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.

New Games For Old: Modern Alternatives to... Monopoly

As the holiday season approaches, an insidious specter haunts the land, striking fear into the minds and hearts of all men and women of good cheer. I refer, of course, to the annual tradition of inflicting the game of Monopoly upon the family unit. I despair that a technology nearly a century old should be forced upon the young, thus turning another generation off the hobby of boardgaming. I fully understand why this happens - each generation of parents had Monopoly inflicted on them, and so do the same to their children, who then punish their children in the same way and so on, the curse carried unto the hundredth generation.

There are those who claim that Monopoly is a "good" game, and demand to play it at family gatherings. These people are wrong. Let's briefly look at the structure of a Monopoly session to understand why. Any game of Monopoly plays out in three overlapping phases:

1. The phase where properties are acquired. This involves a dreadfully tedious process of rolling the dice, and then perhaps landing on a space you can buy. Precisely zero strategy is to be found in this phase, and player interaction is slim to none. Theoretically, this phase could cause interesting moments if the rule is activated whereby a person who lands on a property they don't want has to auction it off. In practice, this rarely occurs, since players should always buy properties (even if they have to mortgage owned properties to do so), even if they don't want them, for the leverage they bring in the trading phase. While I'm here, I might as well provide a variant to greatly improve on this phase:

Picture by Detlef Dolling

• Remove one of each colour group from the properties cards.
• Shuffle and deal out all remaining properties evenly among the players (adding any remainder to the "removed" group).
• Players pay for these properties, exactly as if they had landed on them and bought them. Give each player 500 pounds/dollars to represent the money they would have gained/lost while circumnavigating the board. Optionally allow players to refuse properties, adding them to the "removed" pile.
• Auction off properties from the "removed" pile. Properties attracting no bids are unsold, and may be bought later during the normal course of the game.
• Start rolling dice and progressing the game as normal.

Voila, a variant which achieves exactly the same thing in a fraction of the time (and, due to auctioning off one of each colour group, is considerably more strategic and interesting).

2. The trading phase. This is the part where players make deals among one another, attempting to complete a colour group and thus commence building. This phase isn't actually that bad, as it tends to go reasonably fast, and involves strategy and player interaction. Nonetheless, there are plenty of other games which do a better job of delivering the same thing.

3. The end phase, where players circle the board endlessly, their cash slowly bleeding away, until one winner is left. This interminable horror is the main reason why Monopoly is a bad game. Of course, most people just get bored and call the game in favour of the obvious future winner - though there are some sadistic individuals (usually young, with more years of precious life to spare) who demand the game be played to its tedious conclusion. These individuals should be sent to the workhouse at the earliest possible opportunity.

Picture by Gerald McDaniel

Ultimately, then, Monopoly is a game with far too few strategic decisions, far too much aimless
roll-and-move, and just far too much time required. Happily, a great many games have since become available which achieve similar aims to this game (bar, arguably, its moral purpose in teaching the evils of rent-based economies) in much less time. Let's take a look at three of the most family-friendly and widely available.

1. Acquire

Sid Sackson's Acquire is one of the small group of games published before the 1990s which are still considered acceptable among modern boardgame connoisseurs. Acquire contains precisely none of the mechanics of the game Monopoly. What it does offer is a game which is actually about forming monopolies.

Picture by the author

Rather than aimlessly rolling dice, players place tiles from their rack, thus expanding corporations in which the players can invest. When they come into contact, a merger takes place, the larger company swallowing the smaller - thus producing something that feels a little like "a monopoly". These corporate mergers invite key decisions - whether to convert stock from the merged company into shares in the parent (which will probably then be frozen until the end of the game), liquidate stock for immediate cash, or keep the share certificates for when (and if) the company is reformed. This last move is risky, but key to winning - majority shareholders of merged companies enjoy big bonuses, so getting the most shares in startups is what separates winners from losers.
Overall, Acquire is a much more strategic game than Monopoly, with more of a feeling of corporate intrigue, while keeping a simple and easily learned ruleset. The only downsides are a somewhat dry theme which may be a hard sell to younger players.

2. For Sale

It may not be corporate espionage that attracts you to the theme of Monopoly - perhaps it's real estate
speculation that you find more compelling. In this case, For Sale is the game for you.

