex to detail here, but in brief, the Ringwraiths and their armies will face blue cubes (representing generic Free Peoples armies) and white cubes representing "heroes". Players must deploy a Hero card they will face for each white cube present. Each player will have at least one Hero card drawn from the deck which he/she may play to the battle they are attending... alternatively, if players do not fulfil the Hero requirement from their own hands, the gaps are filled by Heroes drawn blind from the deck. Nazgul may then deploy a number of their own armies to the battle, filling a cup with cubes for all units present on both sides. Players then blinding take cubes from the cup, such cubes and their allegiances determining units lost in the battle. Winning provides favour, victory points, and removes Heroes defeated from the game. As the game progresses, the Nazgul may gain and lose power (personally, by advancing or reversing their Clix dial, and by the armies under their control).

There's plenty more to the rules, including an advancing One Ring track which will cause the players to effectively "run out of time" (due to certain hobbits depositing a certain item of jewellery in a certain volcanic mountain) and thus all lose the game. If all stages are completed before this occurs, the winner is whomever has acquired the most victory points by winning battles, defeating Heroes, and completing quests.

The problems

Now that you have some idea of the game, let's address some of the most-raised complaints.

The semi-cooperative aspect doesn't work

One complaint raised is that the semi-coop aspect (working together to beat the game, while trying to undercut each other for favour and victory points) doesn't make thematic sense; i.e. that the Ringwraiths of the stories don't have sufficient individuality, or otherwise would not compete on a personal level. I'm not sure I accept that argument myself; the Nazgul have personal histories, and there are plenty of examples of Sauron's forces working for personal gain. Sauron himself started out as the conniving servant of a greater power, as I vaguely recall. Ultimately, this comes down to a subjective take on the underlying material; you may disagree, but I see no reason why Nazgul wouldn't compete to become first among the Dark Lord's servants.

Our plucky Ringwraiths. Picture by the author.

The other argument under this heading is that the semi-cooperative aspect doesn't work mechanically. While there are competitive games which include an "everybody loses" clause which may kick in if players slow one another down too much (Chaos in the Old World springs to mind), such games generally make such an outcome a fairly remote possibility. LotR:N has a higher requirement for cooperation; big battles will not be won without players working together. This problem comes down to a difference in gaming group; if your group is likely to "get" that this is a game of working together while conniving against each other, rather than a game of constant competition, you'll probably be fine.

If, on the other hand, your group is likely to be too aggressive, the game provides an alternative right there in the manual; the fully cooperative mode. As a pure cooperative mode, this thus allows solo play (with handling of multiple characters). I confess that this is my preferred way of playing. In any case, one cannot complain too much that the semi-coop mode is flawed since a fix is on the back of the manual.

The artwork is terrible

Well... yes. The board itself utilises a number of circles to keep track of the starting and current

Even less pretty than it appears in this photograph. Picture by the author.

disposition of the forces of "good", overlaid on a map. Quite frankly, to borrow the vernacular of our American cousins, this board looks like ass. A nicely detailed map, with simple indicators of starting forces and the direction of travel to each zone (and maybe colour-coding of each of the three overall regions of conflict) would almost certainly be preferential. The circles really add nothing of value, and just makes the whole thing look awful. It smacks of a nice idea which should have been discarded on testing.

Cards themselves are illustrated with screenshots from the films. If you really, really like looking at the films, that may be fine for you. I think most would agree that some proper artwork would have been preferable. The Clix figures don't help either; while I accept there's only so much you can do to produce five figures shrouded in black robes, they're still pretty disappointing.

So... no defence for this section. The artwork is terrible. I can only ask that you persevere.

The cube-pulling mechanism is weak

I'm not sure I understand this criticism. The game features a "push-your-luck" mechanism involving both how many armies you put in the cup, and how many you pull from it. Pulling blind from the cup has a reasonable amount of tension. Sure, perhaps replacing cubes with dice would provide more excitement (a la 1812: The Invasion of Canada and its cousins), but you'd need a hell of a lot of dice for big battles. That would be fun; but the cube-pulling mechanism is at least unusual. Honestly it's hard to feel strongly on this point. I call it a draw.

