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. |
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! |
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. |
The final scores were:
Joe 108
Sam 104
Adam 100
Andrew 70
Andrew gives himself that 'disappointed' look he hates. |
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 |
"Cow from a helicopter" made me laugh out loud.
ReplyDeleteGet ready for the Bracknell Branch next week!
I laughed out loud at "his or her"!
ReplyDeleteThe leaderboard is like a dead cow from a helicopter too - the cream always rises to the top. Ahem.
ReplyDeleteAt least until impact; then it's bovine mayhem. Nice write-up Joe, v enjoyable evening all round. I must say I felt flushed with pride when Adam said he liked my sneaky move in round one of TT. High praise indeed! He may only be 4th right now but that's only because of our secret strategy meetings to keep him there. Class is permanent, as they say.
Bit of a shame about Ave Caesar. Maybe we can tinker with the rules a little to counteract the starting player bias?
Re Ave Caesar, as long as you play as many games as there are players then everyone will get a turn going first if the issue persists; at least that's how it worked last night. But I'll look on the geek, see if it's a known issue . . .
ReplyDeleteIt was a fine bit of deception Sam! I was deeply jealous. I think the reason I've been doing so badly on the first round is I'm constantly trying to pull that sort of trick - get everyone elses funds down and then take a cheap mine - but it never works.
ReplyDeleteTo improve Ave Caesar how about the starting grid rotating by a place each round so that every player gets an equal opportunity to go first/second/third/fourth and you play as many rounds as you have players? If it is really just a procession you should end up with a four-way tie...
I realised I'd be forced to pay 7 for it but I had time-track options to get the water down first. Never planned it - just struck me at the time.
ReplyDeleteAve Caesar: what you could also do is have a staggered start. First player to go is 3 places back from the actual line, second 2 places back, third 1 place back and last to go is the furthest forward - a reversal of the standard rule in fact, just for the opening turn.
though that might make it tough actually making it to the finish... one could run out of cards.
ReplyDeleteHOWEVER you could have the option of drawing again from your discard stack - how many depending on where you started.
ReplyDeleteWould that rule allow the person in fourth place to play a six as they're really in first place? Either way I think it might disadvantage the person who starts first - whoever wins the first race has the advantage of going last for the next race...
ReplyDeleteLooking through the boards this lot seem to think the turn order shouldn't change from start to end...
http://www.boardgamegeek.com/thread/696499/who-plays-first-after-the-first-round
and this lot think that when two horses are neck and neck at the front neither of them can play a six...
http://www.boardgamegeek.com/thread/213765/unusual-situation-two-players-in-the-lead-cant-go
How do you get it to do links properly?
ReplyDeleteI don't think you can in comments. In answer to your first question; yes. Might be worth a try.
ReplyDeleteBBC
ReplyDeleteYou can use HTML! I am a computer guy :)
(Was).
First link
ReplyDeleteSecond link
There ya go :)
A witch! Burn him!
ReplyDeleteWhat, like this:
ReplyDeleteBunch of geeks
ie:
< a href="http://www.boardgamegeek.com/thread/696499/who-plays-first-after-the-first-round" >Bunch of geeks < /a >
Andrew, I think there is still a way to game the new leaderboard - play four games, win them all then don't turn up again, hey presto your score is 9 and you'll stay near the top for ever...
ReplyDeleteOkay, maybe that doesn't really work.
I just want to get the comments up to 17
ReplyDeleteI always wanted to see 18 comments.... :)
ReplyDelete