Inka

29th December. What a boring day. Neither Christmas nor New Year, what are we to make of it? Shops make a half-hearted attempt at opening, and most coffee shops can’t be bothered. Samoa is about to change its time zone, meaning they hop over the international date line. Which date did they chose to skip over?

December 30th.

You see: December 29th is so boring that they didn’t even consider it.

But into this blustery, slightly rainy evening I went to Sam’s for a little light gaming. We tried Inka – a new game whose four-page rule book didn’t seem too daunting. In this, each player has to get to the centre of the board, collect three treasures, and then get to an exit. They do this by rotating or sliding trapezoidal floor pieces and by hopping nimbly over snakes.

I point slightly to the left of Sam's blocking counter for illustrative purposes

It’s a puzzle game where you can foil your opponent by blocking a tile, meaning it can’t be moved. There’s a lot of Analysis Paralysis, and I found it fairly frustrating. The rules are simple, but still not properly explained. It’s not clear when a piece can rotate, nor what the effect the blocking piece has. Sam enjoyed it, though. Mind you, he won both times. It might be more interesting with more than two players. It'll probably be a lot longer, too.

Then Sam suggested a quick game of Alhambra. Since it was a two-player affair, the imaginary player Dirk joined in and quickly proved himself to be an adept opponent. We had barely got started when the first scoring card was revealed. This gave Dirk, with his six tiles, a commanding lead since he won most categories. As the game progressed, I found the cards and tiles synchronised perfectly while Sam grimly watched one opportunity after another going begging. Dirk, meanwhile, remained in the lead with me in close contention.

As we approached the final scoring round, Sam managed to get a few more tiles on the board, but he was finding it frustrating and the five buildings in his reserve can’t have offered much comfort. I was having quite the opposite experience and was able to overhaul Dirk in the final reckoning. My score was 140 (just one off the high score) to Dirk’s 123 and Sam’s 61.

Finally we rounded of the evening with a game of Tsuro. I enjoy this game when it’s two-player, and we ducked and feinted around the board, playing cautiously, until my tiles forced me into a straight duel with Sam, which I promptly lost. Oh well.

The Season's End

The final games night of the season arrived with mulled wine, mince pies and a selection of pizzas. Sadly, Joe wasn’t in attendance, but the numbers were swelled to eight Steve, Anja and Hannah, as well as two wise men from the East (cut-backs, you see: couldn’t afford the third) Paul and Chris.

We split into two groups of four. My half (me, Sam, Adam, Anja) decided on Stone Age since Anja hadn’t played it before. The other half of the table (Steve, Hannah, Chris, Paul) decided on Sam’s still-in-its-wrapper Ascending Empires. This involved a lot of stickers being stuck, and a certain amount of searching under tables as pieces were knocked onto the floor with alarming regularity. I commend Sam’s calmness, since he didn’t suddenly yell “What are you doing to my beautiful new game!!” at any point during this farrago. Which is what I would have done. Hopefully someone from that end of the table can update this post or add a comment describing their adventures in Fingernail-Powered Space Exploration.

On my end of the table, Adam was talking Anja through the rules of Stone Age. She took most of it in, but seemed a little worried when she learnt that this was the most-played game of recent games nights. And perhaps it was a little unfair of her to compete against Adam and Sam who’d both proven their worth on as hunter-gatherers many times in the past. Especially as certain rules were still being explained to her as the game went on.

Four player Stone Age is a very different beast to the versions with fewer players. I spent most of the game thinking I hadn’t really made any progress and looking nervously at Sam’s pile of cards. Anja made the newbie mistake of trying to get a bit of everything, although she was the axe queen by the end of the game. Meanwhile, Adam kept forgetting he needed food and Sam kept insisting his cards weren’t that good.

When it came to adding up the scores, Sam did well on the civilazation cards, but missed out on the multipliers. I got some useful field multipliers and was boosted by my usual reliance on huts. Anja couldn’t turn her axe monolpoly into many points, and so ended in fourth, but hats off to Adam who showed a bit of his old flair with a multiplier that got him forty points, sending him to an easy win.

Adam 147
Andrew 117
Sam 112
Anja 89

After we finished, we watched the closing stages of Ascending Empires. It was clearly between Paul and Hannah, with their two piles of victory points sitting in front of them. Soon the game came to a close, and points were totted. Hannah ran out a much more comfortable winner than you may have thought at first glance, which made Paul consider the chilling thought that next time he’d start on warfare even earlier.

