inconsequential ruminations

I have been investigating Twixt recently. After being turned off by the over-seriousness and commitment required from Go, I have wanted to find a challenging abstract that would be easier to get into. Mikko mentioned he was experimenting with Twixt on Little Golem, so I thought it would be a good time to try.

Mikko managed to beat me in about five moves, so the first thing that struck me is how brutal Twixt is. One false move and it really is all over. My second impression was how difficult it is to plan any strategy, particularly when defending. Especially initially, Twixt has little clarity. I later tried it quickly, with paper and pencil, with a friend at work and we could not figure it out at all.

Luckily, I managed to find K2Z. Rather like the Kiseido Go Server, a nice program allows you to play in real-time. The program itself is slick. There is no install required, it is only 484 KB and it does all the basics well, including a reasonable AI for basic training. It also lets you play back old games, for self-study. There is even Java version for Windows fugitives.

Playing back a few games between experts let me discover some tactics. It is surprisingly like Go in terms of the thinking required. It is much faster to play and less dense, so hardcore Go players might not like it, but these are bonuses for me.

If you want a game, just instant message me and we can meet on K2Z.

GeekSpeak has been going from strength to strength. I am finding myself looking forward to each new episode. Derk and Aldie are an excellent double-act and are getting better at it with practice.

I would never bother to sit at my computer listening to an hour plus of GeekSpeak, but they are excellent downloaded to an MP3 player and listened to while commuting.

*GeekSpeak 2 & 2.5*
Derk and Aldie interviewed each other. They ran out of steam towards the end of GeekSpeak 2, but then went out and had a few drinks and recorded 2.5, where they actually talked about games, which was much better.

*GeekSpeak 3*
Mark Kaufmann and Eric Hautemont from Days of Wonder. This was fascinating in terms of learning what it takes to become a games developer. These dot.com fugitives have turned their business acumen into creating what is probably the best family games company in the market. I really admire their drive and professionalism. If I ever started a business I would have to listen to these guys first to hear how to do it.
The only poor point was when they chose their own games as their favourites – maybe a rule expressly forbidding this is needed?

*GeekSpeak 4*
Alan Moon. The thing that really struck me about this interview was how Alan is a career games designer. It seems to be all he has ever wanted to do and aimed for. It just shows the level of dedication required to make it in the games business. It reminded me of all those Hollywood stories of actors waiting tables before coming big stars. The other thing that stood out was the pain designers feel when their creations are criticised. He talked about the anguish of being in a booth at Essen waiting for recognition and how he hates what he sees as the negativity of Spielfrieks and rec.games.board.
I found it interesting that Alan Moon chose such traditional games for his favourites, like Spades. He chose suprisingly few €urogames.

*GeekSpeak 5*
Chris Farrell. I was pleasantly surprised that Derk and Aldie wanted to talk to a gamer and not just people in the industry. There was also a lot of discussion about the current state of wargaming, which I found very interesting. I had put together some of the progression between card-driven wargames and block games before, but it was good to hear the overview here. The only real problem was the poor sound quality. I am going to have to try Hannibal: Rome vs. Carthage again at some point.
I actually asked Chris a question in this one. I recorded an MP3 and sent it to Aldie. He commented afterwards that I have a heavy accent! Maybe he should visit Liverpool or Newcastle sometime?
Like Chris, I am not too excited about the latest games from Essen. It’s always good to hear which older games have really stuck in hardcore gamers’ heads. I am always much more interested in them than the very latest and greatest.

The Piecepack Group Projects Competition has finished. The overall winner was The “In” Crowd by Jeb Havens & Ian Schreiber. It looks like a pretty interesting trick-taking board game. Now I just need to go on holiday again and then I might get a chance to try it…

I finally managed to persuade Vanessa, my wife, to play a game with me. Originally, we wanted to play West End Adventures cooperatively, but we ended up playing Canal Grande as we ran out of time.

The two previous times I had played Canal Grande, it was intriguingly confusing, but this time it was much clearer and I was able to translate that into a succinct rules explanation with plenty of examples. I think Ness enjoyed it a lot.

Canal Grande is the two-player card game sequel to San Marco and is also designed by Alan Moon and Aaron Weissblum. The aim of the game is to capture districts of Venice, represented by cards. Players alternate dividing cards into two piles. The other player then chooses the pile they prefer. There are two types of cards:

• Action cards, including:

** district cards, which are used to capture districts in a battle, called a vote, like in Ivanhoe or Taj Mahal.

** spy cards, which allow players to take two extra cards from the deck.

** traitor cards, which allow players to steal cards from opponent’s hands.

** doge cards, which allow a player to initiate a vote, using district cards.

** gondola cards, which allow players to substitute different districts when in a vote.

• Number cards, which determine when a round ends. The first player to reach 10 points, finishes the round and is forced to be dealer next round. The player under 10 points gets a bonus of three action cards.

Action cards are good and number cards are bad. The skill of the game is in evaluating how valuable the actions cards are to you, balancing that against the number cards and trying to steer the choice of your opponent.

Rather like Battleline, you either have to win one vote in each of the six districts, or four votes in one district.

I enjoy this game a lot. It is not as elegant as Lost Cities or Battle Line, but it pretty unique. I have always found the dilemma of splitting a pie to be interesting (so would you if you had as bossy a sister as me), so maybe it is not surprising I enjoy Canal Grande. It is a pity the art on the cards is so horrible. I think it would be more popular otherwise. I have played a few Adlung-Spiele games and on the whole have not been impressed, but this and Ebbe & Flut are good. There is a four-player partnership variant, but I suspect most will prefer to just play San Marco instead. I would still like to try it though.

Mikko points out a problem with the luck involved in having to have a card in a district before being able to participate in a vote. Apparently this rule can be left out if this worries you. It does not yet, but I won the game with four uncontested cards of the same district, so it might after a while.

Bruno Faidutti also suggests an interesting variant:

My opinion is that there are not enough district cards in Canal Grande – or too many special cards. If you have a second game at hand, take two cards for each district from it, and add them to your deck. It will make the biddings more dynamic.

I will probably buy another copy to try this variant and the four-player game, as it is so cheap.

We only had an hour and a quarter available, and the mood suited something middleweight, so we decided to go for Edel, Stein & Reich, which we had not played for months.

I was pleased it plays so well with five. It was great being the only one to choose an option when three others all went for the same one. The extra free action cards also introduced more skill. ES&R is rare in that it plays best with three and five, but no so well with four. It is definitely more intense with three.

I have not tried Basari, the original version without event cards, but I cannot believe I would prefer it to ES&R, as the event cards add to the game.

This is a classic €uro game. It is simple to learn, skilful and very interactive. Naturally, the theme is almost invisible, but that’s missing the point.

At the end of the evening, we are often left with the same three guys. We want to play something deep, but something that we know the rules to already, so I have been looking for a deep three-player card game with lots of replayability.

Ninety-Nine is good, but feels too much like Oh Hell, which I have played to death. I was keen to try Sticheln, but it lacks replayability. David and Goliath and Drahtseilakt are too simple and luck dependent.

I originally heard about Cosmic Eidex at Spotlight on Games. Rick Heli rates it as one of his favourite games. I remembered it as a game with a reputation for depth, while being designed exclusively for three. Once our games night fell into the pattern of three guys left at the end, I naturally gravitated towards it. Another attraction is that Urs Hostettler, who also created Tichu, which is my current favourite four-player card game, designed it.

Cosmic Eidex is based on the Swiss game, Jass. Pagat categorises Jass as a point-trick ace-ten trick-taking card game, meaning that the players count the values of cards won, rather than the number of tricks, and the ace and ten are particularly valuable. There are 36 cards with four suits, from ace to six. The cards are vividly illustrated with a different picture for every card. Unfortunately, sometimes the card indices are difficult to read, but this does not impact play too much.

The rules and scoring are complex, there is no way you could play this without a reference card, but once you start playing the shape of the game becomes clear and it runs smoothly. The core of the game is simply three-player trick taking with trumps, but there are serpentine twists:

1. Sometimes hands are played with no trumps, either with standard card ranking or reversed card ranking (six high, ace low).
2. Two victory points are available per hand. One for the player with the most points, one for the player with the least – unless one player goes above 100 points (157 available), in which case both players with less get a point each. If a player wins all tricks, they get both points.
3. Before each hand, all players draw a random card from the deck. Every card in the deck has its own special power and players can use that power in the hand.

The victory point scheme is fun, as it makes the game less about having good cards, but more about watching what the other player are doing and adapting your game accordingly.

The card powers make this game. You never really know how a hand will go and every hand brings uncommon fresh interactions between card powers. We found no real conflicts between the powers, so this game must have been meticulously playtested.

The combination of the card powers and the illustrated cards gives this game colour, variety and replayability. The rules are confusing at first, but it is easy to play with the player aids on the geek. I highly recommend this if you enjoy Tichu or Mü. A while ago, I played Schnäppchen Jagd, which I had been led to believe was a fantastic three-player game. We did not enjoy it and I believe Cosmic Eidex deserves the plaudits far more.

Skat might be a worthwhile three-player card game to explore in the future, but I will have lots of plays of Cosmic Eidex before then.

Bruno Faidutti has replaced his old website. There are lots of new games in the Ideal Games Library, and a few old ones have been taken out. I have said it before, and I will say it again, this is my second favourite games website.