Picture by Gary James

It's split into two parts: in the first, a number of properties are auctioned off. Technically, only the most valuable is up for auction - the rest are taken, in order of value, as players drop out of the auction, in which case they pay only half of their bid. This creates a quandary for the player - not only do they have to judge how much they want the big-number property, but if they instead choose to bid up the other players, they will have to pay the piper eventually. Already players are trying to read each others' minds, switching instantly between bluffing and honest bidding.
The second phase is even nastier - this plays as a series of blind auctions. A number of cash amounts are laid out, and players secretly choose which property they will bid against these amounts. Then everyone reveals simultaneously. The property with the highest number takes the biggest cash prize, the next-best property takes the second-largest, and so forth. You may wish to deliberately lowball, taking a prize that's nearly as good and save your big cards for later - but your opponent may be thinking exactly the same thing...
For Sale combines the fun of quickfire speculation with a poker-like game of bluff and blind bidding, within the same real estate theme as Monopoly. Plus, it plays in under twenty minutes. Beats Monopoly in pretty much every way.

3. Bohnanza

Then again, maybe you don't care about property speculation either. Perhaps its the wheeling and dealing of the trading phase that appeals. In which case, there are so many better trading games in the world than Monopoly. The one I would recommend would be Bohnanza.

Picture by spearjr

Bohnanza has perhaps the least appealing theme in the canon of modern gaming - players are bean farmers, attempting to grow the largest possible crops of a given bean variety for harvesting. It would be hard to come up with a less attractive theme. But don't be put off - the game itself is pure gold.
The core of the game is the middle phase of each player's turn, where they turn over three new beans and then have to somehow dispose of them. Perhaps they already have those beans in their two fields, and just add them to their existing harvest. More likely, they don't want them at all, and would much rather trade them to the other players - and the game strongly encourages trading away unwanted cards, as if you don't trade them away, you must plant them, even if it ruins their current plan. You only have two fields, so if you have to plant, one of your existing crops will have to go - probably for much less value than you would like.
On top of this, players are constantly forced to plant cards from their own hands - if those cards don't fit with their plans, then they have some powerful motivation to trade out these cards too. All this positive motivation leads to a frenzy of trades; some players will enter bidding wars when they compete for the same card. Others play it cool, trying to act like they don't even want that bean, to try to make a favourable trade. "I'll take that green bean off your hands", you say, hoping to get something for nothing - "Two blue for a soy!" cries your sister, forcing you to either bid up and reveal your plans, or let her have it when you'd much rather be making money off it. Most players' turns will involve multiple trades - and a minute later, they whirlwind will start again with the next player.
Of all the games here, Bohnanza offers the most player interaction, and is one of the most active trading-based games available on the market. Absolutely, 100% recommended for families and pubs alike.

Zombies!!! Part The Second: Variants, Fixes, and Lord Dicely's Gambit

In the first part of this series, I provided an overview of the game Zombies!!! and its expansions. The second and concluding part considers fan-provided variants which attempt to improve the game, and includes my own humble submission in the annals of Zombies!!!-fixing house rules.

Zombies!!!, with it's low price point and ease of learning, has a wide consumer base. Add to that the tendency of the game's foibles to rise to the surface fairly quickly, and the inevitable result is a large body of variant rules intended to "fix" and improve the game. I believe those rules to be most useful which solve the game's issues, without significantly harming its accessibility. To summarise, here are the game's largest problems:

1. It's too slow (particularly with regards to movement)
2. There is too little strategy, with too few meaningful decisions
3. Linked to point 2, there is too much luck, with the difference of a small number of unlucky rolls meaning someone is going to have very little fun for a considerable period of time.

 Let's look at some popular variants which attempt to tackle these problems. (There are other variants, which perform "total makeovers" to convert the game to a fully co-operative boardgame, have players as zombies, or even play the game as an RPG; these are outside the scope of this article.)

1. Movement rules

Roll two dice for movement

This rule does indeed make movement faster, without adding complexity. The downside is that, while luck is somewhat mitigated through the magic of the binomial distribution of probability, there's still a serious risk of situations where, for instance, one player only gets to move 3, and the next gets to move 11 and leap onto the helipad. Furthermore, cards affecting movement become much less useful. Consequently, I can't recommend this variant as it improves on point 1 but arguably worsens points 2 and 3.