Hannah 40
Paul 23
Steve 22
Chris 19

So it’s the end of the season. As season that, in many ways, belonged to one man. Quentin. His visits to the table were few, but comprehensive enough that he takes most categories in the old style leader board. In the new Form Table, Sam takes top spot, as he does in the Leader Board. But Quentin shows how he is Mr Consistency with firsts in Points ratio, Absolute points ratio and Weighted points ratio. Five wins out of six is not a record to be scoffed at, and it also put him third in the Olympic-style leader board.

Other performances of note: Hannah, in her one appearance, scored the most overwhelming victory, stastically speaking, scoring almost twice as much as her nearest rival. Steve took highest points ratio according to the length of the game: he only played three times, but each time the game went on for ages. We at GNN salute that kind of stamina. The leader board will now be put in cryogenic suspension until the New Year. In the meantime, Happy Christmas!!

						Points
Sam	3	2	1	2	1	9
Quentin	1	1	1	2	1	9*
Joe	1	2	1	4	4	12
Adam	1	3	2	4	3	13
Andrew	2	4	3	3	2	14
Steve	3	3	2	5	5	18
Dan	3	1	5	5	5	19
Jonny	3	2	4	5	5	19
Hannah	1	5	5	5	5	21
Andy	2	4	5	5	5	21
Paul	2	5	5	5	5	22
Sally	2	5	5	5	5	22
Anja	4	5	5	5	5	24
Chris	4	5	5	5	5	24

The leaderboard...

	Played	Points	Ratio	Absolute	Abs ratio	Weight	Wt. ratio	Length	Lth. ratio
Sam	28	125	4.46	1500	53.57	91.5	4.16	95.84	3.42
Adam	26	113.5	4.37	1423	54.73	82	3.9	96.68	3.72
Andrew	29	106.5	3.67	1346	46.41	75.5	3.15	85.85	2.96
Joe	19	72	3.79	1003	52.79	84	4.94	70	3.35
Quentin	6	31	5.17	367	61.17	32	5.33	23	3.83
Steve	3	11	3.67	156	52	9	3	18.75	6.25
Jonny	3	10.5	3.5	284	40.57	25	5	9.8	3.13
Dan	2	8	4	21	10.5	5	N/A	6.5	3.25
Andy	2	7	3.5	68	34	3	N/A	4	2
Hannah	1	5.5	N/A	40	N/A	5.5	N/A	8.25	N/A
Paul	1	4.5	N/A	23	N/A	4.5	N/A	6.75	N/A
Sally	1	4.5	N/A	26	N/A	4.5	N/A	1.49	N/A
Anja	1	2.5	N/A	89	N/A	2.5	N/A	2.5	N/A
Chris	1	2.5	N/A	19	N/A	3.5	N/A	3.75	N/A

The Olympic leaderboard...

	Gold	Silver	Bronze
Sam	11	9	7
Adam	10	7	5
Quentin	5	1	0
Joe	3	6	5
Andrew	2	9	14
Dan	1	0	1
Hannah	1	0	0
Steve	0	1	2
Jonny	0	1	1
Andy	0	1	0
Paul	0	1	0
Sally	0	1	0

Note re scoring methods: Absolute points/ratio refers to the number of points scored in a game. This is obviously a very silly criteria, since your success depends on how generous the game is with giving out points. Weighted points: this is your points adjusted to how well you did last season, so people who did well are penalised and those who did badly get a boost. Weighted for length: your points are multiplied according to how long the game goes on for.

Lights! Canada! Action!

This morning a newly house-proud Joe sent out an email for gamers to gather at his kitchen where a brand new adjustable light-fitting hung above the table. He wanted to see how it performed in a board game setting, hence the invitation. As I’m the only one not busy/ill/asleep on a Thursday, I was the only one who could make it.

But it gave me the chance to try one of these two-player games that I’ve read about but never been able to play. I wanted to try A Few Acres Of Snow, so Joe talked me through the rules. It’s basically a card-management game along the lines of Dominion or Thunderstone but with far more options available and a map of the north east of America from a weird angle. I was the British and Joe was the French in our set up and we set about rewriting history at around 8.20pm.

I started in a feisty mood, settling in Halifax, which changed hands several times during the game. As did Pemaquid: Both very desirable locations. Less desirable, but still fought over was Kennebec. A wide open space which helps you do nothing. Nevertheless, raiding/settling there did get rid of unwanted cards. I looked up Kennebec on Wikipedia and it’s just a river.

No victory points here. Move along, folks...