The game is just ludicrously overpriced

Yes. Yes it is. The RRP for this game is, I believe, £70 (or it was at time of release). Having five Clix figures is going to inflate prices, but by comparison, the mighty Mage Knight contains four Clix (albeit of the same sculpt), plus four excellent hand-painted figures, plus a range of components which are clearly superior to those of LotR:N, all for an RRP £20 less. There is no excuse for this price point, particularly considering the terrible artwork. So many games with broadly similar component requirements, yet superior actual components, exist with considerably lower price points (Cyclades, Wallenstein, etc.).

However, the market has realised how insane this RRP is. I myself bought my copy, new in shrink, for the princely sum of £17.50. That's less than some card games. And yes, it has certainly provided a decent return on investment at that price. Even given the defensive arguments in this article, a person would be crazy to purchase this at full price; but a bit of shopping around could make this a totally valid purchase.

So why should you play this game?

The above comments are intended to mitigate some of the criticisms of the game. In themselves, they do not provide compelling reasons to play this game (unless you are a Lord of the Rings completionist). But there is one very good reason to play this game:

This game is not a cube-pusher. It is a reverse-deckbuilder.

Those dreadful "heroes". Choose your battles wisely.
Picture by the author.

While this game includes a number of mechanisms (blind auction, push-your-luck on cube deployment, etc.), most of the real strategy revolves around the Hero deck. The heroes are the real threat in any battle, and before the battle, players must decide whether to place the Hero card(s) they have into the battle, or to draw from the deck. If the hero they hold is strong, they may wish to avoid it and chance the draw; on the other hand, if there isn't much to the rest of the hero army and the player is feeling strong, they may deliberately play the Hero in the hope of defeating them.

Why run the risk? Because any heroes that are not defeated are shuffled back into the deck, while those that are defeated leave the game. As time goes on, the Nazgul become stronger (on average), but so too do the armies of the enemy. If you do nothing but take easy options, you run a serious risk of thinning out the deck such that only strong heroes remain, producing an impassable blockade on your progress. Choosing when to fight the tough heroes, and thus thin the deck in favour of weaker enemies, is key. Ultimately, that Hero deck is the real enemy, and working out how to thin it is the real strategy of the game. This isn't the cube-based wargame-lite it seems to be; it's a reverse-deckbuilder.

There are other games that involve playing against enemy decks; for instance, the Pathfinder Adventure Card Game has decks for each location faced, but these are small and work in a rather different way. Thunderstone Advance uses an enemy deck, but enemies largely leave and are dealt with one-by-one in a unidirectional fashion. I cannot think of any other game which utilises a large, constantly-reshuffled deck, thinned over numerous rounds, as the AI enemy. LotR:N offers an unusual mechanism in a much-loved setting. I wouldn't describe it as an overlooked classic, but if you have any interest in deck-based games, want to play something a bit different, enjoy the theme, and can find it at a reasonable price point, you really should consider this game (though I recommend starting with the fully-coop variant, even if you are planning on using the semi-coop variant in the long run).

And finally...

This is the first of a two-part article set. In the second, I will outline a variant I have been using which adds both excitement and strategic variation to the cube-oriented mechanisms. Watch this space...

Board Games For... Travellers

The first shoots of spring are threatening to burst through, and with them, the first embers of the wandering spirit are kindled for the ardent traveller. The highest slopes still hold the potential for skiing, while Paris approaches its springtime. Long journeys, however, demand distractions that are both portable and sustainable. Presented here are those that return the greatest diversion in the smallest package; since they're so small, I can justify discussing five alternatives rather than my standard three.

Since these must provide the most play in the least volume, I have applied the following exclusion criteria to the list:

• They must be small - not much bigger than a couple of decks of cards, so they can fit in and be accessible from a rucksack pocket. Regrettably, this excludes some of my favourite portables; Jaipur, Citadels, Skull & Roses, I must bid you all adieu.
• They must be of a type which sustains repeated play. That doesn't mean that they must necessarily have great depth, merely that players can get several matches on a long journey without boredom. It is at this point that games such as Zombie Dice leave our selection.
• Finally, they must be playable on public transport, ideally on no more than the tray of a train or aeroplane, without any pieces that would be easily dislodged by movement. This excludes anything with standing pieces, as well as games which cover fair bit of space despite coming in a small package (e.g. the excellent Hanabi).

With these restrictions in mind, my suggestions are as follows:

1. Coloretto 

 

One of the simplest card games in modern gaming is also one of the best. Less that two packs of

Picture by the author

cards produce a suprising amount of gameplay. On your turn, either draw and place a card from the deck, or pick up cards into your score piles; once you've picked up, you can't get any more until everyone has picked up. Try to collect three colours; if you collect too many different types, they score against you. The rules can be grasped in moments, and a game rarely takes more than 20 minutes. Nonetheless, for a simple game, it frequently throws tough choices; do you place cards that you want together, and risk an opponent taking them? Do you poison an opponent's well with a card they don't want, at the cost of losing it yourself? Do you cut your losses and take a part-filled row, or gamble on the turn of the next card? Simple rules, nothing but cards, but plenty of lighter gaming fun to be had.

Players: 2-5
Game duration: around 5-10 minutes per player
Best for: non-gamers, groups including children, those too tired for more demanding games.
Not so good for: serious gamers seeking tough intellectual challenges.
Recommended source for UK buyers at time of writing: I would recommending getting the anniversary edition from Amazon; the superior art of the anniversary edition is definitely worth it, and even though this version has German instructions, you can just find and print the English version.

2. Mr Jack Pocket

Picture by kdsz

The closest thing on this list to an actual board game, Mr Jack Pocket could best be described as Hide-And-Seek: The Game. Tracing its lineage back to such classics as Scotland Yard, this is an asymmetric game where one player acts as the eponymous Mr Jack, who is trying to keep his identity hidden until time runs out. The other player controls Sherlock Holmes, Dr Watson, and the ever-adorable sleuthing hound Toby, as they try to identify which suspect is really Mr Jack. Both players manipulate the nine tiles which make up the game board, as well as the positions of the detectives, trying to either see or conceal the suspects on each tile. The random factor on this game is fairly low; it is very much a game of anticipating and neutralising your opponent's move. Attractive pieces and tight battles of wits makes this a wonderful game for those who find the combination of spatial manipulation and psychological duelling compelling.


Players: 2
Game duration: 15-20 minutes
Best for: strategists needing a quick fix, fans of Victoriana, hiders, seekers
Not so good for: any more than two players, casual gamers
Recommended source for UK buyers at time of writing: Gameslore

3. Love Letter

 

One of the most successful of the new breed of so-called "microgames", Love Letter consists of

Picture by Casey Lynn

merely 16 cards, a few cubes to keep score, and a delightful velvet pouch to transport it all in. Like Coloretto, this is another easily-grasped card game; unlike Coloretto, where all information is open, Love Letter is all about concealment and bluffing. The game plays quickly and simply; you have a hand consisting of a single card, and on your turn you draw from the pile.You must then discard one of your cards to return to a single-card hand; its special power will activate when discarded. Some cards allow you to eliminate an opponent by correctly deducing the contents of their hand; others allow you to eliminate them in other ways, gain information, or protect oneself. Players are attempting to woo the Princess by getting a letter to her through the persons represented by the cards; the winner is whoever ends the round with the highest-rated card, or whoever is the last person not exposed. Each round is short, and luck of the draw is definitely a factor, but the game still delivers lots of bluffing and deduction in a small, accessible package.

Players: 2-4
Game duration: around 20 minutes
Best for: honestly, pretty much anyone you would want to play a game with. I've yet to find someone who didn't find it accessible and fun, with its easily-grasped but compelling psychological gameplay.
Not so good for: Killjoys who find the theme off-putting or the game "too dependent on luck". These people just don't know how to have a good time.
Recommended source for UK buyers at time of writing: boardgameguru