Health-based movement

The most popular variant of which is to add the player's current heart tokens to the roll of a die. This tends to increase movement, without giving rise to the wide distribution of the previous variant. (Other variants used fixed health-based movement, e.g. heart tokens plus two.) Furthermore, this variant adds to the theme and strategy of the game, as players are slowed by the wounds they receive, and must prioritise regaining health over "luxuries" such as bullets and location-based items. The only problem with this variant is that it tends to make the rich richer, and the poor poorer - those who have a couple of unlucky rolls, and hence are already behind, will fall further behind as they move more slowly. Of course, this adds to the theme even more. Consequently this is a decent, simple variation that works well for those who prioritise the zombie theme, but runs the risk of alienating those who simply want to have fun.

Use "best of two dice"

In this variant, players roll two dice, but only use the highest individual die. This effectively reduces luck and speeds the game (as higher rolls become more common than lower rolls), without adding much complexity. This is not at all a bad variant, and recommended if you don't like the downsides of health-based movement nor the (relative) complexity of my own variant, explained below.

Fast movement across empty squares

E.g. if a tile has no zombies on it, it can be crossed at a cost of one movement. This certainly enables faster movement, particularly in the end game, and allows respawning players to get back into the action more quickly. On the other hand, it can make sprinting to the helipad a bit too easy, adds slightly to complication as movement points mean different things in different circumstances, and can lead to players moving zombies onto empty tiles just to slow movement (which then further complicates movement as players alternate between empty and non-empty tiles). Then again, that last point could be argued to be a strategic improvement. This is by no means a bad variant, and is definitely worth considering.

2. Game-shortening rules

Lower zombie target by number of players

One problem with the base game is that the alternative goal - acquire 25 zombie trophies - does not vary with the number of players. With high player numbers, this goal rapidly becomes nigh-on impossible. Having a lower target makes this a viable goal, and at the same time shortens the game at higher player numbers. Formulas differ - some set a goal of 25 minus the number of players, others might divide an overall number (such as 60) between the number of players and use the resulting goal (for example, for two players, the goal would be 30 each; for four players, 15 each). This latter option produces a game which is pretty much the same total duration irrespective of player number. Probably the best matrix is found in the Quick(er) Play variant. A zombie-target variant is highly recommended for more than two or three players - it makes the game shorter, makes the alternative goal more viable (hence adding to the strategy), and all without making the game any more complicated.

Blitz start

Simply give the players more bullets and/or health at the beginning of the game (and, usually, on respawning after death). This variant helps in combat, but doesn't make movement any faster. As players will generally die less often, and hence have to respawn and start again less often, it also will slightly reduce game length. Overall, I have no problem with these sorts of variants, but frankly feel they don't really add that much.

Faster zombies

For example, double the number of spaces moved by each zombie. This can result in players reaching the zombie trophy goal more quickly, so speeding the end of game, and also can add to the amount of action occurring. Strategically, it's pretty much a wash - it's easier for players to block one another, but also less easy to plan future moves. The downsides to this variant are (1) it detracts from the "shuffling zombies" theme and (2) the "move zombies" phase (arguably the least-interesting phase) takes slightly longer, mitigating any speed gain. Consequently I cannot personally be bothered with this variant, but your preferences may differ.

"Explorer" variants - only place tiles for players at the map edge

These variants cut down the time taken per turn by only placing new tiles in certain circumstances. For example, players only add a tile if they are at an exposed edge, or on a tile which contains an exposed edge. These make each turn faster, and also provide players with a decision whether to "explore" or not. The downside is that more turns have to be taken to "fill out" the map and reach the helipad tile. Furthermore, as players do not "see ahead" on the map, longer-term strategies (e.g. working towards a building which would activate a powerful item) are less relevant. Furthermore, the advantage to the person pulling the helipad tile (or winning the auction for it, if the auction rule below is used) is often insurmountable. Consequently, despite the thematic appeal of this rule, I cannot recommend it, but those who want a theme-heavy game and aren't worried about the extra time might enjoy this option.

Fixed zombie movement

Instead of moving a number of zombies determined by rolling a die, just move a fixed number of zombies (e.g. 3). People rarely care that much about the zombie movement phase, and this skips a few precious seconds every round. The only downside is that it replaces the simple symmetry of every other phase of the game (i.e. roll a die then apply the result). The variant doesn't make much difference, but doesn't cost much either. For me, this just about edges into "recommended".