Joe expanded his empire south towards Detroit which scored points, but cluttered his hand with a lot of unwanted location cards. I kept trying to lay siege whenever I could, and by the end I had amassed a tidy pile of Joe’s cubes. I think my favourite bit was the option to keep cards in reserve, which you could then pay to use in an emergency (ie, battle). Those cards at first act as a deterrent to any warfare, but if you keep an eye on your opponent’s money then you can attack when he can’t afford to use them so they’re no longer a threat – in fact they’re as good as out of the game. Until he can get more money.

Finally, Joe ended the game by using the last of his settlement cubes and the points were totted up.

Joe 56
Andrew 49

An enjoyable game once it gets going, and isn’t so heavy that the two hours seem like a slog. I had a lot of fun and a lovely mince pie.

Adit, Caesar!

Sam was hosting tonight, and sounded the all-clear at just gone 7.15pm. I immediately hopped in the car, and got there first. In no time at all we were joined by Adam and Andrew.
We hemmed and hawed over what to play — thinking we would be five for the first time in ages, I'd brought Santiago and Cuba (not to be confused with Santiago De Cuba), but after a peek in Sam's fine games cupboard, Taj Mahal and TransAmerica were added to the mix. At this point, Steve texted to say he wouldn't be joining us, and so we were down once more to the core four; Adam suggested we kick off with a bit of Ave Caesar.

We played three races, everyone but Adam winning one, so we ended with a three way tie for first with 12 points each, Adam lagging fourth with 9.
A disturbing pattern had begun to emerge, with the starting player in each race winning.

So what next? I suggested Tinners' Trail, which is perfect for four players, and a real GNN favourite. I'm surprised there isn't more love for TT on the Geek, it's a fantastic game. Just enough economics to be interesting without being overwhelming, lots of interesting, tense decisions, and some very clever mechanics like the diminishing returns on the investment track, and the elegant turn-order mechanism. Add to that lots of lovely wooden bits and a playing time of about an hour.  And it is one of the best value games out there too; you can pick it up online for £25. What's to not to not not like?

Well, there is a fair amount of that, I guess.

I hadn't played in a while, and it took me a while to get back in to the swing of it — I bid £12 for a mine as my first action of the game, which left me struggling to scrape together enough money to mine it. But it was worth the effort, because the copper price in round one was a whopping £10, giving Sam and I the chance to make some bold investments. Adam made a single £15 one, and Andrew eschewed investing at all in the first round.
From then on, it was the usual battle of steam pumps vs adits, ships vs trains, and Cornish pasties vs fourth place on the turn-order track. Round two saw Adam mine vast quantities of tin and copper from a dry mine, and it looked as though Sam and I had some serious competition. But he'd missed the big bucks on copper, which never regained the dizzying heights of the early game, and tin, true to form, remained a relatively stable but lowly £5 for the rest of the game. Andrew made the big money in round three, but decided to keep much of it rather than investing.

Sam, quietly contemplating — pasties, mining? Mining then pasties, then more mining!

Sam had made a bold move in round one, augmenting a mine he didn't even own with miners and steam ships. And then promptly buying it! He paid for it, but it was a very canny trick.
If I had a strategy, it was to not bother looking too closely at what the others were doing. I like games like that, it's hard enough trying to work out what I need to do, without factoring in three other trains-of-thought. But as Andrew pointed out, once the mines are bought, you can't sabotage them, so you might as well get on with what you want to do.

Round four — everybody please stand.

In the end, I pipped Sam to the win by a mere four points — it's only now that I realise how lucky I was. The investments come in £5 increments. so making sure you have no loose change at the end is important. By chance rather than planning, I ended up with £55; had I had £54, I would only have been able to invest £50, and Sam would have won (that may not be true actually, because pounds are only equivalent to points in round one . . . still.)

The final scores were:
Joe 108
Sam 104
Adam 100
Andrew 70

Andrew gives himself that 'disappointed' look he hates.

So we finished the night with a final game of Ave Caesar, to break the three-way tie for first place.
The disturbing trend we'd noticed earlier continued, with Adam starting first and finishing first.
At least we all got a go doing that. The final scores were:

Sam 16
Adam and Joe 15
Andrew 14

Not a good final game for Andrew, who went from joint winner to fourth place in that last race, compounding his fourth place in Tinners' Trail. But a lovely evening all round — thanks Sam. JB

[Ersby here, reporting from Leaderboard Central]

My poor showing sees me drop like a dead cow from a helicopter from second down to fifth. Meanwhile, the new rule (called Sam’s Law of Increasing Points, or "SLIP") comes into play. It’s still experimental, but I suggest that once a player has completed six games, his or her (okay, let’s be honest: his) points will go up by one for every week they don’t attend, as shown by an asterisk. It may be only one point per week, but it does stop people “parking the bus” at the top of the table. However, if they return for another evening, these fictional points are wiped from the slate and their points return to normal.