4. Hive Pocket

Picture by Markus A

Back to more serious strategy games now. Hive, and it's travel-friendly Hive Pocket version (which is the same game with smaller pieces and convenient travel pouch), is a serious game which clearly shows chess in its DNA. Unusually for an abstract game based on pieces, rather than cards, there is no board; instead, the lovely ceramic tiles are both pieces and board. On each turn, a player either places or moves one of his/her pieces. The aim of the game is to surround the opponent's queen bee, while protecting one's own. The game is smaller and quicker than chess (due partly to the much more fluid piece movement), but many of the same tactics are present; play is heavily reliant on trapping the opponent's pieces to prevent their movement, while keeping one's own pieces in play and jockeying for openings to move them into aggressive positions. Personally, I'm not a fan of chess, but I find Hive's more rapid pace and tighter spatial elements much more enjoyable.
Players: 2
Game duration: 20-30 minutes
Best for: Strategists; reformed chess-players; entomologists; anyone who would enjoy beautiful, ceramic tiles.
Not so good for: Casual gamers, arachnophobics.
Recommended source for UK buyers at time of writing: Amazon; German version again, so you will need English rules again if you get that version.

5. The Resistance/The Resistance Avalon

 

And finally, we head into social gaming for our last pick. Derived from the classic "Werewolf" (and

Picture by Nuno Sentieiro

designed to evade that game's player elimination and narrator requirements), The Resistance is a game of bluff and misdirection for entire groups of people, with gameplay focused on social interaction rather than cards or pieces. Players represent a resistance cell fighting valiantly against an oppressive regime in a totalitarian future; however, some of the players are secretly spies, doing their best to serve the government and maintain order in the face of anarchist extremists. Spies know who other are, but genuine members of the cell have no idea who anyone is. Players take turns to try to form mission teams; if their team is voted acceptable by the group, those on the mission then perform a secret ballot regarding the mission's success. If the team pulls together and all vote for success, then the mission will indeed succeed; however, if a viper in the nest votes for failure, the mission is a loss. The teams race to win best three of five, with player's roles only definitively revealed at the end.
The result is a game of bluff, deduction, and above all, wild accusation. If a mission fails, the saboteur could be anyone. Do you the trust the team leader? Or do you think they are genuine, but you don't trust their proposed team. Is the team leader choosing his companions so as to frame them in the case of a failure? Why is that person so determined to accuse you of being a spy? Is it because they're the real spy? Or are they a fellow spy, trying accuse you to either gain the trust of the group, or make the group trust you instead? Half an hour of debate, accusations and lies ensue. Well, no lies from me. I'm telling the truth. You're the one who's lying because YOU'RE A FILTHY SPY GET HIM EVERYBODY

(There is also The Resistance: Avalon, which is the same underlying game with the addition that players receive Arthurian roles with special powers, as in most versions of Werewolf. I haven't played it, so can't comment directly, but if I had a choice, I would by the Avalon version.)
Players: 5-10
Game duration: around 30 minutes (relatively unaffected by player number, as the game has a 5-turn limit irrespective of player number)
Best for: Friends travelling together, social gamers, dirty-dealers
Not so good for: The compulsively honest, the quiet carriage of the train
Recommended source for UK buyers at time of writing: The Resistance at boardgameguru, and the Avalon version at iguk.

Return to the Strategy of... Battle Line

Dear all,

Since my original post on the strategy of Battle Line, many such games have come and gone. Greater exposure has inspired  many further thoughts, which I am now minded to share with you all. This article has been rather difficult to lay out, as the concepts at work tend to run into one another. I shall separate it into hand management, where to place, and when to place, and hope that this structure proves helpful. Again, the tactics cards will not be discussed here... though I have had thoughts on that subject as well...

Thinking about the contents of your hand

As discussed in the original article, one should always start by playing for a straight flush (since they can be easily converted to a straight or a flush), and play a higher-value (preferably centred around an 8) against a lower-value, or (if not possible) a lower-value (preferably centred around a 3) against a higher-value straight flush. From these considerations, the following definitions of cards in hand at the beginning of the game can be thought of in two ways:

High in value: higher cards beat lower cards with the same formation. That's easy to grasp. Slightly more subtle is the concept of...

High in probability: the chances of a successful formation being completed. At this beginning of the game, this refers to the likelihood that a straight flush is possible. Two cards of the same suit with adjacent values (henceforth a "double") are high in probability; provided that neither is a 1 or a 10, there are two cards which can complete the straight flush. By comparison, a "split" (i.e. two cards with a number in between, such as 7 and 9) require a single specific card to complete the straight flush; in short, there are fewer ways of completing the formation. (Note that this is also the reason why, considering single cards, an 8 is better than a 9; there are more ways to complete the formation around an 8, as it has three potential straight flush formations, whereas a 9 can only be in two formations.) At the beginning of the game, a double has a better-than-average chance of completing; a split has slightly less than a 50/50 chance (as cards still in the deck will be evenly split, but there are those in the opponent's hand, as well as those which will never be picked up, which reduces the odds of acquiring a specific card).

