Date: Mon 21 Sep 2009
Venue: Carcasean boardgame cafe

I asked Chong Sean to teach me Red November, since he has played it before. Red November is one of the many cooperative games that were released around last year. In this game, players are Russian gnomes stuck in a submarine, the Red November, where things keep going wrong one after another. The gnomes try to survive for one hour, waiting for rescue. You win together if some of you survive, with the submarine not completely destroyed, after one hour.

The game uses a Thebes-like mechanic for tracking time. When the gnomes take actions, every action costs time, and your use a white marker to temporarily mark how much time you've used on your turn. After your turn is done, you need to check how many red stars you have passed on the time track. For each star, you draw a disaster card. Usually bad things will happen. There are some spaces which award you tools, but there are less of these than the disaster spaces. Many types of bad things can happen. Fires start, fires spread, rooms flood, doors become stuck, the oxygen level drops, the heat level rises, the pressure increases, the missiles malfunction and threaten to explode, and worst of all, a giant kraken approach and eye the submarine hungrily. When you take a turn, you basically move about the submarine and attempt to fix a problem, e.g. unlocking a door, pumping out water, reducing the heat level to the next stable state, etc. You can also go to the equipment room to collect tools, or go to the captain's room to collect grog (vodka?), which is considered a type of tool. Grog allows you to fix problems quicker, and if a room is on fire and you don't have a fire extinguisher, drinking grog is the only way to give yourself enough courage to enter the burning room. But then, drinking means getting drunk, and you may pass out because of your exertion. If the room where you lie unconscious is on fire or is flooded, you die.

The submarine can get destroyed in a number of ways. There are three tracks on the board showing heat level, pressure level and oxygen level. If the marker on any of these tracks reach the last spot, the submarine is destroyed. There are also four major disasters, which, if not prevented in time, will destroy the submarine. E.g. missile malfunction, kraken attack.

Chong Sean and I played a 2-player game, controlling 2 gnomes each. I am pleased that the game has two green gnomes, a dark and a light one. So I could still stick to playing with green. We were quite conservative when trying to fix problems. In this game, every problem takes at most 10 minutes to fix. You can try to spend less time to fix a problem, but risk wasting your time because you may fail to fix it. E.g. if you decide to spend only 5 minutes, you roll a 10-sided die to see whether you manage to fix the problem. Roll and 6 or more, and you fail. Chong Sean is quite conservative and usually prefers to spend about 8 minutes on a problem. Spending more time means a higher likelihood of fixing a problem, but also less time to work on other problems.

We were relatively lucky and didn't fail many times when fixing problems. There was one turn on which I had a gut feel that I would roll a 10, so I decided to spend 10 minutes on the problem. If you spend 10 minutes, you are guaranteed to fix the problem and do not need to roll the die, but I rolled the die anyway, and it was a 10! My completely baseless prediction turned out to be true! Every time that we chose to spend 10 minutes on a task, we rolled the die anyway, just so that we could feel good if we rolled a high number.

We didn't play the traitor variant, where a gnome may abandon his comrades and win the game by himself, if the submarine is destroyed. So when we drew "hatch stuck" cards, we assigned the "stuck" tokens to the outer hatches, or to rooms which lead to the outer hatches. When you draw a "hatch stuck" event card, you roll the die to determine which room will have one of its hatches locked, but once the room is determined, you can choose which hatch to be the one to get locked. Maybe a little unthematic, but I think if otherwise the game becomes too difficult or too luck-dependent.

More and more rooms were flooded, or were on fire, or were locked up, as we retreated and decided not to spend more effort to save those rooms. As we approached the arrival time of our rescuers, we depleted the disaster deck, and now the kraken card gets shuffled in as we reshuffled the whole deck. Chong Sean said he had never seen the kraken card drawn before. The kraken is hard to defeat, because (a) you need to be able to gain access to one of the three external hatches in order to leave the submarine, and (b) you need the aqualung to be able to go outside. Guess what... we drew the kraken card soon after we started using the reshuffled disaster deck. The kraken timed event was to happen in 15 minutes. We checked the time track, and to our relief, that would be exactly at the 0 mark. The rules say the event will only happen if we pass that event marker, so we were safe. Phew...

Later on we drew yet another timed event card which we wouldn't have been able to prevent, but the event time was yet again on exactly 0 minute mark. We were very unlucky to have drawn these major disasters so soon after the deck reshuffle, but we were also very lucky that neither would occur. Eventually we won the game, with none of the three tracks nearing the last space.

Red November is quite thematic, I would say. Many things that you can or cannot do, or what can and cannot happen in the game, are logical. There are quite many types of tools available in the game, so in the beginning you'll need to spend some time looking up what they do. However there are icons to help you remember. The rules are not complex.

Han has played this before and didn't quite like it. Maybe his comments made me set my expectations lower, so I found the game to be alright. Not a game that I plan to buy, but I wouldn't mind playing again. That said, although there isn't anything in particular that I dislike, there isn't anything in particular that draws me either. Bruno Faidutti is a popular designer, but somehow I find that I don't have any particular liking in any of his games. My favourites are probably Incan Gold / Diamant and Castle. I don't quite like Citadels, maybe because I was scarred by the very slow 6/7-player games that I have played. I like Red November more than Citadels, but probably slightly less than Incan Gold.

Date: Wed 23 Sep 2009
Venue: Carcasean boardgame cafe

I bought Struggle of Empires in 2004, in Taiwan. This was my first time playing it (almost 5 years), and it was not even my copy. But I'm happy that I finally got to try it. This is a multiplayer conflict game, so it needs more players to be good. And it needs players who don't mind some conflict. I seldom have this combination, thus why the game has been unplayed for so long.

We played a 4-player game - Han, Shankaran, Chong Sean and I. I'd like to play it with 5 or more (the game supports 3 to 7 players), but it turns out that 4P is quite fun too. The backdrop of Struggle of Empires is the age of colonialism. Players are European countries competing to exert influence on other minor European powers or on distant colonies. The game is very much an area majority game. Each of the 11 regions where you can exert influence awards points to the countries having the most influence in the region. There are many ways to exert influence, population migration and shipping slaves, but most of the time, you need to fight - either the local powers, or other foreign powers. So, you build troops (navies, armies or forts), you move troops, and you fight.

So far, it still sounds a little bland. Where a lot of flavour comes in is the tiles. The game comes with a LOT of tiles, which provide special abilities. Some have one-time effects, some have ongoing effects. Some have very quirky effects. They add a lot of character to the game. What kind of country do you want to run? Which tiles would benefit you the most? There is a random set-up at the start of every game, which makes things variable. Each country will have some influence already established in some regions. At the start of each of the three wars that make up the game, there will be 10 tokens placed randomly. These are opportunities for the players to exert influence on the regions. So there is quite some variability in the game.

How scoring is done is a little unusual compared to other area majority games. Each region has 2 or 3 numbers, e.g. Central Europe is 6/4/2. The players with the most influence all get 6pts. The players with the next most influence all get 4pts. In the case of ties, everyone gets awarded the same higher score. So you just want to be one of the players with the most influence. There is less incentive to reduce the influence of other players. Gaining more points for yourself seems to be a more efficient use of your actions than trying to make others earn less points. This scoring system also seems to encourage players to have some influence in many regions, rather than having heavy influence in a few regions.

Combat resolution reminds me a little of Perikles. There is a navy support phase followed by the main combat. It is quite straight-forward. It uses dice, so there is some luck. Not as much as Risk, but still you need to be prepared for some bad luck to strike. Your basic strength come from your units and the effect of your tiles. Then you add the result of rolling two dice and taking the difference (i.e. die roll result ranges from 0 to 5).

Money is tight. It is mainly used for fighting battles ($2 each). War is expensive. There is a concept of unrest. Every time you are short of money you can take $2 from the bank at the cost of 1 unrest point. Every time a unit dies you take 1 unrest point. At game end, you lost immediately if you have too much unrest. You also lost points for having the most or second most unrest. So you need to be careful about unrest.

