Wednesday 6 September 2017

Fun lovin' Kribbelners

This week saw the well-oiled machine of GNN execute a pin-point 180 degree turn as initial host, Adam, had to hand over the duties to Sam at the last minute. Well, at the last couple of hours or so, but you get the point.

This left Sam fretting as the change in venue sparked off a number of late cancellations. Did this mean he wasn't popular? But in the end the exodus wasn't as big as he'd first thought and eight of us were in attendance tonight.

We started as a four: me, Sam, Ian and Joe. We began with Animals On Board, joking that just setting the game up would set off the doorbell. It did, and it was Martin.

Animals was replaced by Abluxxen. Early on, Sam asked if a hand full of different numbers was bad. Martin confirmed that it was.

The game ebbed and flowed, with Ian surprising us all by putting down a trick with three jokers in it. That was quickly abluxxed by Martin, if I remember right, which might have been the key move.


Martin 21
Sam 11
Joe 11
Andrew 5
Ian 5

By now, Adam, Katy and (after his cameo last week) Steve had arrived. The eight of us split into two groups of four. I pointed out Ponzi Scheme in Joe's bag, and a triumvirate of eager players volunteered themselves. I'd been keen to try it, so I happily joined them.

The other four went for The Networks. The game of schedule planning for a cable TV station. Or something. I understood very little since, from where I sat it was a long way away and upside down.

Ponzi Scheme, though, was much nearer. And the right way up. Unfortunately, I didn't understand it either. The rules are simple but the gameplay can be very opaque. Trying to work out a value for industry tiles in the trade round is a bit like licking your finger and holding it in the air. Not much to go on.


Joe stated he just wanted to stay solvent until the end, since that had never happened before. Katy bought industry tiles with glee, insisting I take a photo when she had three of three types.


Martin had loads of tiles and then, the next time I looked, he only had a few. Possibly due to the large number of "bear markets" that were triggered, meaning we have to lose a tile.

But Katy couldn't sustain that level of tile ownership and I felt less than inclined to try and extend my game any longer than necessary, so we ended up failing simultaneously. Martin won, despite Katy buying a tile off him to try and get Joe to win, but Martin's had a huge reserve of cash which got him four points. It was enough to give Martin another win.

Martin 8
Joe 4
Katy and Andrew BUST!

I found it all a bit dull. It was as if I was playing a game of Mornington Crescent, were people ostensibly follow some rules, and then there's a big reaction at something, the joke being that nothing has actually happened. That's exactly how it felt. Can't see me playing again. Pity, but there you go.

The Networks was still underway, so we brought out Polterfass. Clearly not my night for bluffing, mind-reading type games.

Surprising final round, though, with Katy and Martin poised to win. Katy, the customer, had 72. Martin, the barkeep, had 70. Katy only had to bid three and hope for a return, and then she'd win. But she bid zero, expecting Martin to be a mean bartender and not roll again, hoping to take advantage of Joe or my greed. She was half right. Martin didn't roll again, leaving eight pints to share. But Joe and I bid only one! No one went bust and Katy rued her choice. It was enough to give Martin another win.

Martin 76
Katy 72
Joe 50
Andrew 18

The Networks was still being played. In fact, by now, they were all standing up and checking the rule book. Serious stuff.


We went for Kribbeln, the game where Martin cocks a snook at Lady Fate and gets away with it. We all said his second Krib of 34 was a mistake, but then he pulled at 35 out of the bag in the later stages while the rest of us struggled in the high twenties and low thirties. It was enough to give Martin another win. (I should probably just have that sentence assigned to one of the F-keys on my keyboard. It would save a lot of time.)


Martin 25
Katy 19
Joe 17
Andrew 17

Finally, The Networks ended and we could clear the table (leaving behind one purple cube that no one could identify the source of). The game ended:

Adam 253
Sam 251
Steve 247
Ian 227

The eight of us played a rousing game of Pairs. Well, not really. My game slump continued, even in victory. I was on 14 points when I managed to fluke a first place, getting me eight points and pushing me past the 21-point mark. A huge anti-climax: I hadn’t even realised I was close to winning. The other notable event was Adam deciding to stick after he'd only been dealt one card (got him five points, though).

Andrew 22
Katy 15
Joe 14
Martin 13
Ian 11
Sam 11
Adam 10
Steve 8

Then the Eastonites left en masse, leaving the rest of us for one last game. Since I’d had such a poor evening, they let me choose the final game and I went for Unearth. But even then, I failed to get very far.


Sam 28
Joe 21
Katy 17
Andrew 16

Not a great night for me but I’ll write this off as an aberration. There’s always the weekend!

13 comments:

  1. As I said at the time, that feeling of bafflement and opacity is one of the things that makes me most eager to try a game again. But we're all different!

    ReplyDelete
  2. It is a little bit Mornington Crescent, I do get that. I don't know how to quantify the worth of offers - in this game, in the second round, where I could only trade with Katy and she with me, it pleased me to realise I could pass on offering her a trade. She then made an offer to me, and I had an idea of her expectations from then on.

    I'm just pleased to have not gone bankrupt for once - thanks for giving it a go Andrew.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Polterfass was great - and Krib. Not sure I love Abluxxen, sort of like fiddly Fuji Flush. And Unearth sort of fiddly Las Vegas perhaps?

    Is it just me, orD4s are deeply unsatisfying to roll. Well they don't even roll, they flop.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Abluxxen is brilliant! I don't think I ever had a joker in that game by the way; I certainly didn't snatch three of them.

      Delete
    2. It must've been Sam, then. In hich case, it probably wasn't a key move.

      Delete
  4. Yeah, I'm not sure how much I like Unearth. It's an odd game. I like that Andrew likes it though.

    The Networks was good. I think we all played rather slowly - I thought it would take an hour, and it was nearly two - but everything about it makes sense, in a kind of simplistic way. The only thing that didn't was the fourth player in the starting round only having the option (assuming everyone else developed two shows, and we did) to develop a single show, leaving him playing catch-up. It did seem mechanically rather unfair!

    Outside of that though, good game. I like the fact the rulebook makes no reference to how idiotic the shows are.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Sam, aren't there eight Season 1 shows?

      Interested to know more about this game, since there's a Kickstarter for the expansion, with the opportunity to get the base game, too.

      Delete
  5. I still love Ponzi Scheme even though I went bust and good to see that Joe didn't! I'd play Unearth again as it took me most of the game to work out some sort of strategy and then it ended. I'm sorry to have given my games slump to Andrew, but hopefully by Tuesday we'll all be back on form as before. Thank you all x

    ReplyDelete
  6. I did enjoy Network, though I was slightly miffed that I was constantly playing catch up. Of course, there's a decent chance I missed something that would have allowed me to close the gap more efficiently.

    Still, thanks all!

    ReplyDelete
  7. It sounds from Andy's comment liked we used the wrong board Ian. Sorry! I assumed that the correct one had four Drop and Budget slots but maybe that's not the case?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I checked over the boards at the end and it looks like all of them are one show short - I wonder if there's a strategy in grabbing all the stars? Or something...

      Delete
    2. Not played it, or even seen it, just had a quick look at the rules, so had missed that some of the Season 1 shows weren't used.

      Guessing that they aren't great, and therefore grabbing stars to put you in position to take the best of the Season 2-3 shows in the second round could be a perfectly valid strategy.

      Need to play it to find out, of course.

      Delete
    3. I did look on the geek and couldn't see anything in on player imbalance. Maybe it's as you say Andy - gearing up for S2

      Delete