These considerations are crucial when deciding what to play in a certain position (given the priorities below). If one wishes to win a position where the opponent has already placed, it is generally best to play something higher in value (if possible); however, depending on the game state, you may decide you have better odds of success by playing something low in value but high in probability (i.e. if, given what is in your hand and already played, you think it is unlikely the opponent can complete their higher-value formation). By contrast, when playing to an open position, high in probability is generally better than higher in value.

The junk pile: At the beginning of the game, any card has the potential to form a straight flush. As the game proceeds, this will no longer be the case. Those cards which are no longer valuable for completing straight flushes should be considered separately - I call it the "junk pile", though that is rather glib, as these cards actually play essential roles. Specifically, they are the cards that will be used to fill out straights and flushes where the straight flush has failed, as well as collect three-of-a-kind to defeat the opponent's failed straight flushes. Thus the "junk pile" is really the second string, where unbroken straight flush cards as the first string. Try to keep track of which cards can be used to complete which formations!

Trash: finally, we have cards which cannot be used for any purpose. In practice, these won't accrue until the late stages of the game - until you have played cards to every position, and as least some of these are closed, most cards will still have potential (in the junk pile at worst). Cards only become useless trash when they cannot contribute to any hypothetical position. Trash cards have a single potential purpose - to demonstrate, where possible, that the opponent's formation cannot be completed (and therefore that you have won the position). Generally, try to keep them in hand until the opponent has lost the position, and then reveal by playing on a position with the lowest possible priority (you'll lose that position, so try to hold back until you can win essential positions by revealing the opponent's failure).

Placement priority

... that is, which are priorities to win (and hence positions where you will want to play high probability and value), and those which are lower priorities. These considerations mainly come into play when considering which open position to begin strongly, but may be relevant where a single card may be used in more than one active formation, or where timing is important. In practice, this will usually be a judgement call, and depends on the current game state, but I would generally prioritise positions in the following order:

1. Positions which win you the game (usually by breakthrough). This much is self-evident.
2. Positions which prevent the opponent winning, again usually by breakthrough. If an opponent has won two adjacent positions, you must prioritise winning one of the next adjacent positions to prevent their success.
3. Positions which will build towards a breakthrough. If you are strong in one position, try for the adjacent positions.
4. Positions which will impede your opponent's breakthrough; that is, play strong to an adjacent position, particularly if it fills the gap between positions in which your opponent is already strong. (At this point in the list, game state becomes increasingly important in choosing priority... depending on the board, your hand, and deductions about your opponent's hand, it may make sense to increase the priority of this).
5. Anything from here is a judgement call between playing against positions your opponent has begun, or opening strongly at positions where you may build towards a breakthrough.

When to place

Advice often given to beginners is that Battle Line has a second-player advantage, as the second player can choose the most relevant card to play after seeing what the first play has placed. I do not necessarily agree with this; sometimes, I believe it is better to choose to play to an open position, even when there is the option to play responsively. Of course, if you are the first player, you may have little choice; however, even when you are the second player, you might want to start a new position rather than responding to the first player. This is because, if you are lucky enough to have a starting hand which is strong (particularly in probability), it may be smart to establish a potential breakthrough position at the beginning. By the same token, if you only ever play in response to the opponent's starting card, you may end up giving away a breakthrough (i.e. by playing three lower-in-value cards where the opponent succeeds in delivering their higher-value formation). Thus, deciding whether to open a new position or play in response to the opponent is a judgement call based on your own hand and the opponent's placings. All I can offer as guidance are the hand considerations and placement priorities above.

His Lordship Reviews: The Pathfinder Adventure Card Game

Ah, Professor Tolkien, when you borrowed liberally from the Nibelungenlied, Edda, Beowulf et al to justify your invented languages, little did you know the tidal wave you would release upon the world. As adults and children have sought a closer attachment to your world, generations of role-playing games both licensed and unlicensed have arisen to meet demand, and the most influential of these would unquestionably be Gygax and Arneson's Dungeons & Dragons. It has itself gone through many generations, the family occasionally separating into cadet branches before returning to the fold. Said family is currently labouring under just such a separation - the current "main" edition has a junior partner in Pathfinder - and this partner which might, arguably, have overtaken the heir apparent.

None of these issues need concern us here. We are concerned with the recent card game spinoff which has been taking the tabletop gaming world by storm - the Pathfinder Adventure Card Game (and its living card game-like business model).

What kind of a game is it?

Picture by rexbinary

This is not a question which is entirely easy to answer. The glib response is that it's a co-operative card game with elements of deck construction, hand management, and push-your-luck. However, this statement does not at all convey the unique feel and structure of the game.

This is a game which flies the flag of its RPG origins from a high mast. Players begin by selecting a character - and will immediately be presented with a list of relevant "skills" and "subskills" which will be second nature to an experienced RPG player, but may be less than obvious to someone from a standard gaming background.

The uninitiated will be saved from the joys/horrors of "character creation", however, as there's nothing that can be done to change the skills (at least, not at the outset). Initial customisation happens at the point of deck construction - that's right, just like Magic: The Gathering and its many imitators, you will have to choose cards from the box to build a deck to play a game you don't understand yet. In practice, this isn't really a problem, even for newcomers - each character has strict numbers of each type of card they can acquire (weapons, spells, items and so forth), they can only choose cards with the "basic" property, and the manual helpfully contains suggested builds for each character.

The deck construction doesn't stop there - each adventure scenario has a set of locations, and each location has its own deck constructed from random monsters to fight, barriers to overcome, treasures to acquire and arch-villains to defeat (thus winning the game).

Once you have your character's deck, it's time to play. The game has thirty turns in total, barring certain special effects; each character's turn consumes one of these. The character will (usually) choose a location and "explore" said location, turning over the next card of the location deck and dealing with whatever that card throws at them. By and large, this will involve testing one of the character's attributes by rolling the relevant die type listed on their character's card, as adjusted by cards played from the hand. If it's good, you can add it to your hand, and thence your deck. If it's bad, you banish it back to the box.

I could go on, but I'd just be repeating the game manual. I'll sum up. If there is any way to describe the genre of this game, it would be a "slow deckbuilder". Unlike a normal deckbuilder, player decks are not repeatedly turned over during the game (indeed, if you run out of cards in your deck, you die). Instead, cards are gained principally to the hand, rather than the deck, during the game; after the session, players rebuild their decks, potentially including new cards obtained (and thus providing a sense of slow growth, as if it were a pen-and-paper RPG). Also unlike most deckbuilders, it's a cooperative game; unlike most cooperative games, sessions will usually result in victory for the players (again, befitting an RPG spinoff). New card packs bring new adventures, and also new threats and treasures commensurate with the increased challenge (and power level of the heroes). Overall it's a bit of an oddball experience from the perspective of a traditional deck-builder, with final success and failure in the game determined by die rolls rather than cards played.

Why wouldn't you buy this game?

Picture by the author

One criticism levelled is that, ultimately, success or failure is determined by die roll. Contrary to the opinions of some critics, there is plenty of room for strategy arising from hand and deck; both risk-reduction and hand management are key to winning. You must judge when to expend resources to facilitate victory, and when it may be acceptable to take the loss. Ultimately, though, a really bad roll can scupper almost any crucial play. Consequently those who are in it for the cardplay, and want their card-related strategies to give planned, assured outcomes, might be better served elsewhere (perhaps Thunderstone or Ascension).

Another group who aren't going to fully appreciate the game are those who only play with one or two characters - play is more strategic the more characters are present, and small character numbers can lead to the impression that this is just a "reveal card, roll die" game. There's really no reason to play small parties, however, except for RP reasons - it's perfectly possible to run large parties solo.

Finally, this is, as stated, a "slow deckbuilder" - the only way to really get what the game is trying to deliver is to play it over many sessions. Character evolution is one of the most compelling parts of RPG and RPG-like gamers, and you aren't getting value unless you play a character through multiple scenarios.

Who would this game appeal to?

Picture by Daniel Thurot

Looking at my words so far, one might conclude that I'm not sold on this game. The truth is... I adore it. I'm soloing three parties simultaneously through all the adventure packs to date. There are, objectively-speaking, more elegantly-designed fantasy games - my favourite Mage Knight springs to mind. But this game captures something else. It captures, at least in part, the feeling of RPG adventuring. With just subtle differences in how the spell and weapon cards work, it succeeds in making warriors and wizards feel different from one another. True, it lacks a GM, and hence lacks the freedom of action of pen-and-paper; indeed, choices are largely to do with expenditure of resources rather than paths of action. But it delivers strongly elsewhere - in its slow character evolution, in the feeling that anything could be behind the next door, and the heroic triumphs and unlikely disasters provided by a roll of the dice.

Would I recommend it? Hard to say. It's difficult to be objective about this game, as it seems almost perfectly aimed at me - an ex-pen and paper player, who couldn't possibly commit the time to play a "real" RPG, but wants a convenient means of recapturing some of that feeling. For anyone else in my same situation, this is a dream game.

On the other hand, to a traditional board game player, the randomness and slow deck turnover could be unpalatable. Nonetheless, it has been a huge seller, and has been widely received positively. To be honest, my personal love of the game notwithstanding, I can't really understand why - it's natural demographic should be far too limited to give rise to such success. Clearly it appeals to more people than I would have thought. If you think you would enjoy the deck evolution and the die rolling, then please join us retired RPGers. If you go to sleep dreaming only of Caylus and Agricola, perhaps you'd be more comfortable looking elsewhere.

New Games For Old: Modern Alternatives To... Pictionary

Last week, we considered a number of board games which I would recommend for the enjoyment of art lovers. As a sister post, this week we shall turn our attention to the other side of that coin - games for art producers. This particular market has long been dominated by one ubiquitous family game- Pictionary. Consequently I shall be proposing three games which supersede that hoary chestnut, improving on its (fairly evident) shortcomings.

1. Pictomania

Easily the most obvious problem with Pictionary is that, at any given time, only a very small number of people are having fun. Unless an "All Play" is in effect, everyone else sits around getting bored - and getting more bored the longer the playing team continues to win. Pictomania solves this problem with a simple twist - everyone is drawing and guessing, all the time.
Cards are drawn each round with related words on them; players then receive a symbol and a number,

telling them what they must draw. When play begins, everyone starts drawing their target word; but they are also keeping an eye out for what the other players are drawing, guessing the meaning of their drawings at the same time. This allows players to play to their strengths - if, like me, you excel at guessing but can't draw a straight line, you can adjust your priorities appropriately. Pressure is on to do both, as fast as possible; you get more points for finishing earlier, and also more points for guessing earlier. Lose points for bad guessing, and also for those failing to guess your own drawing. Put it all together, and you have a frantic family game, which elegantly solves Pictionary's biggest flaw in a single stroke.

2. Telestrations/Cranium Scribblish/Eat Poop You Cat

cc: daveoratox

While Pictomania unquestionably improves on the basic mechanism of Pictionary, it doesn't really venture outside the basic concept. The public domain game generally known as Eat Poop You Cat (commercialised in such games as Telestrations and Cranium Scribblish) steps outside that framework to provide a different experience.
I'm sure most people are familiar with the basics - each player writes a sentence at the top of the page. These are then passed, and players must try to draw the sentence they have received. They fold the page to conceal the original sentence, and pass again - now players must try to guess what the original sentence was from the drawing. This sentence is then represented artistically by the next player, and so on.
The concept is simple to grasp, and almost guarantees a good time - being worse at drawing can actually work in a player's favour, as hilarity ensues as guesses become increasingly bizzare and inappropriate. For a straightforward fun time, more likely to produce laughs and anecdotes than either Pictionary or Pictomania, EPYC and its commercial derivations are fine choices.

3. Identik

Then again, maybe you would prefer something that adds at least a little bit of intellectual challenge

to your artistic escapades. Identik's clever twist on the formula is to reverse the role of the guesser. In Identik, aach round's Art Director is given a picture which only they are allowed to see. They must describe it in as much detail as they can, while the other players attempt to draw it. The onus is on the director to be specific, and explain things in a way the players can understand. After the drawing phase, ten hidden criteria are revealed, and drawings scored on whether they fulfill these criteria.
Identik doesn't have the frantic, all-drawing-all-guessing fun of Pictomania, but it does capture the essence of having everyone focused on the same activity at once. EPYC is probably going to produce more laughs, but Identik has an even stronger pressure to get into players' heads and explain things such that they will understand. Identik is definitely a strong all-rounder in the Pictionary-beater competition.

Board Games For... Art Lovers

With the festive season upon us, the stores are filled with hosts of well-meaning friends and parents, completing the annual ritual of purchasing gifts which are intended to be, in some way, personal to the recipient.
When selecting a board game as a gift, I humbly suggest you follow the same principle. Rather than pulling yet another painfully predictable copy of Monopoly or Scene It from the shelves, consider the individual's tastes and interests - I promise you, there are excellent games out there to suit every psyche. For this article, we shall consider games likely to be enjoyed by art lovers.

Dixit

Dixit is often proposed as a "gateway" game; that is, one which is well-suited to convincing

Picture by Olka Kobylecka

newcomers of the value of modern board games. The rules are simple, and the mechanism is immediately understandable. It is a game about the meaning and effect of art.
The game itself consists of little more than a means of keeping score, tokens representing votes (more on this in a moment), and a number of cards. These card are, in reality, the whole of the game.
Each is lavishly illustrated with some surreal, dreamlike-scene. The artworks are evocative and ambiguous - the latter being a key quality. Each round, one person chooses one of their cards, and then gives some sort of general clue to a meaning they find in it - it could be a short phrase, a single word, an interpretive dance, a noise, a meandering anecdote, whatever. Everyone else chooses a card from their own hand which they believe reflects that clue, and all are shuffled together. Then all players (except the one giving the clue) vote on which is the true artwork. The clue-giver only wins points if some, but not all, players choose their card - they must try to walk a line between precision and enigma.
Thus the game is all about interpreting art, while trying to get inside the heads of other players and guess the interpretations they would make. It's a wonderful ice-breaker for new acquaintances, as well as a game of deep psychology for those who know each other well. Simple, beautiful, and highly recommended for every audience.

Pastiche

From the interpretation of art to its creation, at a level of fine detail. Pastiche is a game of mixing the paints necessary to produce history's greatest art works. The game is played on three levels. The

Picture by Chris Miller

first act of each player's turn is to add a tile to a shared mixing board - the primary colours so combined where the new tile meets its fellows mix, providing the player with cards representing the secondary colours produced (or, sub-optimally, a single primary colour is obtained from the tile). Secondary colour cards can then be mixed to produce other colours. Beyond this, the players are also jockeying for control of masterpieces - when they have acquired the necessary colours to produce them, they can then turn in these masterpieces for points.
This game is great for those who love the technical side of art, and comes with lovely, giant tiles representing the artworks. Definitely a fun choice for practical artists. Nonetheless, when it comes to a games about art production, my favourite is still...

Fresco

This game considers the process of art creation from a step back. Players act as the master painter of a studio, delegating the actual work to their assistants. "Fresco" falls broadly within the "worker placement" genre; players have a number of workers, and must decide where to send them all before anyone's actions are processed. Sending assistants to the market allows you to buy the paints on sale there - and, crucially, prevent others buying them. Workers can also be sent to the cathedral to use those same paints in the painting of the eponymous fresco, converting paints to points. Other tasks include painting portraits (for money to buy more paints), mixing colours to get the ones you need, and finally, just sending assistants to the theatre for the night, cheering them up.
Morale is crucial - high morale provides you with an extra assistant, while low happiness causes one

Picture by Raiko Puust

of your assistants to go AWOL for a while.
However, the most important decision a player makes every turn is what time to get up in the morning. Get up early and you suffer morale loss, while having to pay premium prices at the market - but you get first pick. Get up late and everyone is happier, plus you can buy paints cheap - if there's anything worthwhile left, of course. In no time flat, players will be stabbing themselves in the foot by getting up early just to stop their opponents grabbing the good stuff.
Ultimately, Fresco is a satisfying and surprisingly accessible game - but more than that, the fact that it revolves around getting up in the morning makes it my personal choice for most appropriate game for art lovers.