A low scoring game in the end, with Adam successfully making everyone think that I was winning. But, of course, I never win at No Thanks. Adam does, though.
Adam 12
Sam 16
Andrew 23
Joe 30
Anja 55
Then we split into two groups. Joe, Adam and myself went to play Ora et Labora, an epic Agricola-esque game from Uwe Rosenberg. Sam and Anja were joined by Steve and Hannah decided to play Macao. In fact, Hannah arrived at a time when she could've joined in with Ora et Labora, but she backed out of the room, saying it was a nice offer but she'd prefer something less taxing.
Adam talked us through the rules, and we set off. Like Agricola, it's all about resource management, and the resources grow during the game if they're not used. With these resources you can build buildings and make these buildings do things for you to create nicer resources which scores victory points at the end.
Nibbles, anyone?
There are a lot of options, which increase as the game goes on. This is good, since you're rarely stuck for something to do but, like Agricola, often the thing you want to do takes one more go than is really efficient. This frustration caused a lot of thoughtful pauses and muttered curses.
The nightmarish ordeal of Ora
It's a bit spreadsheet-y for my tastes. I'd like it a lot more if it were shorter, and there is a short option which we dismissed as being for lightweights, heading straight into the main game. It was a long, hard slog, with only Joe's delight at having built a religious icon as the main expression of delight during the game. In the end, Adam scored a comfortable win, with Joe's flashy trinkets pushing himself past me into second.
Adam 223
Joe 180
Andrew 170
The biggest surprise was that we ended before the game of Macao finished. Towards the end, we could hear some yawning from the next room, and we'd often pop in to see how they were doing.
The laissez-faire jollity of Macao
Steve, as he so often does with new games, was looking good for the win. And that's how it turned out.
Steve 79
Anja 75
Sam 71
Hannah 57
| Points | ||||||
| Adam | 1 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 6 |
| Steve | 1 | 1 | 4 | 1 | 1 | 8 |
| Sam | 3 | 2 | 1 | 3 | 2 | 11 |
| Joe | 2 | 4 | 3 | 1 | 4 | 14 |
| Hannah | 4 | 3 | 4 | 1 | 2 | 14 |
| Anja | 2 | 5 | 4 | 2 | 3 | 16 |
| Andrew | 3 | 3 | 4 | 4 | 3 | 17 |
While I realised Macao would be longer with 4 I didn't guess it would take over 2 and a half hours. But I suppose as well as everyone going through three choices (cards, dice, board options) there's the fact that with wares at much more of a premium, competition is fiercer, with your options closing in as the game progresses. Allied to the fact you have to recalibrate your plans depending on what the other players do, and it's quite a staggering procession of AP opportunities.
ReplyDeleteAll that said, I still enjoy Macao a lot. I wonder if a timer at the dice stage would help?
Thanks for hosting to Hannah and Adam, well played Adam and Steve!
Ora & Labora, for me, suffers a bit from the ever-increasing options. I dunno, maybe once you get to know the game maybe you have a clearer idea of what you're going to go for, but there's a bewildering array of goods on offer - wow look, there's 7 peat, I'll take that, not sure why.
ReplyDeleteIn Agricola it's similarly tempting to grab a pile of reed because it's there, but having done that, you then know that you need to pick up the basketmakers workshop, or play that occupation card (punitive teacher, maybe?) to make the most of your haul.
Perhaps what O&L needs is a sort of tech-tree, showing the routes to points - perhaps that's already there on the player aid, but it's got to be the most daunting player aid ever created.
I do like it though - I'm a sucker for the Agricola-style artwork, I think it is the most welcoming of all game art. And I like the theme alot - monks brewing beer and making wine in the forest - charming!
But somehow, despite being very thought through thematically, you don't come away with the sense of theme nearly as strongly as in Agricola, because the micro-managing gets in the way, perhaps. Also because there is so much info on the (tiny) building/settlement cards that form your area that you're less aware of creating a coherent group of settlements and buildings. Actually I think it's that latter point that most impinges on the theme - Agricola and Carcassonne spring to mind as games that remove numbers and icons from the playing area, to great effect.
I do like it, but I would prefer to play it two-player I think, and there's other games I'd rather spend a whole evening playing I think.
Thanks to Adam and Hannah for hosting!
Yeah, I think you're right - O&L is a game where you need to know what the buildings are going to do for you. I don't think I *knew* but I did have a vague idea. I'm worried that it's a bit like Cuba in that most of the game is hidden in the cards...
ReplyDeleteI should perhaps have explained a bit more about how the trinkets and settlements worked at the start of the game, but I thought you had enough going on by that point... I think it deserves another chance though as I really like converting things into other things!
When we opened to box and rules for A&L I was filled with dread. A dread that did not dissipate as we began to play. But once we were about 1/4 way through (it took us about 5 hours the first time we played) I was enjoying myself, and that feeling continued through to the end. So I'm up for playing again.
ReplyDeleteI've got the contents of First Train to Nuremberg out of the box three or four times. Each time I've looked at them for about 90 seconds and then packed it all away again.
ReplyDeleteI do enjoy the 'big bowl of resources' feature of O&L. Rootling for sheep is fun!
ReplyDeletePicture three is great - look everyone! Games are fun!
ReplyDelete