One interesting part of the game is the alliance system. For each of the 3 wars that make up the game, you go through an auction process to set up two alliances. Players in the same alliances are not allowed to fight each other. So if you want to attack a person, you need to make sure he's in the enemy alliance. If you want to prevent another player from attacking you, try to force him into the same alliance as you.

In our game, as expected, most of us started off attacking the neutral tokens, before attacking one another. We also tried to grab as many useful tiles as possible early in the game, so that we could benefit more from them. Chong Sean took a Euro-efficiency-peaceful approach, exerting influence as widely as possible at the most lucrative areas, while minimising conflict. Han took a more aggressive approach. Shankaran and I were probably somewhere in between, but maybe tending more towards the war-mongering side. Most of our fighting took place in Europe, some in North and Central America. Other colonies were quite peaceful. The Ottoman Empire was pretty much left alone throughout the game. No one wanted to fight the locals (i.e. the square tokens) who were strong, and they also cost you an unrest point.

By the end of the 2nd war, Chong Sean was the clear leader, followed by Han. So during the alliance phase of the 3rd and last war, we (i.e. the rest of the losers) conspired to place Chong Sean in a difference alliance from Han (2nd place) and I (3rd place), so that both of us could attack him. We did so mercilessly, even though Chong Sean has been a nice guy. He lost much influence in the 3rd war. At the start of the 3rd war, Shankaran and I started taking Reform tiles to help us get rid of unrest points. These are the only way to get rid of unrest. Chong Sean and Han didn't do this as much, and by game end they had the most and 2nd most unrest, costing them 7pts and 4pts respectively. However this penalty didn't cause any change in position. Chong Sean won the game, albeit with a smaller margin. Our scores were close.

Struggle of Empires feels more like a wargame to me than an area majority game, because there is a lot of fighting you need to do. Mechanic-wise it probably should be considered an area majority game, since most of the scoring revolves around establishing influence in the 11 regions. Maybe the theme left more of an impression on me than the mechanics, which I think is a good thing.

I was pleasantly surprised that the game plays quite well even with only 4 players. I was initially worried there may not be enough competition.

The number of tiles, and their special abilities are quite daunting. You have much freedom to shape your strategy. But this is definitely not a game for casual players. I think I probably spent as much time trying to explain the tiles as explaining the rest of the rules. I imagine this would be a turn-off for non-gamers. Also this is not a game for those who don't like conflict in their games. In Struggle of Empires, you will fight.

I enjoyed the game, and I'm keen to find out how it plays with the full complement of 7 players. Ooh... that's going to be brutal.

7 Ages is a civilisation game. It tells the story of the history of mankind, starting from the earliest ancient civilisations, to modern day nations. The game is played on a world map. Each player controls a number of empires, settling new lands, conquering enemies' territories, building cities, constructing monuments, trading with other empires. You also get to play events, develop technologies, adopt religions, gain great leaders, build armies, fight battles, suffer disasters and so on. The scope of the game is truly epic. And it takes a bloody long time to play!

Han, Chong Sean and I first played a learning game on 17 Sep 2009, playing about 1.5 ages in 2 hours. Then we scheduled another day to attempt to play a full, 7 ages, game, on 25 Sep 2009, this time with an additional player, Choo. To my surprise, we didn't even manage to play half a game. We only managed to play 3 ages in 7 hours. This may be partly because we didn't push our empires to progress as quickly as they could have done so.

How does the game work? The two main things to talk about are the cards, and the action selection. The game comes with a big deck of cards, which serve multiple purposes. Each card shows an empire, which you can start as your own. The card tells you where this empire starts, how much money you get to buy your starting units, whether you have a capital, whether you get leaders, in which ages you can start the empire, etc. Each card also has a number ranging from 0 to 7, which is used for combat resolution, trading, some event resolution, and even in determining player order at the start of the game. Each card also has a technology, or religion, or artefact, or government, which one of your empires can develop / adopt / build. Each card also has an event that you can play on your own empire or someone else's. Some are good, some are bad. There are many ways to use a card, but you can only pick one. The cards in the game provide the bulk of the flavour.

The structure of the game revolves around the action tokens. At the start of every round, every player secretly selects a number of action tokens. Then as each phase of a round is executed, players who have chosen the action token corresponding to that phase participates (in a way, this is like Race for the Galaxy). You can start a new empire, end an existing empire, discard/draw cards, move & fight, earn money & build units. You can trade cards and hopefully by "winning" (i.e. giving a better card to your trade partner) your empire gains some extra progress steps. You can choose an action called Civilise, which allow you to do many things - build cities, gain leaders, modernise your army, play event cards, found or adopt a religion, develop a technology, build a monument, etc. The tricky part of these actions is there is only one chip of each type of action. When you have multiple empires, they won't be able to do the same thing, since you can only assign one action chip to one empire. So you need to plan and coordinate. There is one Wild Card action chip that allow you to do one repeated action, but it costs one victory point, which is a big deal in this game.

The scoring in the game is done every round. Every empire has a few ways to score, e.g. controlling the most land in Asia, retaining control of its home province, being the biggest Christian empire, having the largest navy, having the most colonies outside of Europe compared to other European empires. Sometimes you must be the top player to earn points. Sometimes you earn points for being in 2nd or 3rd place. Each empire has a few ways of earning points, but we found that typically you earn about 4 points for an empire for one round, and that's an empire that's doing well. Some empires earn only 1 or 2 points, and some may even cost you points! The way empires earn points is quite thematic and also interesting, and creates much variety. When you manage multiple empires, you should try to avoid conflicting interests among your own empires. You also need to watch your opponents' empires and try to prevent them from scoring, even if it means you need to do something that does not gain you points.

There is a lot more to the game, and you'll really need to experience it to appreciate how rich the game is. Here are how our two games went.

In our learning game, we did not plan to start in Age 1. The game allows players to start in any age, but somehow we started in Age 1 anyway. I forgot who started the first empire. The first empire started determines the start age of the game. I don't remember much about our learning game, but one thing that was very funny (probably except to Han, who was the victim in that event) was how his Tamil empire was started and then immediately wiped out in the same round by a volcano eruption event played by Chong Sean. There is only one such event card in the whole deck, and Han happened to start an empire on the same round that Chong Sean had chosen to do a Civilise action (part of which allowed playing events). That was painful.

We played and learned along the way, looking up the reference sheets and rulebook and player guide. There were quite many elements which I simply ignored and did not try to utilise, because there were simply too many things to think about and to read up. Even after having played 2 games, there are still many aspects of the game that I'm not familiar with yet. I just read and learn along the way, and if I find something (some leadership power, or some government, or religion, or artefact etc) useful, I try to incorporate it into one of my empires. 7 Ages is not a game you should try to know inside out before you start playing.

For our second game, we made arrangements to meet up at 8am to start playing on a Friday. Some of us took leave from work to play. 8am is even earlier than a work day! We agreed to start in Age 1, so that we could experience the full scope of the game. The start of the game was quirky. Neither Han nor Chong Sean had any Age 1 empires in their starting hands. They were late by 2 to 3 rounds to start even their first empire, because they had to spend actions refreshing their hands trying to get Age 1 empires. Han was the last to start any empire, which was a big handicap.

Choo, who played for the first time, had a very good start and played quite well. Drawing the Romans certainly didn't hurt, and he chose the intimidating black counters for the Romans. The quantity and quality of the units of the 15 colours in the game are not the same, and the black set is the strongest (but I think they are less in numbers). Competition in Europe and Asia (in this game, Asia is Middle East to Siberia, excluding China, India, and North East Asia) was fierce. Europe was very crowded. Asia had two aggressive empires - Chong Sean's Huns, which were mobile (normally empires are not allowed to vacate an occupied territory, thus reducing mobility and ability to attack others), and later Han's Mongols. Asia was not a safe place. The Middle East part of Asia was busy too. Choo had the Arabs and founded Islam there. There were a few North African empires.

China saw a number of dynasties fighting one another. None of the dynasties were very lasting. The first two (I can't remember exactly - Shang and Xia maybe) fought bitterly. Later I started Tang, but it was quickly crippled when the Mongols appeared. I hurriedly ended the Tang empire. The glorious (in real life) Tang Dynasty only lasted as long as an ice-cream on a hot summer day. Later on Han started the Ming Dynasty, which did much better, and even started conquering Indian territory.

The Tamil empire was the only one ever started in India. Coincidentally, exactly like in our previous learning game, Chong Sean had the volcano event and could have wiped out the Tamils just as they came out. What luck?! (Maybe I should say in the deep Darth Vader voice, "It is your DES-tiny") And I was the one who traded that card to him earlier. But he decided to be merciful and kept the card for another use. Surprisingly noone bothered the Tamils, and they spent quite some time expanding (even to South East Asia) and earning points for me.

There was little activity in the Americas. I was the only one to have started an empire there, I think the Aztecs (or Incas?) in South America. They didn't have much victory point earning potential, and just gave me 2 points every round. Not much, but at least reliable. I barely developed this empire, so they continued to live in trees for a long time.

Towards the end of Age 3, we started to see some colonisation-type empires. Chong Sean was first to have a European empire with a goal (and fulfilling it) of having the most non-European territories. We never progressed past Age 3. The concept of progress in 7 Ages has some similarity to Civilization. At the end of every round, every empire progresses one step for free, unless it is on a dark age space, or it has used the Wild Card action. If an empire is on a dark age space on the progress chart, it can only progress through trade, i.e. it must choose the Trade & Progress action and "win" the trade. By choosing Trade & Progress, an empire may progress up to 3 steps - one for "winning" the trade, one more if you are less advanced than your trade partner, and one for being the one to initiate the trade. The last space of Age 3 on the progress chart is a dark age space, and for the last few rounds of our game, the two empires stuck on that space kept being stuck and did not manage to progress to Age 4 through trade. So we blamed Han and Choo for keeping everyone in the Dark Ages. They were the ones with empires on the brink of progressing to the next age.

We agreed to play till 4:30pm, so we stopped then. Chong Sean had overtaken Choo and was the leading player by a comfortable margin. Chong Sean had earned some good points from artefacts and leader abilities. I was second place, with Choo close behind. Han was still in last place, despite having played aggressively and played well, due to his unlucky start and early game.

So we've played less than half a game. And we've spent 7 hours, excluding lunch break. We gradually saw some changes in the nature of the empires. I expect the gameplay would gradually change as new empires came into play, and new units, new technologies, government forms, religions too. We had started seeing some improved horsed units, infantry and ships rendering the oldest units less effective. The later empires would also score higher per round. There was still so much more to experience and to explore. If I get a chance to play 7 Ages again I would grab it, and I wouldn't hesitate to try to complete a full game.

7 Ages is enjoyable. It is also very long. Being long is not bad in itself, but I do find it a little tedious. I wonder whether there is some way to simplify or streamline it. Maybe simplying the combat system or the units themselves. The game covers very many aspects of civilisation building, but it seems that a lot of the emphasis is in fighting, which is a shame. I'm not sure whether this is because of the way we played. Other groups may have different experiences. Many of the scoring conditions are related to controlling territories, so it seems you can't really run away from fighting over territory.

This is definitely a daunting game. I joked with Han that it's reference sheets have more pages than many Eurogame rules. Han printed out a player guide / player aid prepared by a fan of the game, it was practically a thick book! So this is definitely a gamer's game. In a way, this is also an experience game. Sometimes you really can be screwed by bad luck. Sometimes you get hit by bad events. You watch your empires rise and fall. But I would say you still make many decisions and take an active role in steering your empires. There is an element of diplomacy in the game. If there is an obvious runaway leader, other players can and should cooperate to keep him in check. In this way, some luck is balanced out.

One last point about 7 Ages - come to think of it, this is actually a very educational game! Well, maybe except the part that Jesus Christ is one of the leaders you can choose to lead your Roman empire.

Date: Fri 25 Sep 2009
Venue: Carcasean boardgame cafe

Airships is a dice game by Andreas Seyfarth, designer of Puerto Rico and Thurn & Taxis, both award winning games. In the past few years there seems to have been a burst of dice games being published. In many of them, you can roll dice multiple times, and each time you freeze a certain number of dice. This seems to be the most common mechanism for dice games. Airships is different - your only roll your dice once. The game moves faster and there is less waiting time between players.

The game is about collecting tools to eventually help you build airships. You score most of your points by building airships. Some tools also give points if you manage to acquire them. At the start of the game, you can roll two white dice on your turn. On the game board there are various tools (cards) available to be acquired. Each card tells you the requirements to acquire it, and the benefit it gives. Requirements are stated in the form of using a specific number of dice in a specific colour (or some specific combination of colours), and a target number. E.g. two white dice and one red die, to achieve 10. So if you want to target that tool, you must have the ability to roll at least two white dice and one red die. It would be better if you have the ability to roll more, because then after you roll the dice, you can pick the ones with higher numbers. The dice in the three different colours, white, red and black, have different number distributions.

When you win a card, it gives a certain benefit, e.g. allowing you to roll an additional red die starting from your next turn, or allowing you to add 1 to a black die, or allowing you to roll two red dice in lieu of three white dice. There are 6 types of tools, and your player board can only accommodate one of each type, which means if you get a tool of a type which you already have, you must discard the old one. This makes things interesting. I found that I could never really build a perfect engine. There just aren't enough slots (or enough time) to build myself some invincible combination that allows me to roll 3 white, 3 red and 3 black dice. You are forced to make tough choices and to choose a path. Do you go for more red dice and fewer black ones? Do you go for a smaller number of each type of dice?

Building an airship works the same way as acquiring a tool. The requirements are laid out in the same format. The reward is victory points, instead of new abilities. There are two ways that the game can end - either all four stacks of normal airships are depleted down to one card or less, or the all four stages of the Hindenburg, the largest of all airships, are built. This creates a twist in the end game, as different players may have different interests in how they want the game to end. The victory points for building stages of the Hindenburg vary depending on whether the Hindenburg is completed, so if you have spent effort on the Hindenburg, you'd want to make sure it gets completed.

One thing that makes Airships quite different from many other dice games is you make the decision before you roll your dice. You don't roll, and then see what you get, and then decide how to use them or which ones to freeze or which ones to reroll. The key decision is which tool (or airship) to target for when your turn comes. You evaluate the risks and rewards before you roll your dice. There is also a long term strategy element in the game. You need to think of how far you want to improve your engine (dice rolling ability) before you start targeting the airships. You need to think of how to customise your engine. The game moves quickly and you don't have much time to fiddle around trying to fine-tune your engine. It's a race!

Our 4-player game played quite quickly. Some four players who had just played 7 Ages for 7 hours, so Airships was a light closer for the day. Chong Sean was rather unlucky, and actually ended the game with 0pts! In Cantonese:

This is a topic I have been wanting to write about for quite some time, but never quite got around to it, because it's a heavy topic that makes me think a lot. I'd have to really sit down to think about it from various angles, and to organise my thoughts, before posting this blog post. Of course, the main reason I want to write about it is because I do this - I self make games which are designed by other people (here's a link to when I last wrote about this), and I play these self-made copies. Is this right or wrong?

First, there are different ways to define what's right and what's wrong. Legally right and morally right are different. The latter will probably have different interpretations, depending on your background, your culture, your world view. Let's start from the legal viewpoint. If I'm making a copy to play with my own friends, and not making a business profit out of it, I think this is not against any law. If I don't freely (as in "without care", not "free of charge") share the tools, equipment and techniques that I use for making a home-made game, I think I'm not breaking any law. Based on my limited understanding, the line is crossed only if you are making a profit out of it.

I have read on BoardGameGeek a discussion about a version of Bang released commercially in China. The Chinese version has a Romance of the Three Kingdoms theme, and is much richer than the original Bang, with more characters, more powers, weapons, etc. However, from reading the description (I have not played either game), it seems very obvious to me the Chinese version (I forget the name) is obviously based on Bang. And the designer of Bang was never credited, and never received any royalty or fee. To me, this is wrong. But there are some who think differently. I have read that only game rules and artwork are copyrighted, as written / drawn. If you use the same game concepts, or use rewritten rules, it's not illegal, as long as you don't copy the text straight and don't re-use artwork. If so, I guess this Chinese version is not illegal, but I'd say it's wrong, from a moral perspective.

Well, this is one extreme - plagiarism (in my opinion). And it's for commercial use.

How about if it is only for personal use? It can be argued that if you self-make a game, then you are depriving the game designer and the publisher of one sale. If you support the designer / publisher, and think their work should be rewarded, you should buy their game. Why self-make a game and not support the designer / publisher? There can be many reasons:

1. Try-before-buy: You are not sure whether you'll like the game. You don't have easy access to try it, e.g. a friend's copy, or a shop's demo copy. So you make your own copy and see whether you like the game. For me, I find that more often than not I don't end up buying a copy of the real game. Usually that's because I found that I didn't like the game as much as I had thought I would (e.g. Medici & Strozzi, Felix: the cat in the sack). Or I just don't play the game a lot (e.g. Incan Gold, R-Eco). There are some exceptions, e.g. I eventually got Ra (a gift), Modern Art. Should I feel obliged to buy a real copy of the game if I like it? Or if I like it enough to play it more than X number of times? Even when the home-made copy works just fine?
2. Cost: In Malaysia, the cost to buy a game (well, at least the type of game that boardgame hobbyists buy) is not cheap to an average Malaysian. If I were an American or European making a living in US Dollars or in Euro, games would be much cheaper. Also I usually buy from overseas, because not all the games that I want to buy are available at local shops or local online shops. So shipping cost is a factor.
3. Speed: Sometimes I just can't wait. E.g. Ra: the dice game. I can't wait for the next overseas bulk order that I make (usually only 2 or 3 times in a year). I can't wait for the local shop / online retailer to stock the game.
4. Availability: Sometimes the local retailers do not stock the games I'm interested in. Sometimes I make games because they are out of print, e.g. when I made Ra in 2004, or Traumfabrik / Hollywood Blockbuster.
5. Retheme: I self-made Traumfabrik using files downloaded from BoardGameGeek which use more modern-day (~1990's) movies and actors / actresses. I quite like that, and I have no interest in getting the Uberplay-published Hollywood Blockbuster which uses cartoonised / humourously tweaked movie, actor and actress names. I am also not interested in the original Traumfabrik with movies from around the 1930's, because I don't know the movies and celebrities from that era.

Would a game designer to happy or upset to find that someone had self-made his game? Will he be happy or proud that a person has gone to such lengths to home-make his game? Or will he be unhappy that he is denied his reward in the form of another copy of his game sold?

I will continue to self-make games. I realise that I'm doing this less and less though, probably because there aren't many games that are easy to self-make that I am interested in. There's no way I'm going to home-make a game like Race for the Galaxy with so many different cards. My tolerance for time spent on self-making a game is also less now. I can't imagine myself spending the kind of time and effort on self-making Ra (200+ tiles) and Traumfabrik now.

Do you think self-making a game is right? Or when is it right and when is it wrong, if such a distinction can be made?

Castellers was one of the games that Chong Sean ordered, when he, Han and I pooled together to order a batch of games from Canada. Since he is in KK, the earliest that he will be able to get his hands on his game is next month, when Han has a business trip to KL, and can bring it to KK for him. I put all his and Han's games in one corner, waiting for Han to pick them up next month. I was surprised (pleasantly) when Chong Sean asked me to open up his games and play them and share with him some photos. To gamers (or maybe it's just me), opening another gamer's game is worse than sacrilege. Opening a new game is a sacred ritual - ripping off the plastic wrap, listening to the first box fart (if any), punching out the cardboard components, bagging them and so on. Only with Chong Sean's blessing, I went ahead to open up Castellers and gave it a go.

The theme of Castellers is a traditional sport in Spain, where teams compete to build the tallest human tower. The current world record is 10 levels high, which is quite amazing. In the game, you build these human towers using nice big wooden blocks. Everyone starts with a hand-size of two blocks. On your turn you have two actions which you can use freely. The three possible actions are: (a) drawing a block from the bag, (b) adding a block to a tower, including building a new tower, and (c) swapping your block(s) with an opponent's single block and immediately adding that single block to your tower. When building a tower, there are only a few rules you need to remember: (a) blocks must be of the some colour, (b) you must complete one level before you start the next - your tower can be of any width, but once you start building on the 2nd level, you have committed to the width for that tower (i.e. the width of Level 1), and (c) a block above another must have a larger number - numbers range from 1 to 7.

Not all towers score points for you. For a tower to be "active", it needs at least two complete levels and at least 4 blocks, e.g. a 2-width 2-height tower, or a 1-width 4-height tower. Towers score according to the number of blocks in them, and some blocks give 2pts instead of 1. There are bonuses for widest tower and tallest tower. For each tower that you build, you deduct 1pt. This discourages you from building many useless towers.

I have only played one learning game with Michelle. We were both quite conservative about starting towers, and spent many turns drawing blocks and hoping to get good hands before we started building. The game was very quick. I started building earlier, and ended the game before Michelle could do more building. She underestimated how quickly the game could end, and this costed her the game.

Castellers is a simple and quick game. It is meant for 2-4 players, but I'm not sure how well it works with two. I have a feeling it's not tense enough, because probably both players will try to build in all four, or at least three, of the colours. I think with more players things will be more exciting, because you'll have to watch out for more opponents force-swapping your blocks. There will probably be more tension in choosing the colours to build in too. This is my gut feel.

One thing that I didn't like is the production. I think this is clearly a case of physical attractiveness over practicality. The blocks only have stickers on one side, so you need to place your towers at an add angle so that both you and your opponents can easily (read "with bearable trouble") see them. The publisher probably could have provided double the sticker sheets, but peeling and pasting the stickers to the blocks would be double the work. The round bases that come with the game seem unnecessary to me. Also they are not wide enough if I want to build a tower of width 4. I would have preferred the game to be implemented as a card game. But of course it wouldn't look as impressive.

A passerby may think this is a Jenga-like game, where the towers are eventually supposed to collapse. They're not. Please don't cheer if you see another group playing this and a tower collapses.

2 de Mayo means 2nd of May. The game refers to events that took place on 2 May 1808 in French-occupied Spanish capital Madrid, when local citizens revolted against the French army, the strongest army in Europe at the time. This is a very asymmetric game. It is a short game with simple rules, but it also has a lot of theme. It feels very different playing the two sides of the conflict.

The French are much greater in numbers in this game. To win, they need to kill off all Spanish units, and secure all 4 entry points to the city, by the end of Round 10. The Spanish win if they can prevent this. They can also score an instant win if they kill 4 French units.

At the start of a round, players each draw an event card from their respective decks. These cards can be played any time. You just follow instructions on them. Most are useful to you, but some are a hindrance, or benefit your opponent. There are 11 cards per side, and 10 rounds in a game, which means only 1 card will not be drawn. So knowing the cards well will help you. E.g. there are a pair of Spanish cards which allow a Spanish instant win by killing only 3 French units. Also there is one French card which cancels one Spanish move order in Round 10.

After drawing cards, players secretly write down their move orders for the round. The two side have different rules when moving. The French can only make two orders, except for groups starting in 3 specific areas (main streets of Madrid). Also French units cannot leave an area where fighting is taking place. However, the French can split their groups when moving, unlike the Spanish, whose units must move together once they have met up. The Spanish units can break away from fights though, but they must leave behind half the units to continue the fight (well, I guess more often than not to die holding off the French so that the rest can escape). The Spanish does not have limitations on how many orders they can issue.

Move orders are revealed simultaneously. Then the Spanish move, before the French do. Once movement is done, fighting (where units from both sides coexist in the same area) is resolved. The side with more units kill one unit of the losing side. If you outnumber your opponent by twice the number of units, you kill 2 enemy units. If your numbers are triple that of your opponents, you kill 3, and so on. If both sides are equally matched, noone gets killed.

So the game is very straight-forward: draw card, write and reveal orders, move, fight.

What amazes me is how flavourful the game feels. Michelle (as the French) and I (as the Spanish) played the game without reading any of the cards beforehand (intentionally). The cards add a lot of flavour to the game because they introduce exceptions to the game, making the two sides very different. The movement rules themselves already make the two sides quite different. The game reminds me a little of Lord of the Rings: The Confrontation, because of how asymmetric the two sides are. But of course the gameplay is completely different.

In our game, I started off trying to kill the lone French unit in area 10. The game starts with one French unit in area 10 already engaged in fighting, which means it can't leave, and is a sitting duck because it is surrounded. Unfortunately Michelle played an event card that prevented any French in area 10 from getting killed. What luck. I tried to score an instant win by killing off four French units. At the start of the game most of the French units were outside the city, and those inside were quite scattered. So if I wanted to do this I'd have to do it quickly. Michelle played another event card that effectively sealed off the southern part of the city from me (because she controlled areas 15 and 16 - one of the main streets). Her reinforcements marched into the city slowly but steadily.

I was getting my hand full of useless cards. Holding useless cards is worse than not having cards, because if you hold 3 cards (or more) more than your opponent, your opponent can stop you from drawing cards. There were a few rounds that I couldn't draw cards. I tried to mass my units to fight some of the smaller French groups. I was only able to kill two units before my group was surrounded. It was a lost cause, so my next option was to try to survive until Round 10. I played one event card that allowed my remaining two units to skip one fighting round (i.e. no casualty for that group for that round only). The group was already engaged in fighting. I still held one card that allowed me to add +1 strength. I only had one more round to go. I had planned to move one of my two units out of the fight, to a neighbouring area with two French units. Normally that single unit would have been killed, but with the +1 strength card, I would match the French strength, and would not be eliminated. Unfortunately for me, Michelle had two (!) cards that could cancel my move order. So my plan didn't work out. The last two rebel units were defeated by the French army.

2 de Mayo is quite an interesting and fun game, despite seemingly so simple. After one game, I'm not so sure yet whether the best strategy for the Spanish is to go for the 4-kill instant win, or to try to last until Round 10; to disperse its forces to try to avoid getting caught, or to group together to fight. The game is mostly open information, the only randomness being introduced by the cards. Since 10 out of 11 cards will come into play in every game, the difference from game to game will mostly be in the order the players get the cards. This can affect the players' strategy a lot though. Another factor of unpredictability is, of course, how your opponent makes his move orders. There is some bluffing and double-guessing in this aspect of the game.

Replayability may be a concern, since the main difference from game to game is just the order of the cards appearing. But this may not be a game that you want to play over and over all the time. You probably want to play this 5 - 10 times when you first buy it, and after that only pull it out once in a while.

I'd like to talk about computer versions of boardgames which have AI's or computer opponents that you can play against. I'm not talking about computer interfaces for human vs human play, be it real-time or play-by-e-mail. I am of the opinion that these computer versions will generally spoil the game for you. In the past I have not really thought much about this, but now I'd like to look into why these computer versions spoil the original boardgames, at least for me.

The first time I noticed this happening was with St Petersburg. It was quite popular when it came out, and I think it even won the DSP award, probably the most prestigious gamer's game award. Then there was a computer version released. I played against the computer AI's a few times, not really a lot, and soon the game lost its shine. It became very mechanical to play.

Something similar happened to Yspahan, which I also own the physical boardgame of.

I learned to play Kingsburg solely from the computer version. I think I only played one game, and I was turned off by the experience. I had no urge to try again, or to try a physical copy.

Here are the reasons that I can think of that computer versions can spoil a game:

1. Overdose - If you play too many times within a short period of time, you'll just tire of the game very quickly. Does this mean that if you only play the physical copy, you'll also tire of it after the same number of plays? E.g. by the 10th play of a game, you'd feel that you've explored all the strategies there are to the game. If so then it may be a problem of the game. But I think having too many plays within a short time can make you sick of a game. Overdose.

2. "Solvable" - Now I don't mean solvable as in there is a sure-fire way to win a game given a certain start condition. I mean "solvable" as in at any point in a game, based on the information that you know, there is always one ideal move you should make. It may or may not be obvious, but of course if it is obvious, then the situation is even worse. If an AI can be programmed to play a game competently, then maybe there isn't really a lot of depth to the game. If it only take some calculations and some card-counting to write a competent AI, then it may mean the game can be easily analysed for ideal moves given any game situation. It may mean that there aren't really any meaningful choices to make. There is always a best move, even if sometimes it takes some time to work it out. That's no fun.

   There are good AI's for Chess. I don't think Chess is a game without depth. But I think some AI's written for some modern Eurogames are not as complex as Chess AI's.

   I have not looked at the program codes for the AI's, so I'm just making unfounded claims here. My gut feel is that generally the existance of a competent AI for a game (often Euro games) means that the game is actually not very deep. The shallowness of the game is exposed. I'm sorry to say this about Euro games, as I'm actually mainly a Euro game fan.

3. Too fast - I'm not sure how to explain this. This may not make much sense. I think you will enjoy playing a game with 3 other human players for 1 hour, more than playing a game with 3 AI players for 15 minutes, even if every single move in these two games are exactly the same. Same setup, same results. This sounds absurd. You waste 45 minutes and you like that more?! Maybe it's the human touch, the human interaction. Maybe you feel you are playing against smart opponents and not dumb programs. You think about what your opponents are thinking, and not how the programs are written. Your human opponents can be more unpredictable. You spend more time, but you are enjoying the time exploring the possibilities in the game, not hurriedly trying to solve a math problem. Playing against AI's feels so mechanical.

Surprisingly, I could actually go back to playing the boardgame versions of St Petersburg and Yspahan and still enjoy myself. That was some time after my last vs-AI games, so I have pretty much forgotten most of the tactics and the bitter taste. I needed a little effort to remember the strategies and to rediscover the games, and I enjoyed these. The strategies came back easily, and I was soon playing quickly. And yet I still enjoyed the games. I wonder whether I am simply prejudiced against AI's.

There are counter examples. I have played Blue Moon against AI's, and it didn't sour the game for me at all. The AI is pretty good. I don't know how the programmer did it. I am quite impressed. Yet the AI's tactics didn't feel formulaic. Admittedly sometimes it makes strange moves or bad moves. At least them seemed so to me. But overall playing against the Blue Moon AI was challenging and enjoyable.

There is now an AI for Race for the Galaxy too. I have not tried it yet, and am hesitant, because Race for the Galaxy is one of my favourite games, and I don't want the AI experience to spoil it for me. I may never get around to trying this AI. Anyway, this is one game that my wife is usually willing to play.

Although I think computer versions of games (those with AI's) spoil the games for me, I think computer versions which just provide an interface for human vs human play are very handy. The Ticket to Ride implementation is done very well. It does all the tiresome train-placing, card-holding, card-shuffling, map-checking for you. You can play a game in less than a quarter of the time when playing a physical copy. Dominion is another good example. The computer takes care of all the card shuffling for you, which is a lot of effort saved.

So, computer good. AI bad. Not because they are incompetent (like many PC games AI's are), but because they expose how shallow some of our hobby games actually are, or because sometimes humans are just so hard to please.

Space Alert is one very unusual game. It is cooperative and real-time. It is by Vlaada Chvatil from the Czech Republic, who designed Through the Ages and Galaxy Trucker (both of which I like a lot), and often has very innovative and interesting ideas for games. In Space Alert, you and your teammates need to defend your spaceship for 10 minutes. If you survive, you win. The "real" part of the game is played in real-time. You listen to a sound track (there are many to choose from to provide some variety) which tells you about enemy attacks, ship malfunctions, communications downtimes, etc. During these 10 minutes, you plan your actions using your hand of cards. It sounds simple - you are just putting cards down onto 12 spaces, but it is actually quite tricky, requiring good coordination among the teammates in real-time. It's very chaotic! Once the soundtrack is over, you do an evaluation round, basically reenacting everything that had happened step by step, to see whether you survived.

I have played six games of this, and I have not even played a real mission yet! I am still playing the tutorials, and still failing them! There are three levels of tutorials - Test Runs, Simulations and Advanced Simulations. They introduce the game to you bit by bit, with new elements and new challenges being added at each new level. For now I have only reached Simulations. And I am not even beating the game yet! In fact, even for my very first Test Run, I (well, we) lost the game. I had thought the Test Run was designed to be impossible to lose.

So what do you do during a game? To summarise, you move and you press buttons. As simple as that. There are 6 rooms on the spaceship, each having 3 buttons performing different functions. The A buttons are for shooting. Each room has a different cannon, with different fire-powers, ranges and power sources, and also pointing in different directions. You often need to coordinate with your teammates to shoot at an approaching enemy at the same time, because it is much more effective in damaging your enemy. B buttons are all related to managing energy - for charging up defensive shields, moving energy cubes to where they are needed, and charging up your energy core. This is a very important aspect, which we learnt the hard way. There was one game when we (Afif, Sui Jye, Jing Yi and I) planned a very well coordinated shooting, only to find that our cannons had run out of energy cubes. Click! Click! We failed to destroy the approaching enemy, and lost the game miserably.

Then there are the C buttons, which do different things. Some allow you to control combat robots, which are needed to fight enemies which are on board. One allows you to fire homing missiles. One simply allows you to score additional victory points, but I think in this game that's the last thing I'm going to care about. I need to learn to survive first. There's even one C button that is for making sure that the computer screensaver doesn't come up to interrupt your actions. Apparently the operating system of the spaceship computer was sponsored, and thus has a screensaver with advertising content.

There are many different types of enemies in the game, which approach at different speeds, attack at different strengths, and have different shield strengths. There are also internal threats - sometimes enemies that board your spaceship, sometimes systems malfunctions. In each mission, these are randomly drawn, and you only see a few of them. This gives the game some replayability. There are some time tracks that vary how quickly enemies approach and how often and how soon they attack. Four time tracks are drawn randomly to be placed at different parts of the ship. This too increases variety.

Space Alert is a game that needs a dedicated group of players. It is actually not easy to beat, and requires good cooperation among the players. You need players who are interested enough to play it multiple times and work through the tutorials to get to the real missions. If you only play with casual players, you may never reach the real missions. I wonder whether the game will lose its appeal after you win a few real missions, the way some PC or console adventure games lose their appeal after you beat them. But even if this happens, I think I would have gained a lot of value from the game. I suspect the game will continue to be interesting even after I learn to beat the normal missions, like how Galaxy Trucker (also by Vlaada Chvatil) and Pandemic are.

Space Alert is probably a game that needs 4 or 5 players. With less than four, you need to introduce android characters, which are ordered around by the other human players. This is not very ideal when you are still trying to learn the game. There are enough for you to worry about without androids. You probably want to play with less than four after you are familiar with the game. But I think the game is meant for 4 or 5, because the fun is in overcoming the chaos of many players trying to coordinate their actions to save the spaceship.

There is one thing which I wonder whether I have been doing right. When I play the game, I don't try to move the pieces on the board much. I only sometimes move my character, to remind myself where I am. I don't remove energy cubes spent, I don't move enemy markers, I don't mark the damage done to my spaceship or to the enemies. I think I probably should do that, because that would help a lot in visualising what's happening. That would take some effort from everyone, because you need to synchronise the changes made to the board with your teammates. Else it may cause even more confusion, or worse, cause wrong planning. I should do this next time I play, and let's see whether I will fare better.

So this is just an initial impression of Space Alert. Hopefully the next time I write about this game I will have beaten some normal missions.

Let's start with the "misc" part. In July, I made my first ever eBay purchase - an old copy of Civilization (the Gibson Games edition, which is much cheaper than the Avalon Hill edition). I only recently received the game. I was worried for a while whether it was lost in the mail. I did ask for the game to be sent by surface mail. It took more than 2.5 months to arrive. Well, at least it's here. The game is quite old, you can't tell it by looking at the photo on eBay. You'd need to look very closely to see how the board and the rules are turning brownish. I guess that's unavoidable for such an old game. My copy of unplayed Advanced Third Reich, which is probably half the age, is in about the same condition. Most of the game pieces were unpunched. The previous owner only punched out components for two players (max 7 players). She probably played a two-player game and thought the game sucked. Indeed I don't think the game works with two. I'm happy that only one counter is missing. And it is the generic round people/coin counter, which I think would rarely affect a game, unless you are poor in managing your people / money. Now I wonder when I'll get to play this copy of Civilization. It's a long game, and is not exactly easy to get to the table.

I read many boardgame blogs (using Google Reader, a wonderful, time-saving tool), and visit www.boardgamegeek.com almost every day. I read many game reviews. I have no doubt that I spend more time visiting boardgame websites and blogging about boardgames than actually playing games. Which is a bit sad. One thing that I have learnt from the many reviews reading and games playing is that you should not let others' negative opinions of a game impede your own enjoyment of that game.

The easiest example that most gamers can relate to is probably Monopoly. There was a time when it was trendy and cool to declare one's hatred of Monopoly at BoardGameGeek (well, perhaps it still is). I think many new gamers get brainwashed into thinking that Monopoly is a bad game. It isn't really that bad. And if you do enjoy it, why let others reduce your enjoyment of it, even if it really is a bad game? Axis & Allies is another example. Some people dismiss it as a "dice fest". I remember this was one phrase that struck me when I first got into the hobby. Why do some people feel so negative about Axis & Allies, a game which I thought was excellent? Why is this game ranked in the 200's (it was 2003)? Shouldn't this be top 10 material? Puerto Rico? (then #1 game) Never heard of it.

Some bloggers and reviewers are very enjoyable to read. Whether giving a positive or negative review of a game, they articulate their rationale very well and point out the strengths or weaknesses of the game. They do very good in-depth analyses of games and give thought-provoking opinions. E.g. Chris Farrell and Brian Bankler. Because of how well their arguments are worked out, I have been swayed by their opinions before, and I questioned whether some games that I liked were actually not that good afterall. They are probably right about the weaknesses of the games, but I later realised that these weaknesses may not be issues for me, or have not turned up in the games that I have played. So I should not have thought less of the games that I liked, only because other people, with different tastes and different tolerances for different flaws in games, have different opinions of these games.

There is some random screwage in the end-game of Power Grid, but I don't play it often enough (despite being a game I really like) to have this crop up. Through the Ages is called a massive accounting exercise, but I've never had so much fun doing accounting. Sometimes luck in card draw can make or break your game, but it never was an issue for the many games that I have played. Pandemic doesn't seem to be all that deep. Sometimes it feels like you'd lose no matter what you do, because you have very bad luck with the card draws. However, I still enjoy the game after more than 40 plays, and I can't even explain why. Now that I have the Pandemic: On the Brink expansion, I expect many more plays out of the game.

Sometimes ignorance is bliss. Some reviewers dissect games very well and expose all the flaws or the single paths to victory. Coke shipping (I think) is supposed to be the single most efficient way to win Le Havre. I read this somewhere. I have not tried it myself, and do not intend to. I have only played 11 games of Le Havre and have not found any game-breaking flaw myself. I intend to keep playing and enjoying the game, exploring the game myself. Maybe one day I will eventually see all the flaws and stop playing the game. For now I'll just be happy enjoying the game as a non-expert player.

This contradicts somewhat with one of my other views. I also think that to really enjoy a game, you need to be good at it, and play against others who are equally good. The game then becomes much more exciting and interesting. I guess what I am saying is you should have your own pace in exploring and improving yourself at a game. Games are about having fun, and ultimately not about winning at all costs. That's why I normally don't read strategy articles about games. I'd rather make mistakes and learn from them. It's much more fun figuring out strategies by yourself.

I now tell myself not to read reviews of games that I already own, especially if I like them. If it is a game that I don't like, I may still read a positive review, because it may tell me what I am missing. When there is so much to read on BGG, and so many new games to learn more about, the last thing you should do is feel bad about games you already own. And like.

So far I have only played one of the three main variants in the Pandemic: On the Brink expansion, the Virulent Strain variant. This is the simplest of the three, and thus easiest to convince Michelle to play. She is allergic to new games and new rules, despite being a fan of Through the Ages.

Let's start from the beginning. Here are what come with this expansion and what I think of them so far. There are more special action cards, and a new rule about how many such cards are to be included in any game. The number should be twice the number of players in the game. In the base game we had a fixed number of 5 special event cards. The new special action cards are interesting, and having this new rule means you'll never know which cards you'll get in a game. A new surprise element. I like this.

There are more new roles now. Some are more interesting than others. There is a new, stronger version of the Operations Expert. This addition gives more replayability. I like this too.

There are component upgrades / changes. The expansion gives you 6 plastic petri dishes for your wooden components. They look good, and they are handy to keep your components sorted. One minor complaint is sometimes it is harder to pick up a disease cube from the petri dish than from your table. The new set of pawns are smaller, which is good. The old ones really are too big. The new cards have a linen finish. It seems many people are asking for this, so Z-man Games decided to do this. I don't really mind linen finish or otherwise. The cards are thinner though, and the colour is slightly lighter. That's a pity, because sometimes when I look at the player card deck I can tell that the top card is a new card (colour is lighter). Z-man offered to give for free a set of replacement cards with linen finish. I have sent out my request. I hope to receive it safely (not necessarily soon), so that all the cards would look and feel the same.

The three main variants in the expansion are the Virulent Strain variant, the Mutation variant and the Bio-terrorist variant. I've only played the first, so I'll just talk about this one. When you play the Virulent Strain variant, you use a different set of epidemic cards. There are 8 epidemic cards for the Virulent Strain variant, each discribing a different additional effect that affects one of the four diseases - the one with the virulent strain. You randomly pick a number of cards from these 8, depending on the difficulty that you are playing on. Michelle and I played on medium difficulty, i.e. 5 epidemic cards.

When the first epidemic card comes up, you'll do the same things as a normal epidemic, but you'll need to then determine which of the four diseases has the virulent strain, before performing the additional activity as directed by the epidemic card. The disease with the most number of cubes on the board is the one with the virulent strain. Every time an epidemic card comes up, something will happen to that virulent strain disease. E.g. you have to remove four cubes from the game (i.e. it becomes easier for you to lose the game by running out of cubes of that colour), or from that time onwards whenever an outbreak occurs for the virulent strain disease, it counts as two outbreaks (i.e. it becomes easier for you to lose by reaching 8 outbreaks).

Michelle and I normally play Pandemic at difficult level. When we played the Virulent Strain variant, we decided to start with medium difficulty. It took us four tries to beat the game. We found that we often had to try to cure the virulent strain disease first, or even completely eradicate it. Otherwise it would cause too much trouble. Sometimes it is hard to eradicate the disease. In such cases, we at least had to try to contain it well, to have a chance at winning. Sometimes we spend so much effort on it, we lost the game because of other normal diseases that we couldn't take care of.

A funny thing happened in one of our games. We had a bad chain of outbreaks, and as we placed red cubes onto the board, we found that the chain of outbreaks had precisely used up our red cubes (which meant we lost)! What a disappointment. We thought we did quite well. Then suddenly we remembered that our 2-year-old daughter was playing with the red cubes just a moment ago. She had gone on to play with the laptop. We both turned to her to check whether she took any red cubes. We opened one hand and then the other, and found one red cube! All was not lost yet! Chen Rui was our saviour for the day. Unfortunately it was a short day. We still lost that game soon afterwards.

I enjoyed the Virulent Strain variant. It throws some nasty surprises at you and gives you more challenges. It does force you to pay more attention to the virulent strain disease, but it can still be tough to decide how much effort you want to spend on it. Just cure it or try to eradicate it too? If it's too hard to eradicate, how far are you willing to go to try to contain it, hoping that doing this will buy you more time to cure the other diseases?

Now I'm looking forward to try the Mutation variant. The Bio-terrorist variant is a very different beast, with similarities to Scotland Yard. I'm not sure it works with 2 players, where the good player controls two characters. So I may not get to try this anytime soon.

Han was in town, and despite a very hectic weekend, we managed to arrange a last-minute session to play Middle-Earth Quest, a game that Han has been very keen to play. This is an adventure game set in the world of Lord of the Rings, in a period between the time of the story in The Hobbit and the time of the story in Lord of the Rings itself. Sauron is preparing to gain control of Middle-Earth, and a band of heroes are trying to stop that. They need to win the game to steer the story to the starting point of Lord of the Rings. If they lose, there will be no Lord of the Rings. No Peter Jackson's Oscar-winning movies. No Risk: Lord of the Rings. No Lord of the Rings Monopoly. No society of people speaking Elven language. No tons and tons of Lord of the Rings merchandise and spin-offs. In short, the heroes have an important job.

One player plays Sauron. Up to three other players each play a hero character. The good guys have a story marker that progresses at a more or less fixed pace along a story track, towards a Finale space. The bad guy has three such story markers. He wants to move one of them to the Finale space, or all three of them to another mid-point Shadows Fall space. Both sides start the game with a randomly drawn secret mission. You try to win by pushing your story marker(s) to the Finale/Shadows Fall spaces and completing your mission, before your opponent(s) does the same. If you end the story but fail to complete your mission, or both sides end the story at the same time and both complete their missions, you determine the winner by resorting to the most primitive means - violence. You fight one last fight, between one of the heroes and the Ringwraiths, and if the hero defeats the Ringwraiths, the good guys win. Else Sauron wins.

That's the big picture. Now the fun details of what you actually do in the game.

To move his story markers, Sauron needs to play Plot cards, and keep them in play. There can be a max of 3 such cards in play at any one time, and each card advances one of Sauron's three markers, which represent three areas he can focus his effort on - (1) finding the One Ring, (2) corrupting the good guys, and (3) building his military power to conquer Middle-Earth. Most Plot cards have some conditions, so Sauron needs to fulfill them so that he can play them. Each Plot card affects a specific location. The heroes can discard a Plot card by going to that location and paying Favours, an abstracted concept, and the most important "currency" in the game.

Each hero has a deck of cards that is used for moving about the board, for fighting, and for tracking injury and tiredness. These cards are handled in quite a novel way. A hero will often need to rest to regain strength. There are some safe havens on the board, e.g. Minas Tirith, Lothlorien, where a hero can heal injuries and hide from attacks. Event cards will throw out Favours on the board for heroes to collect. Friends (like Gandalf, Boromir, Theoden) will pop up, and heroes can consult them to gain Favours or other benefits, like improving themselves or getting some nifty tool. At each location that a hero stops, he can also explore that location by drawing a location card. This is basically another form of event cards. All these cards provide the flavour and story to the game.

Sauron has minions (more powerful) and monsters (less so) at his disposal. He uses them to hinder the heroes and protect the locations of his Plot cards. Sauron also has Shadow cards to play on the heroes, and Corruption cards too. Corruption of the heroes is quite interesting. Heroes can voluntarily gain Corruption cards. If you are desperate to gain some Favours, you can "pay" for some by taking Corruption. However there are many Shadow cards where the effectiveness is determined by how Corrupted the targeted hero is. So although it's tempting, it's probably better not to take too much Corruption. Or at least you should try to get rid of it quickly. This is quite thematic and I think it's a nice touch.

The combat system is simple and fun. Only card play and no dice. There is some double guessing, because there's simultaneous card selection. And combats do not drag. Usually it's just 2 to 4 cards played (by one side) and the fight ends.

There are many more details to the game. When I first saw the many cards and components, it was overwhelming, but after reading the rules, everything fell into place and it turned out to be less difficult than I had expected. However in our first game we did have to look up the rules quite a few times to double check some details. Thankfully there is a turn order overview on the board itself, which is very useful.

In our game I played Sauron, and Han played Eleanor (not 100% sure of spelling), the pretty girl from Rohan. My secret mission was to have 3 plot cards in play when my story marker reaches the Finale space (or all 3 markers reach the Shadows Fall space). I was lucky to have mostly drawn plot cards that move the military marker, so I focused on that, allowing my story marker to advance at about the same pace as the hero's marker. Han collected many Favour tokens and managed to discard some of my plot cards. He was quite conservative it taking Corruption, and never had more than one. He tried to get rid of them quickly when he got one.

In one surprise battle he confronted Gothmog, one of my five minions, and killed him. That was some good fighting. Other than this there weren't much fighting. There were some small fights with some of my minor monsters. They all got killed. But that's OK. They are dispensible. I'm happy to just waste some of Eleanor's cards and make her tired. Han had some wasted turns because he waited too long to rest Eleanor. By then he only had very few cards in hand, and could only rest (shuffle used cards back into the draw deck) and could not move anywhere (you need cards to move). We joked that the good guys pay tickets (bus tickets, train tickets, air tickets) but the bad guys don't.

The board is rather big for just one hero, even though in a 2-player game the hero takes double turns. Eleanor never visited the north west area near the Shire, where Favours accumulated (i.e. wasted) throughout the game. But she did cover much ground. Heroes move much faster than minions or monsters. They play cards for movement and can move far as long as they have the right cards or have enough cards. Minion / monster movement is one step per Sauron action, and you have only two Sauron actions. Mounted minions move two steps, but still you can't really use your minions to catch heroes. Better just to used them to block the way or to protect plot card locations.

As we approached the Finale, I happily had three plot cards in play, fulfilling my secret mission. If my marker reached the Finale before Han's did, I would win. I guarded my plot card locations heavily, fully utilising all five minions. Even Gothmog was brought back from death using a Shadow card. I tried to guess Han's secret mission. It likely wasn't the one about fulfilling quests, since he had not been spending much effort on that. I was guessing whether it was the one about not getting too much Corruption, because he seemed to be quite adament about ridding Eleanor of Corruption. I think guessing and trying to prevent your opponent from achieving his mission should be a big part of the game.

There was one event card (not my plot card) that moved my military marker one additional step per round. It could have allowed my military marker to reach the Finale before Han's marker did. But Han got rid of this card by exploring the affected location, and eventually our story markers reached the Finale in the same round. He revealed his secret mission - it was the one about having 5 Favours. No wonder he didn't try to discard my plot cards. It was not only because they were heavily protected. It was also because he would have had to spend his Favours, and then would have failed his secret mission. Since we both fulfilled our missions, it was time for the climatic battle!

That's not good news for Han, because Eleanor wasn't exactly a fighter type. She's smart, which meant I could rarely play a Peril card on her. If I have more influence tokens at a location than how wise a hero entering the location is, I get a chance to play a Peril card on him/her. The final battle was very different from the other battles throughout the game. The hero must defeat the Ringwraiths in order to win. So I no longer had any interest in trying to hurt the hero or waste the hero's cards. I just wanted to survive. I became much more defensive. My minion was not dispensible anymore. For the hero, it was do or die.

And we fought. Round after round after round. The tension built, as Eleanor approached exhaustion, and the Ringwraiths approached defeat. It was on the very last card that Han could play, that Eleanor defeated the Ringwraiths, using the bonus ability of the combat card played. If I played a ranged combat card, Eleanor gained +2 attack. I did play a ranged combat card, and that +2 attack was just enough to kick the Ringwraiths back to Mordor (they couldn't die). The good triumphed over the evil. I actually still had some melee combat cards, and could have played one. If so I would have won the game. In hindsight, I noticed that for the first 4 or 5 rounds of combat I had been playing only melee cards. That was why Han was guessing that I probably had run out of melee cards by then, and chose to play that card which needed me to play a ranged card to be more effective. It all came down to one last card play!

Our game went on for about 3 hours. The game was fun. The two sides played very differently. Amidst the adventuring (for the heroes) and trap-laying (for Sauron), we had to keep remembering the secret missions and the story track progression. That was the most important goal to keep in mind, and it was also a form of countdown timer. I like this aspect of the game, because it gives a sense of purpose, and also a sense of urgency. The heroes are not just wandering around aimlessly. Sauron is not just hurting the heroes for the sake of being nasty. Most of his game revolves around his plot cards.

I have now played the Mutation Challenge variant of Pandemic: On the Brink. This is the one that introduces the purple disease. Now instead of four, you need to cure five diseases. And this fifth purple disease behaves in strange ways. Also there are 12 purple cubes only, not 24, which means you can easily run out of them and lose the game.

With the Mutation Challenge, there are three special cards shuffled into the player deck, and two special cards that will be shuffled into the infection deck after the game starts. All these cards cause purple cubes to appear or grow on the board. Most tell you to draw one or more cards from the bottom of the infection deck, and place one or more purple cubes on the city or cities depicted. These cards are the only way purple cubes appear. Purple cubes grow via a similar way as normal cubes. If you draw a card from the infection deck showing a city that already has one or more purple cubes, you add one more cube.

The appearance of purple cubes is very unpredictable, because cards are drawn from the bottom of the infection deck. In Pandemic, the discard pile of the infection deck (which tells you which cities will have disease growth) is often shuffled and added to the top of the infection deck, so you will have some idea which cards will keep coming up again and again. With the purple disease, things get trickier.

To cure the purple cube, you use 5 cards of any colour, but one of them must be of a city that currently has at least one purple cube. This can be very easy if you happen to have the right card, but if you are unlucky, this can be quite tough, especially if you have already used or discarded many of those required cards. By spending cards to cure the purple disease, you will also have fewer to cure the other 4 diseases. So you need to be careful about using and wasting cards.

Michelle and I played the Mutation Challenge at medium difficulty. It took us three attempts to beat the game, compared to four with the Virulent Strain variant. The purple disease was very unpredictable, and it was sometimes tough to decide whether to try to eradicate it or to just contain it. The purple disease distracted us from other diseases, and also seemed to slow down the pace of the game somewhat. I'm not sure what gave me such a feeling. It may be because we kept being instructed to draw cards from the bottom of the infection deck, which meant more and more cards were moved to the top of the deck, thus "diluting" the infection cards that we would see. So disease growth seemed to be less intensive, although it seemed to be wider.

The Mutation Challenge is very different from the Virulent Strain variant. It seems to be slightly easier (admittedly based on very few plays). From just these few initial plays, I like this less than the Virulent Strain variant, because the experience is less "fast and furious". Not that it's easy, just that how it kills you is different. The Virulent Strain stabs you in the heart. The Mutation Challenge bleeds you to death from multiple cuts. How's that for visual shock?

Having played a few more games with the various new roles, I find that these new roles are very good value for money. I discovered many interesting uses for some of the abilities of the new roles. Many of them are a lot of fun. For example, the Archivist can pick up a card from the discard deck. One trick is you play a card to fly to a city, then take the card back immediately, and use it to build a research lab, all on the same turn. The new special action cards are fun too. One of them allows you to switch roles. This can be very very useful, e.g. after a disease is cured, you can switch to become the Medic, who free-treats any cured disease by just passing by.

Now the only part of Pandemic: On the Brink I have not yet tried is the Bio-Terrorist variant. Let's hope I'll get to try this soon.