						Points
Sam	2	1	2	1	3	9
Quentin	1	1	1	2	1	9*
Joe	1	2	1	4	4	12
Adam	3	2	4	3	1	13
Andrew	4	3	3	2	2	14
Jonny	3	2	4	5	5	19
Dan	3	1	5	5	5	19
Steve	3	2	5	5	5	20
Andy	2	4	5	5	5	21
Sally	2	5	5	5	5	22

The Poison Palace

On Saturday night we had friends over for games, and I was feeling nervous. These friends - Mark and Katie - are gamers, but gamers in the sense of splashing about in the sunny, healthy shallows, while we lunatics are 100m down in the depths, comparing mechanics, writing blogs, dreaming of meeples etc. Only the other night we had a 5 minute conversation about Stabcon without actually mentioning it by name.

So the reason for my nervousness was that I had dangled, carrot-like, several gaming options to lure them away from the comparative safety of classics like Carcassone, Ticket to Ride or Trans-America. But having done so I'd had a fit of panic when they chose Poison and, specifically, Tinner's Trail.

"Tinner's Trail?" Joe's face fell. "Are you sure?!" - one of Joe's many large steps toward social pariah-dom was taken when he attempted to inflict this game on his family and friends. "It was a disaster" he related grimly. I was thrown. A disaster? Really? Auctions, time-tracks, copper, tin, water, adits, historical themes, a slightly complicated scoring system involving investments that recoup less over time... what's not to like?

Well, I supposed compared to say, Settlers, it might seem a little complex. I borrowed Alhambra from Joe as my Plan B. As it turned out, Mark seemed to take Plan B as an affront on his gaming prowess, and was determined to play Tinner's Trail, but after a curry and chips, several glasses of wine and three rounds of Poison it was simply too late to crack open anything Martin Wallace might have thought of, so Alhambra it was.

Poison scores first: We played each round as an individual game and I think I won the first two. Mark definitely won the last one with a big fat zero. I'd managed to Jefferies-curse Katie by suggesting via email she'd be good at this, so naturally she came off worst in every game.

But in Alhambra the Carcassone-Chiseller of old was cracking her knuckles (except for the one dodgy finger) and going for a healthy spread of second-and-first places in medium buildings plus a fancy wall to pull off a debut win:

Katie 110

Sam 103

Mark 95

Sally 93

Mark, who had been lagging behind after the first two scoring rounds, snuck past Sally despite having the most erratic wall-builder in all of Spain, and hit me with both barrels on the Towers, nabbing the last two in one turn to sneak into first and deprive me of a possible win. Sally was the victim of fatigue; having led after round one and two, her game went to pot as she - well, all of us, to be fair - got too preoccupied over whose turn it was to concentrate on tactics.

Nevertheless, both games went down very well. Mark threatened to buy Poison for Katie (instead of knickers) and Katie said she was tempted to come to Stabcon. Mainly to see how weird it is, it must be said, but in this church we'll take our members by stealth if we have to.

So no Tinner's Trail this time, but was it a missed opportunity, or a near-miss? I guess the only way to find out... is to play it next time.

Torres Redux

As ever, when Thursday arrives my early morning thoughts of hitting the sack 5 minutes after the kids do have dissipated by the time evening rolls around. The games cupboard calls my name, and like a sailor dashed on the rocks, lured by a siren's wail, I respond.

So does Andrew. I guess we're the ones with bugger all else to do.

So tonight we revisited Torres as a 2-player game, having discovered on Tuesday that one pertinent rule about knight placement had eluded us. We'd enjoyed it the first time; this time it was even better. We played the 'Master' version: Adam might like to know that this eliminates the chance element of Action Cards, as each player starts with their own set - and it also supplies you with the option of gaining a bonus from a 'Master' card drawn randomly at the start of the game - in this case the bonus available was 40 points if you had all your knights orthogonally adjacent at the third and final scoring round.

I started well, but just as with our first two-player game Andrew outscored me in round two, moving just a few points behind me on the score track. Come the third and final round I sacrificed scoring Andrew's castle to line up my knights and go for the bonus. But having made it I realised I would have scored more sticking with the castle and building upwards - Andrew picked up 54 points compared to my 40. I also lost out on the King's bonus, but did manage to put together 81 points for the biggest castle - 9 tiles high x 9 area. But it wasn't enough to win - Andrew's more nomadic knights brought home the scoring bacon in the tightest finish possible:

Andrew 268

Sam 267

We'd raced through Torres so fast it was a wonder any of the castles stayed upright, but having done so we had time for Citadels. Again I established an early lead; again Andrew's canny play won the day. I was nowhere contemplating the finish line when he suddenly - courtesy of the architect - built three buildings to end the game, and left my wayward assassin twiddling his butter-fingered thumbs:

Andrew 31

Sam 21

If Endersby can bring this form to Tuesday nights we may have a new aspirant to the ratio throne...

Digging up the Past.

"I would like to play something with a board." Paul answered when asked what he would like to play for the final game. Previously in the evening we had steamed across America in Ticket to Ride, but it was another outing of Citadels which prompted Paul's plea. On the journey to Bracknell station Paul reflected that he doesn't really get on with games that don't have a board to put all your stuff on.

I surveyed my modest stack of games and caught Stone Age coyly winking at me. As much as I love the old flirt (SA, not Paul) I thought maybe tonight was it was time for a change. Tikal had been lurking around in my attic for several years, unplayed, until I noticed some months back that it had 2 players written on the side. This game, it must be said, was always well received and it's surprising it never received more plays.

In Tikal you adopt the role of a director on an expedition intent on uncovering Mayan sites located in the dense Jungle. You take turns to reveal tiles which may have any one of a blank space, a temple, an artefact haul or a Volcano! (Quite how you would miss seeing a bloody great volcano is beyond me). The latter tile sparks off (pun intended) a scoring round, of which there are four in the game. The tiles can be laid in any adjoining space that allows a path back to the start and are revealed in a semi random fashion.

Each player gets 10 action points to spend on ...err actions. They can be dig for treasure, develop a level of temple, add expedition members, create a new base camp and so on. The essence of the game is to get yourself in positions of power around the temples so that you may gain the points during the scoring round.

Unfortunately it wasn't until the second Volcano had come and gone that I realised we hadn't been doing the scoring rounds correctly. Crucially, both players are allowed 10 action points before they score however we just played whoever it was that got the tile. Me. Although I was slightly ahead Paul graciously turned down my offer of equalising the scores.

The game played out as I expected it would, like a a mad trolly dash to grab the abundant goodies with little to prevent you doing it. The 3 and 4 player game (Like so many of this type) have a limiting effect on resources. The rules did not have amendments for 2 players which I felt it needed. In the end I ran out the winner due to my well excavated temples!

Final scores on the night went as follows
TTR
Chris 127
Paul 106

Citadels
Chris 31
Paul 13

Tikal
Chris 172
Paul 153

On Monday I met up with James again and we managed to squeeze in 3 games, two Citadels and one Carcassonne : Discovery.

It was a whitewash and he won all Three.

Dang! A trip to the games shop in January I feel to expand the collection..

Of Castles and Saraglios

Tonight once again saw the four core members of GNN arrive for their weekly board game fix. We did wonder if it was some personal hygiene problem that was keeping other people away. I thought perhaps the blog posts describing complex battles over intricate games was putting off the casual gamers, and maybe something lighter was needed to bring in the punters. So I was ready to suggest a game of tag and bobbing for apples this evening, but by the time I’d arrived Torres had been chosen as the evening’s opening game.

The rules for this kind-of-3D-draughts (where you build up the board yourself) were described by Sam, and we began. Before long Adam was asking chillingly pertinent questions and I was convinced that he had instantly acquired a deep understanding of the rules. He found himself in an early tussle with Sam, which had the advantage of them giving each other points as they built up their shared castles.

Joe, meanwhile, concentrated on the more affordable end of the castle market, with some dainty little castles that no one bothered to challenge him on. Instead, he got his points from the King’s Bonus (hur hur, he said "boners") which a knight would receive if the King stayed in his castle.

I played a middle road, mostly sneaking some points off Sam and Adam by joining in with their castles. But Sam played the board like a master. Or at least like someone who’d played before and paid attention. He got points from the big castles and for also receiving the King’s Bonus. Final impressions of the game were that Joe thought it was too abstract, and Adam thought it wasn’t abstract enough. We counted up the scores, with Joe’s dog adding sighs of approval/disappointment as we did. The final scores favoured those who’d played before, but only just:


Sam 204
Andrew 177
Adam 175
Joe 168


Next we chose Alhambra since it was still early. Although it’s not often that we begin a game of Alhambra when we’re already tipsy, and thus the game took longer than usual. Sam went for his usual tactic of a long, snaking wall. Adam had a very neat and symmetrical set of tiles, and I sort of bumbled through the game without really paying much attention. I did get lucky with a couple of tiles which helped me connect my wall and score me points, though, so that was nice.

Sam’s concentration was almost ruined by me referencing a Genesis song during one of our many witty exchanges. Since Joe and Adam were keen to hear more about this "worst song ever written", Adam found it on the internet and we had the displeasure of sitting through a live version while we played the game. (You can hear the album version here, but you may hate me afterwards if you do.)

The final scores were added up, and for once Sam’s long wall didn’t get him first place, but only by the slimmest of margins. It was Joe’s balanced play that won the evening. Meanwhile Adam cursed me and Sam for picking up the wrong kind of tiles in the last round, costing him dearly in points. Oh well.

Joe 101
Sam 100
Andrew 87
Adam 85

Not a great night for Adam in the controversial new leaderboard. Perhaps new rules will be brought in for the new year. In the meantime I think my position on the Form Table is as good as it’s going to get, unless I can return to winning ways. Adam drops to a very uncharacteristic fifth.

(JB butts in)
At the end of the evening, Sam and Andrew were so busy discussing the intricacies of the latest form table, they failed to notice Joe using his cardboard-mage skills.

The Form Table...

						Points
Quentin	1	1	1	2	1	6
Andrew	3	2	2	1	1	9
Sam	2	1	3	3	2	11
Joe	1	4	4	2	3	14
Adam	4	3	1	4	3	15
Jonny	3	2	4	5	5	19
Dan	3	1	5	5	5	19
Steve	3	2	5	5	5	20
Andy	2	4	5	5	5	21
Sally	2	5	5	5	5	22

What Frodo Did Next.

Last night the call came to Bag End - it was time to set out on a long and dangerous journey; four brave hobbits would be needed to take the one ring to Mordor and chuck it in the volcano.

However we had to make do with two in the end as Merry and Pippin were apparently busy - IKEA in the latter's case. Perhaps Gandalf shouldn't have disguised the dire warning of evil dominions afoot as a 'game of Torres' - as that turned out to be spectacularly untrue.

Instead Andrew and I, still smarting from defeat to Sauron last week, took the little bastard on again. Andrew was Frodo and I was... Sam. If anyone hasn't played this, the game takes place over four boards, and during each one you have to negotiate your way nearer and nearer to Mordor, while the forces of darkness infiltrate the 'event' tiles and try and stop you. All the time Sauron is trying to drag the Hobbits toward the dark, and move himself to the light. Should the two moral opposites (represented by colourful Hobbit pieces and a one-eyed, kitten-esque Sauron) meet on the influence track, it's game over.

How this all works is through card-management, so it's kind of a fire-fighting game in the the vein of Year of the Dragon, except of course it's co-operative.

So how did we fare? Last week, we had managed to get ourselves to Mordor with nary a frayed nerve, but were left with a hollow feeling as a succession of event tiles at the start of the last board saw Sauron march to the final event, where he simply took the ring from us and laughed in our faces like a spoilt brat.

So this time, having taken a few hits stocking up on cards at Helm's Deep, we arrived at Sauron's house and decided the best bet was speed. We would expedite the destruction of the ring, post-haste! Ignoring the threat of Orcs, Gollum, and a sprained ankle, we hurried along the main track and within 5 minutes I was hurling the ring into Mount Doom. Hooray! Middle-Earth is saved.

Fuck you, Sauron.

But saved for what end? Just as with our previous defeat, the victory left us a little hollow. It's so abrupt; one moment you're trying to save the world, the next you're looking at the time and thinking should I have another beer, or would the sensible option be tea?

For me, this is LotR's downfall. During play it's quite fun, and the cooperative element feels novel - at least for our little group. Knizier manages to ramp up the pressure as the game progresses, but when it's over, it's - over. Like a shallow sexual experience for two people who don't really like each other, your relationship with the game feels not entirely worth the effort. It would be great if this final show-down had more oomph to it - it's own little board, perhaps, a game within a game, where suddenly there could be a competitive element between the Hobbits. Maybe I'll drop Reiner a line and suggest it.

So what did the hobbits do next? We played Trans-America, and Sam kicked Frodo's ass!