3. Adding strategy/reducing luck

The Helipad Auction

According to this variant, when the helipad is drawn, rather than it being placed as normal, the players hold an auction for the right to place. Players bid with their zombie trophies, with only the highest bidder paying, and then placing the helipad where they, rather then the current player, wish. This variant reduces the luck associated with drawing the helipad (which otherwise is a strong predictor of who will win the game, though it's not a certainty). It also adds strategy, as players may focus on which goal they wish to pursue. The main criticism of this variant is that it is a wholly new mechanic, adding to the complexity of the game. Since it only comes out once per game, however, I'm willing to allow it.

Ranged Weapons

Numerous variants involve the capability to attack zombies at range, usually by using a bullet token, with the range typically being anything on the same tile, or maybe the next. This adds to the decisions a player may make, in particular allowing a variant on "push-your-luck" by allowing a player to make attacks without risking health, but paying bullets for the privilege. A nice and thematic option for those who want it, but adds complication, and isn't that useful in practice (as you will usually want to move onto the zombie's space sooner or later). I would place this variant with those that add theme, but otherwise don't improve enough to be worthwhile.

Cutting the cards

One central tenet of modern game design is that losing a turn is an anachronism. Any turn when a player does not play is no fun for them, and doesn't add much to the fun of the others. Consequently, any cards which cause another player to miss a turn should be considered for exclusion. Again, the fine Quick(er) Play variant has more to say on this topic, with a full breakdown of cards that author recommends be removed. I wouldn't necessarily mess with the game that much, but I most certainly endorse the removal of turn-missing cards.

4. My humble offering: Lord Dicely's Gambit

My attempt to make as many improvements as possible with as few additional rules is as follows:

Instead of rolling for movement, choose the number of spaces you would like to move (from zero to six). Then take a combat die according to the movement chosen:
5-6 movement: 4-sided die
3-4 movement: 6-sided (i.e. standard) die
1-2 movement: 8-sided die
0 movement: 10-sided die
Treat your movement points exactly the same as if you had just rolled them on a die - any cards or other effects that might adjust your movement adjust this number. The player may choose not to use their full entitlement in exactly the same way they would have if they had rolled that number for movement. The combat die remains the same once selected for the player's turn, irrespective of any changes to movement allowance. If the player must reroll their movement, they use a standard six-sided die and use that new movement (this does not affect their combat die). When in combat, a roll of 4 or more wins, irrespective of which die is used.
(If playing with Guts rules, lose one Guts token if you roll a 1 in combat, and gain one if you roll the maximum possible on the combat die). 
I recommend that the game phase order be changed so that the phase before movement where a player must fight a zombie on their square be removed, and the player simply fight that zombie at the beginning of their movement, after selecting movement and combat die. Alternatively, the player must use the combat die they used on the previous turn to fight a zombie on their square at the beginning of their current turn - this option adds to the bookkeeping, however.
 

This variant is clearly more complex than most individual variants above, and requires a range of dice rather than just a standard d6. However, in my opinion, it is worth the complexity as it achieves several improvements in one fell swoop. For one thing, players have the option to reliably move quickly (particularly in "safe" areas), solving slow movement issues while removing luck as regards movement. Luck still plays a factor in combat (the game wouldn't be much fun if it didn't), but the player may now make actual strategic, risk-management decisions at the beginning of their turn. Poor combat rolls can be mitigated by taking a few turns of low movement and relatively safe combat. The use of fixed bonuses (from bullets, items, and other cards) creates an interesting probabilistic interaction with varying dice, as a +1 has more relative effect on a d4 than a d8. Thus, overall, this variant adds strategy, hastens movement, and reduces luck, all without too badly compromising the simple fun of the game.

This variant is intended to solve as many problems as possible at once (justifying its relative complexity), and hence is not intended to be played with the movement and combat variants above. That said, I would strongly recommend "cutting the cards" and varying the trophy goal. If you do wish to add any of the other variants, you might want to try auctioning the helipad and/or fixed zombie movement.

Standard-die only variant: If you only have a six-sided die, then choose movement and then use the six-sided die for combat (as in standard Zombies!!!), deducting 1 to all combat rolls if you selected 5 or 6 movement, adding 1 if you selected 1 or 2 movement, and adding 2 if you selected zero movement. This option isn't as much fun, and the probability interactions aren't as interesting, but it removes the need for multiple dice.

Printable play-mat of this variant, including game turn summary, below: