His Lordship Reviews: Paperback

You may not have heard of Paperback. It's even more likely that you haven't played it. A game of word-searching and deck-building, it was designed by Tim Fowers and released as a Kickstarter-only project - one I was lucky enough to find out about in time. Why would I write about a game which isn't available at retail? Because Mr. Fowers is currently funding a second printing - which, if you're quick, you might be able to jump into at https://www.paperbackgame.com/.

Disclaimer: The above free advertising notwithstanding, I am

Official image - box bottom

not receiving any consideration for this review. In fact, I will go further, and lay good adds that Mr. Fowers has no idea of my existence other than as an address on his former Kickstarter fulfillment list.

Let's get to it, then. Paperback has been described as half Scrabble and half Dominion - while this is indeed good shorthand, it falls short of describing the total package. As the fine chaps at Shut Up And Sit Down observed, if you merely add half of one game to half of another game, you get exactly one-third of a game. Paperback combines its influences to create something much more than the sum of its parts.

The Game Itself

Just as with Dominion, players have their own deck of cards, from which they draw a hand, play it, and purchase new cards for their deck based on the hand they have played. The cards themselves represent letters; to play cards out of your hand, they must form a word. To help you on your way, half the starting deck is composed of wild cards (or 'blanks' in the common Scrabble parlance). The letters score points based on their rarity in the English language; the wilds score no points when played, but are the main source of score at the end of the game. Once you've played your word, its score is used to purchase further cards to be added to your deck.

Photograph, and racks pictured, by Chris Miller

Some are difficult to use, but worth good points - and, unlike Scrabble, some higher-scoring cards contain two letters to be used together. Others are simple, common consonants, but have commensurately lower scores. Additionally, many cards have special effects when played - this is where Dominion-like mechanics return to the fray. Many powers will be familiar to players of deckbuilders, such as drawing additional cards, and 'trashing' unwanted cards by removing them from your deck entirely. More unusual are the "Attack" powers which affect other players; many of these effectively provide a counter-play to other cards, e.g. by preventing those additional draws by other players. Then there are the wilds, which aren't worth any points, but stand in for any letter, and are used to determine final score at the end of the game; unlike the scoring cards of Dominion, the 'blank' effect means these cards are useful in themselves, but they can still dilute a deck.

On top of this, there are other, minor mechanics. A common vowel is available for everyone's use; this is also worth points at the end of the game, and can be acquired at the beginning of the game by making a word of seven letters or more. Once acquired by a player, a new common vowel is revealed; this requires a word of eight letters or more, and so forth. There are further optional mechanics, such as unique player powers, word lists that give bonus points for completing a word on the list, and the mythically powerful "space bar". These are really minor variants; the core of the game is in making words with your cards, and carefully selecting letters to buy which you will be using to make other words in the future.

Why is this a better game than Scrabble?

While both games involve finding words in a set of letters and/or blanks, the wider strategies of the two games are very different. Scrabble is an exercise in finding the highest-scoring placement of the various permutations of words and placings possible in a given turn (taking into account opportunities created for the opponent, keeping letters for future rounds, etc.). Such an exercise in Monte Carlo calculation is absent in Paperback - instead, when playing a word, you only need to find the highest score you can make, give or take adjustments to include desirable powers. This makes player turns faster, particularly because more advance planning can be performed; there is little game state to change before your turn arrives. Nonetheless, Paperback still achieves significant strategic depth in the card-drafting mechanic, which provokes a wider range of considerations than the relatively mechanical Scrabble. Which brings us to...

Why is this a better game than Dominion?

Picture by Bennet Rosenthal

Well, for one thing, you have to make words with your cards, rather than simply play them. This alone would make it superior than Dominion. But beyond that, the drafting itself is more interesting in Paperback than in Dominion. The need to balance cards with powers against cards with value remains, but these considerations also need to be balanced with the purchasing of wild cards, and, most challenging of all, the drafting of letters which work well with each other. Put it all together and you have a multi-dimensional card-drafting game which is head and shoulders above either of its most obvious competitors.

The final verdict: highly recommended to lovers of word games and deck-builders alike.

Card-driven Light Wargame Arena: Memoir '44 vs Mythic Battles

Two games enter... only one can leave. In today's article, a game-on-game battle royale between two light war games. In the red corner we have the long-time favourite and people's champion: Memoir '44. In the blue corner, a plucky little slugger far from almost everyone's radar: Mythic Battles.

Now I like memoirs, and I like myths; but which is best? Only one way to find out... FIGHT!

The contenders

Memoir '44

Picture by Mads Floe

Memoir 44 should require no introduction. Designed by Richard Borg, it was one of the early and
most influential of the Commands & Colors light wargame series. A highly successful game from powerhouse publisher Days of Wonder, it's an attractive and accessible game primarily based on the D-Day landings. An army (pun!) of expansions has been released, and it even has a digital version on Steam.

Mythic Battles

Less well known is Mythic Battles. I shall be brutally honest and admit I hadn't heard about it myself, and only stumbled upon it by accident. It was designed by Benoit Vogt, who, to the best of my knowledge, hasn't designed anything else commercially available. Released relatively recently by another fairly high-profile publisher, Iello, it appears to have had very little marketing or support (though two expansions have been released - but not in the UK as far as I can tell).

Round 1: the field of battle

Both games revolve around cardboard battlefields with terrain entities to introduce some strategic elements. Memoir has a double-sided (shore or inland) board, split into hexes, with individual hex tiles to be added to create a varied battlefield; Mythic Battles has six double-sided boards, subdivided into squares, to be selected and arranged in a 2-by-2 fashion. Winner in this category: Memoir '44 by a nose.

Round 2: pieces on the board

This is one of the big differences, and can be dispensed with very briefly. Mythic Battles uses counters to indicate unit positions; Memoir has adorable plastic miniatures. Despite the high quality of counter art, this round is a clear win for Memoir '44.

Round 3: use of cards

Now that the trivial opening rounds are behind us, let's get into the meat of the conflict. Both Memoir '44 and Mythic Battles are card- and dice-driven games. Both use cards to select which units you move on your turn, while both use dice to determine the outcome of conflict. However, there are key mechanical differences between the two games, and they change everything.

Picture by Kelly B

Memoir '44 allows each player a hand of cards, most of which indicate a section of the board (centre or left or right flank) and a number of units within this section you may activate this turn. Theoretically, this should give rise to a careful game of hand management, as you weigh up holding your best cards to make a devastating strike when your opponent wanders into range, or to move now and try to take strong positions or eliminate key units. However, for me, it doesn't seem to work that well. Two crucial flaws undercut this strategic element: one is that some cards are just stronger than others, and the other is that both players are drawing from the same deck. Your next card (and your opponent's next card) is just as likely to be strong or weak, irrespective of the card you just played; in other words, if you played a weak card to preserve stronger cards, you are just as likely to pull another weak card to replace it, while your opponent might throw down power-cards and draw strong ones in their place. Yes, I understand the principle of regression to the mean, but there aren't enough draws in the game for that sort of averaging to come into effect. While the game sometimes gives you a reason to hold onto specific cards, it just doesn't provide sufficient pressure to force you to play sub-optimal cards in the hope of your hand improving in the future.

Mythic Battles takes a very different approach. Each player has individual decks, which are constructed from cards representing the units in their army (different units contributing different numbers of cards); each card allows the specific depicted unit to act when played. As with Memoir, players have hands of cards to choose from in any given round; however, hand management is actually a real mechanic, as you may choose to discard cards in return for power points, but at the price that these cards may not be available when you need them. You may also use "Art of War" cards to select a card you really need right now from your deck; this comes with a cost too, however, as these Art of War cards may alternatively be used to activate multiple units on a single turn. Since you know what's available in your deck, and you made the choice of what would be in it in the first place, card usage involves compelling decisions. Which cards to use this turn? Which units would be better used next round? Is it a good idea to discard for power points, or will you need that card in the foreseeable future? Do you really, really need to use an Art of War card to pull a specific unit card?

I don't mind that the Memoir '44 card draw is sometimes frustrating. I mind that it doesn't really give rise to compelling decisions, particularly compared to Mythic Battles. This crucial round is a clear win for Mythic.

Round 4: use of dice

As previously stated, both games use dice to determine the outcome of combat. Memoir '44 uses a simple, clear system; you roll dice (depending on unit type and range), and the icons clearly indicate hits (by target type), misses and forced retreats. Mythic Battles uses a slightly more complicated system; number of dice is variable based on unit and health, and are numbered 0-5. 5s "explode" (i.e. roll again and add), while any non-zero dice can be discarded to add one to the value of another dice (potentially making it explode). Hits are determined by the number of dice which, at the end of this process, have a value above the target's defence (which usually requires values of 5 or more). Comparing the two systems, Memoir '44 is easier to teach and understand, while Mythic Battles feels less arbitrary; more dice (from higher attack value) are stronger, but outcomes are generally less "swingy" than Memoir. This round goes to Mythic by an edge.

Round 5: units

This is probably one of the biggest areas of difference. Memoir '44 ultimately doesn't make that much

Picture by Dave Slater

of a distinction between units. It's based primarily around infantry and tanks; the latter have advantages at range, and have some other bonuses such as the overrun ability, but ultimately there's not all that much to distinguish them. A close range attack rolls three attack dice, irrespective of the unit type or it's health; a single infantry can do as much damage as a triple tank. Elite units have minor bonuses, but units never feel all that different (except, maybe, artillery). Yes, the system is simple, but in this reviewer's opinion, it's gone too far.

Mythic Battles, by contrast, makes unit differences one of its strengths. Players select their own units with a simple point-buy system; each unit has difference values for close attack, ranged attack, movement, health... and special abilities. Wonderfully, as units are damaged, they lose (beautifully illustrated) cards from each unit's mini-deck", revealing the next health level with different capabilities; damaged units actually act differently in this game, and the way that's handled is elegant and simple. It just has every conceivable advantage over Memoir. The only criticism I would make is that the unit special abilities are perhaps too much; each unit has around 3 or 4, and each needs to be looked up in the rulebook (effects are not printed on cards). This is particularly over-the-top since many special abilities are nearly identical, and could really be reduced to a much smaller number. Limiting each unit to one or two unique abilities, and printing them on the cards themselves, would probably have worked better. Nonetheless, despite perhaps a little too much complexity, this round is for Mythic Battles.

Round 6: multiplayer

And now Memoir '44 gets back into the fight. Mythic Battles multiplayer is pretty much limited to just playing a slightly larger, wider game in teams. It's not that much different from the one-on-one game. Memoir, however, delivers some fantastic ideas when it comes to multiplayer. The Overlord expansion allows vast battlefields with up to eight players battling it out, not just as a bigger version of the normal game, but as a chain of command, with a commander who controls the hand and distributes cards to their subordinates. While I confess I haven't played the Overlord game, I can clearly see the potential. It's not just more of the same - it's a whole different game with a unique dynamic. This round goes to Memoir.

Round 7: replayability

The final round is the most difficult one to judge. Memoir '44 has a host of expansion options - however, the starting box only has so many scenarios, and not nearly enough unit differentiation. Mythic Battles, while not offering much variation in terms of defined scenarios (it has a "campaign book" of scenarios, but they're really an extended tutorial), has wider replayability in the box thanks to much greater variation of units and the point-buy system. While this is a bit of a chalk-to-cheese comparison, Mythic Battles has the edge on replayability based on the contents of the basic box.

The judge's decision

Counting the round-by-round statistics makes it look like this was a close battle. It's really not. Both

Picture by the author

these games fundamentally revolve around cards and dice; both these categories go to Mythic Battles, particularly as regards card mechanics. There's no doubt in my mind that it's the better game.

That said, there are two exceptional situations in which I would go with Memoir. One is with newcomers to modern boardgaming, who want a war theme; while I would ordinarily go elsewhere for a gateway game, Memoire is simple and approachable for someone who really wants battlefield strategy. The other exception is in team play - that's a clear win for Memoir '44. Otherwise, quite frankly, I would actively avoid playing Memoir '44; I find it too arbitrary without anything like enough strategy for something that purports to be a wargame, even a light one. By contrast, I think Mythic Battles is a work of quiet genius. If you can find it, get it.

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.

His Lordship Reviews: K2

In 1923, George Herbert Leigh Mallory was asked "why do you want to climb Mount Everest?". He simply retorted "because it's there".

In 1924, he was dead on the mountainside. If my mother had been in charge, his life expectancy would have been considerably shorter.

Photograph by Kogo

K2 is the second deadliest mountain in the world. Around 25% of those who attempt it will not survive to tell the tale. By comparison, my mother has got 75% of her climbers killed while attempting to scale K2. The board game, that is.

K2 the board game is the board game of climbing K2. Designed by an actual mountain climber. Here's how it works. Players have a team of two climbers, one with wavy sides, one with smooth curves. I call them "Bendy" and "Straighty". The aim of the game is to get both as far up the side of K2 as possible. Specifically, to get them further up than one's opponents. 

How would one achieve this? By an elegant combination of planning, audacity, and luck. Each player has their own, personal deck of cards. Each deck is the same, so everybody has the same opportunities, but not necessarily at the same time - every round, the player has a hand of six cards, of which they will play three. Each point on the board has two pieces of information attached - the cost to climb there, and the cost to "acclimitisation" (which might be referred to as "health" in lesser games) for every round they stay there.

Photograph by Mikko Saari

As a piece of game design, this works as a wonderful example of the meeting point of open and closed information. Everybody knows where everybody else is on the board. Everybody knows what they require to go forward, and how it will affect their fortitude. Health (and in some circumstances, movement) is also affected by the weather - however, you always have at least three days of forecast ahead of them, so everybody knows how the weather will affect them.

The problem, from a strategic perspective, is in the closed part of the information: what does one they have in their hand, and what is held by one's opponent. Am I planning to make a big move next turn? Will my opponent block your advance if I do? Even worse, am I trying to get down the mountain? If so, they may be moving to block your return. Perhaps I've calculated my movement and health budget perfectly for the cards I have in hand. I know I can make it up this round, and I'm pretty sure (given what's left in my deck) I can make it down next round.

Then some dreadful bounder moves in behind you. You've reached the top, and there they are, sitting right behind you. Some other fool is behind them. There's no way you can leap over both of them. They can't shift you. And every round, your bodily integrity is assailed by exposure. You pitch your tent for its modest protection and comfort. It's not enough. Bendy is dead, shivering and alone, an arm's breadth from his fellow climbers, his supposed compatriots, the true authors of his downfall.

Photograph by Marcin Niebudek

That would be one example. Another is the heartbreak when you get both your climbers ahead of everyone else, you control the mountain, and you realise that, with your present hand and the upcoming storm, there is no way in all the hells you can reach the top and live. Or even better, the pure elation of reaching the top and jumping off it in the same round, brilliantly leaving your opponent's homicidal blocking strategy empty and pointless. And that's just the easy game mode - if you want, you can play with winter weather, or attempt to scale the "difficult" face.

I have not tried these things. The game is more than heard enough on the easy setting. Maybe one day, when I've fully fortified myself with port (which is obviously the best time to go mountain climbing). However you choose to play it though, I confidently forecast you will not be disappointed. The game marries a compelling theme, satsifying mechanics, and brutal tension in a delightfully complete package.As the lazy days of summer give way to the chill winds of fall, you could do much worse than engage with the cold, hard brilliance of K2.

On the strategy of Kingsburg: Part The First

Ah, Kingsburg - so alluring in your vivid raiment, so accessible in your mechanics, so much more expensive than is justified by the contents of the box. I shall not explain the mechanics of Kingsburg here - I assume those reading a strategy post will mostly be familiar with them - but in brief, Kingsburg is a worker-placement style game where the workers are dice. For the first three seasons of each year, a player rolls three dice and places them (together or separately) on squares from 1-18 which provide certain resources. These resources include building materials to make buildings, soldiers who will protect one’s township for that year, and certain other specialist resources. On each of these three seasons the player may build (usually) a single building. On the fourth season (that is, winter), enemies besiege the settlement. Repeat for five years; whoever has the most victory points (henceforth VPs) at the end is the winner. The game is popular, offering good looks, accessible rules, and a reasonably short playing time.

I am by no means an expert, having played probably no more than around 100 games of Kingsburg. This discussion is split into two parts. The first is an overview of buildings and combat, primarily for the benefit of beginners. Secondly, I test out a number of strategies that have been proposed by experience players - though not a statistically meaningful test, I try each strategy several times, and report back on my findings and thoughts.

This post, in its entirety, refers only to the base game of Kingsburg. The expansion greatly increases the number of potential choices, and is beyond the scope of this basic guide. Similarly, it assumes that players are using the standard rules for acquiring soldiers in Winter (i.e. rolling a die and giving that number of soldiers to all players); most other systems provide fewer soldiers.

On selecting advisers with dice

This article will not indulge in a long and tedious discussion of each and every one of the eighteen advisers available. However, the following points should be considered:

• One can often acquire more resources by splitting one's roll into a two-and-one strategy,
  
  rather than buying the highest adviser available.
• However, the lower the value of the adviser, the greater the risk of being blocked by competitors.
• Consequently it is best to buy single-die advisers first (depending on your opponents' rolls - i.e. the chances of them blocking your two-die option). By the same token, the three-single-die, while it can sometimes provide three resources from a poor roll, is very risky.
• Soldiers (the 5 and 10 spots) are rarely a good idea in the early years - if possible, you would be better served by seeking resources to build defensive buildings.
• The 17 spot is usually better than the 18 spot, unless you specifically need the exact resources provided by the 18 for your next planned building.
• The alchemist (6 spot) is usually considered a poor spot, as you should usually only be buying resources you want, and hence never want to remove one to produce two. However, if you have been blocked from the resources you need, it may be valid to buy a cheap resource you don't want and then convert it - this particularly applies in the later game, when a cheap wood can be converted to gold and stone.

On buildings and construction

The main effort of Kingsburg revolves around obtaining resources to construct buildings - these buildings provide VPs, and each has a specific benefit for the remainder of the game. They are arranged in five rows, which may only be filled left-to-right. For the benefit of beginners, each row, and its strategic implications, are described below.

Row One (Cathedral row)

 This row contains buildings whose main value is in the VPs they provide - their game effects comparatively subtle and rarely-used (with the possible exception of the Chapel). Consequently this row is usually constructed only in the end-game (with the exception of the Statue; the situation sometimes arises in the early game whereby a player has an excess of money but lacks other useful resources, in which case the Statue is a viable option to avoid wasting a construction opportunity).

Row Two (Merchant's Guild)

The first two buildings in this row are extremely valuable, and almost all successful strategies include constructing one or both of these early in the game. The later buildings are rarely used, however. While the Farms have an enormously strong power (granting effectively an additional die), they are expensive (being the most resource-intensive grade 3 building), give comparatively few VPs, and reduce combat strength by 1, effectively reversing the benefit of another building. Consequently few successful strategies utilise the upper levels of this row; the mistake I often made as a beginner was to aggressively pursue the Farm.

Rows Three-Four (Wizard's Guild and Fortress)

These rows primarily focus on combat strength. The grade 1 and 2 buildings of both these rows are commonly used, and constructed early. However, almost no strategy involves building both these rows fully - most pick one or the other, and most prefer the Fortress rather than the Wizard’s Guild (for reasons described below, in Combat Strength).

Row Five (Embassy)

The Embassy row is generally an either-or choice. It can be very powerful if built to the Embassy level, but is otherwise not worth your time. The Palisade is weak, the Crane usually only results in saving around 3 resources overall (see the Case Study below), and the Town Hall is not as useful as it looks (again, see the Case Study in Comparing Currencies below). However, the Embassy is extremely strong, though it needs to be built as early as possible to see its full benefit. Consequently one might consider either committing to building the Embassy or ignoring this row entirely.

Roundup

Though more a detailed strategic discussion follows below, it behooves to give a broad outline of suggested construction for beginners. Buy one or two of the row 2 buildings early, and then go no further on that row; build one or two of the row 3 and/or 4 buildings early; buy row five if committing to it; and buy row 1 towards the end of the game.

Comparing Currencies

One of the first strategic exercises one should do is to compare the value of one’s options, in order to know the relative value of one’s available options.

Each construction resource (wood, gold and stone) is roughly equivalent - wood and gold are arguably slightly easier to obtain than stone as they are prevalent in the low-value dice positions, but relatively easy access to the three-stone Mason tile largely cancels this out. Wood is probably more useful in the early game, and stone in the later game, but there is no particular difference in value between these three.

Over the course of the game, the player will generally acquire a little more than 30 resources, and a winning score will generally be around 50. From this it follows that each building resource is equivalent to around 1.5 VPs, a valuation supported by the observation that the Statue costs 2 resources and gives 3 VPs (and has very little game value beyond its VPs).

Soldiers are a little more difficult to evaluate, particularly as their value depends on how they are obtained. As regards those bought from the board, they are usually positioned to be equivalent to a construction resource (i.e. the one-soldier tile is among other one-resource tiles, and the two-soldier tile among those granting two resources). However, they only really reach such equivalency towards the end of the game. A low-grade building giving +1 combat strength costs as little as 2 resources and gives the equivalent value of a soldier for five winters; on the other hand, a soldier can make the difference between winning and losing, and can give the extra +1 VP for having the highest battle strength that year. Consequently they will be assumed to be equivalent to one VP.

The +2 tokens have their main value in giving flexibility. Sometimes, they are enough to allow access to a tile providing one more resource than would otherwise be obtainable; at other times, they will not be of any use at all. Hence I will value them as lower than a construction resource, or around 1VP.

The dice themselves are a trickier thing to evaluate. If you are exceedingly clever, you might be able to get as much as one resource per die, or even 4 resources with three dice. In practice, you will generally average slightly more than 2 resources and less than 3 resources with your 3 dice, unimproved by +2 tokens or the effects of a Market. The white die is slightly less valuable as it must be played in conjunction with a normal die. However, a dice is clearly more valuable than a +2 token. Let’s say that each die has a value of around 1.3, with the white die having a value closer to 1.

Case study: the value of the Crane

The Crane is one item which raises particular questions as to whether it is worthwhile, as its game effect is to save future resources. It is a grade 2 building; since the grade 1 building that must be built first is largely useless, the costs of the two can be combined. Thus it costs 3 resources (and 2 building opportunities). Players will generally complete around 4 of the grade 3 and 4 buildings; thus the crane saves 4 resources over the course of the game. Including the VP payment for building the crane, this gives a total profit of 3.5VP; not bad, but possibly not worth giving up two early build opportunities that could have more direct benefits (particularly with regard to combat strength). The exception is where one is following an Embassy strategy, in which case building the crane both facilitates acquiring necessary resources for the Embassy and is a prerequisite for its construction. Otherwise, consider the Crane only if you have already constructed the grade 1-2 buildings of rows 2-4 that you want.

Case study: the value of the Town Hall

The Town Hall allows the player to convert resources and +2 tokens to VPs. Following the logic above, exchanging one construction resource for one VP is poor value-for-money; it should only be considered in the end-game, when one is sure they will not be be able to use their construction resources for building. However, exchanging a +2 token may be a valid option, particularly if one has activated a tile providing a +2 token which (probably in combination with the Inn) results in the player having a clear excess of +2 tokens. (Note that, as a result of these considerations, the Town Hall will usually only be used two or three times during the game, so its power is of marginal value).

On Combat Strength

One of the most difficult mechanics for beginners is combat strength and the purchasing of soldiers. At the beginning of the winter season, the player has the opportunity to purchase soldiers at a rate of two resources per soldier (assuming they do not have a building affecting this exchange rate). As described above, this represents poor value for money. In fact, even if one has not obtained any other combat strength from buildings or soldiers acquired with dice, it may often be less costly to lose the battle than pay this much for soldiers (particularly in the early game). As a general rule, do not pay two resources to buy one soldier.

The most obvious way to obtain a better rate of exchange is to acquire them over the seasons using dice. The advantage to this as that, even unimproved by buildings, the exchange rate here is effectively one resource per soldier. The disadvantage is that the player is more likely to acquire more soldiers than they need with this method; since there is a 1VP bonus for winning with the highest combat strength, this setback is less of an issue.

Furthermore, there are two buildings that improve access to soldiers. One improves the exchange rate during winter to one resource per soldier; this produces approximate parity to purchasing using dice, with the added advantage that these are bought at the end of the round (when the player has a better idea of what they will need to survive, and also when buying cannot be blocked by other players taking the tile). Consequently, if one has this building but not the Stables, this makes buying in Winter preferable to buying with dice.

The other building is the Stables. These double the benefit of using the 5-spotto buy soldiers, effectively producing an exchange rate of two soldiers per resource. While there are disadvantages this (i.e. not being at the end of the round, and running the risk of being blocked by other players), overall this is greatly preferable to the one-to-one exchange rate of the Barracks. For this reason, row 4 is usually better than row 3 (and there is not usually a good reason to buy both beyond grade 2).
Of course, the real question beginners want to know is: how much combat strength do I require? The answer is that, in general, the combat strength of the invaders is generally around 2 more than the year number, rising to around 3+year number at the third year. Consequently, if your total combat strength (before the King's support) is 1 or 2 more than the year number, you are most probably safe.

A long story short: concise tips for beginners 

• In the early game, any of the first two buildings of rows 2 to 4 are good buys
• Don’t build row 2 past grade 2
• Pick only one of rows 3 or 4 to build beyond grade 2
• Leave building row 1 until late in the game
• Don’t pay two resources to buy a soldier in winter (unless you know they will tip the balance, and the cost of losing is too high)
• The Stables are the best way to maximising the value of soldiers
• To be safe, try to have a combat strength of one more than the year number (two more in years 3+) before receiving support from the King.      

Coming next time: a variety of building strategies tested and compared

On the strategy of Battle Line

My lords and ladies,

I have now had the pleasure of playing the excellent card game "Battle Line" three times. I have also had the frustration of losing the game "Battle Line" three times, against an opponent with only marginally more experience.

One does not become a gentleman gamer by allowing such a record to stand unchallenged, and consequently I took to the automated telegraph system vulgarly titled "The Internet" to determine how best to improve my play.

What follows is a synthesis of the strategies I discovered. At the time of writing, these strategies are untested by me, as my opponent has temporarily retreated to the Norfolk fens to engage in dark plans known only to himself. However, all writers on this topic are in broad agreement, so this guide may be taken to be a general synopsis of the thoughts of more experienced minds than my own.

Photo credit: Nagato Fujibayashi

Firstly: on the selection of which flag to place one's card

1. I am informed that Battle Line games are most often won by breakthrough (i.e. winning three adjacent flags) rather than reaching 5 flags. Thus this should be uppermost in one's placement strategy, whether thinking offensively or defensively.
2. In particular, the flags which are three spaces from the end are the most valuable and should be the highest priority. This is for two reasons. Winning these will limit the opponent's ability to win a breakthrough; i.e. winning flag 3 will make it almost worthless for the opponent to play for flags 1 or 2 as they can no longer break through at this end, while the winner may make a breakthrough anywhere in the range of flags 1-5. It also gives the winner of flag 3 the option to use flags 1 and 2 as either parts of a breakthrough or "dumping grounds" for less valuable cards.
3. It is generally best to play defensively, which is to say, reactively. Hence, in general, place cards against flags where the opponent has already played cards.
4. Following this logic, it is best to place where an opponent has already played two cards, thus revealing his or her strategy. One can then choose whether to play a competing strategy or to sacrifice that flag and use the spaces available on one's own side as a "dumping ground".
5. If (as will most often be the case) this is not possible, one must either react to a single card from the opponent, or attempt to take a strong position on an unstarted flag.

Secondly: general strategies for winning formations

1. Most flags, particularly against experienced opponents, will be won by either a straight flush (the highest-value formation) or three-of-a-kind. Always play with a view to obtaining one of these; if it is clear this will not be possible early in the play of a given flag, consider converting it to a dumping ground before that opportunity is lost. This is particularly true at the beginning of the game, so focus one's hand management on developing these two formations (particularly the straight flush).
2. Except as described below, strive for a straight flush. This is because, if it becomes impossible to complete such a straight flush, it can be converted either to a normal flush (with a non-consecutive card of the same suit) or a normal straight (by playing a consecutive card of a different suit), whereas a pair cannot be converted to anything useful if the third card is unavailable.
3. Following this logic, the best card available is an 8, and the next-best is a 3. An eight can be converted to any of the three highest-scoring straight flushes (8-9-10, 7-8-9 and 6-7-8), so it can immediately be seen to be strong. The strength of the 3 is more subtle, and requires understanding of another general strategy - do not start competing straight flushes. For

   

   Photo credt: Nagato Fujibayashi

   example, if you have a 4 and a 7 of the same suit, it would be disastrous to play both and try for straight flushes, as both will be competing for the 5 and 6. Instead you might consider either dumping one or using it in a three-of-a-kind, depending on cards revealed and in your hand (you might try for two non-competing straights, but you risk clogging up your hand if you wait on such an outcome). The strength of the 3 is that it is the centre card of the "low-ball straight flush", being usable in any of the 1-2-3, 2-3-4 and 3-4-5 combinations, none of which compete with the "high-ball straight flushes" centred around the 8.

Thirdly: choosing which cards to place at a flag

1. If placing a card where the opponent already has two cards, then your strategy is determined by those cards. If the opponent has a straight flush underway, they you will have to try for a higher-value straight flush if you want to win the flag. If you believe you cannot compete directly (based on the cards in hand and already played) then you must either use that flag as a dumping ground while you still can, or play a lower-scoring formation and hope that the opponent cannot complete their straight flush. If the opponent has a three-of-a-kind underway, then it is probably best to play for a low-ball straight flush, which beats any three-of-a-kind while preserving your own higher scoring straight flushes; otherwise, try for a higher-scoring three-of-a-kind.
2. If the opponent has one card, then you can form your strategy based around that card. In general (i.e. unless the information already revealed dictates otherwise), follow this strategy: (a) if the card is lower than an 8, play a higher card and try for a higher straight flush (b) if the card is an 8 or higher, play a lower card and either try for a three-of-a-kind and hope the opponent fails to get their straight flush, or try for a low-ball straight flush if they go for a three-of-a-kind.
3. If you must play to a flag with none of the opponent's cards (which you will, particularly if you are the first player), then "power-play" - try to place cards to win the flag as soon as possible, usually by starting with an 8. There are two reasons for this: one is that placing multiple cards on one flag may force the opponent to place first cards on multiple other open positions. The other is that, if a flag is won before the opponent can place three cards, then they are denied a slot which they could otherwise use as a dumping ground, and hence their flexibility is restricted.
4. Clearly, it is generally best to try a straight flush in a different suit to the opponent, to maximise one's own chances. The exception to this is when one can "break" an opponent's straight by doing so - e.g. if an opponent plays a 1, playing a 3 (or, if necessary, a 2) of the same colour makes it impossible for them to acquire a a straight, while preserving the possibility of a straight flush for oneself (albeit a harder one to obtain, with the 1 already out of play). If one's own straight is impossible, one still has the option of a three-of-a-kind which will still beat any formation the opponent can make with a 1.

Finally: the tactics cards

1. The hows and whys of tactics cards are less clear-cut than the above rules. As a general rule, it is best to hold off playing the first tactics card, as obviously gives away the momentum for the opponent to play up to two, while you may not play any until they do so. Consequently they could play just one and prevent you playing any more for the rest of the game.
2. Generally do not have more tactics cards in hand than you can play. If you have played yours and are waiting for the opponent to play theirs, do not fill your hand with dormant tactics.
3. The exception is at the beginning of the game. This is for two reasons: one is that the first tactics card you gain may define much of your early strategy, so you should consider drawing it early. The other is that an early tactics card can win a crucial early flag, which can be advantageous for many reasons as described above. Thus you should decide at the beginning whether to be one who plays a tactics card first or not, and draw early if you wish to do so (though only play that tactics card to win the flag if possible - otherwise you may lose it due to Deserter or some such).
4. The end-game also provides an exception - a very specific card may be necessary for victory, in which case drawing many tactics and hoping for a leader or other winning tactics card may be better than drawing troops (provided you can play the card, of course).

After digesting the points above from experienced players, I have high hopes for my next attempt.

Photo credit: Nagato Fujibayashi

Digested strategy tips

• play to win by/defend against breakthrough, using straight flushes centred around the 8 or 3 cards.
• flags 3 and 8 are the most valuable.
• try to lay cards reactively; otherwise, try to win the flag as soon as possible, starting with an 8 for a high straight flush if possible (and using Tactics cards if necessary).
• against two cards, play higher straight flushes against lower straight flushes; low-ball straight flushes against three-of-a-kind; and, against straight flushes you can't beat, either play three-of-a-kind and hope the opponent can't complete or dump cards now while you still can.
• against one card below 8, play a higher card for a higher straight flush; against a high card, play a lower card (particularly a 3) and play for a low-ball straight flush or three-of-a-kind depending on the opponent's second card.
• don't draw more tactics cards than you can lay (except maybe in the end game to win a crucial flag).