Seattle Cosmic Game Night, Saturday, 23 August 2003

A Cute Little Game Night

Welcome to the first Seattle Cosmic newsletter in over a month. I've been engaged with other projects lately, but hope to build some session-reportin' momentum with this issue.

Seattle Cosmic met in miniature for a quiet and pleasant game night at the apartment of Marty and Ron Hale-Evans in Kent on 23 August. Present in approximate order of attendance were Ron_Hale-Evans?, Marty_Hale-Evans?, Karl_Erickson? (who comes to game night seldom but promptly, and we were glad to see him), regulars Alex_Rockwell? and ChadUrsoMcDaniel, Mark_Purtill? (whom we also see seldom but gladly), and regulars Jay_Lorch? and Michelle_Teague?, for a total of eight people. Meredith_Hale? and Kisa_Griffin? bowed out because Meredith had a headache. Notably absent again was AlphaTim Schutz -- where have you been lately, Tim? We miss you.

You know, while I realise that game nights with over twenty attendees (which sometimes happen at the house of Tim_Higgins?) show that we have a healthy group, it's nice to have a small game night once in a while, particularly when the people attending are quiet sorts. It's a different sort of game night than usual, more companionable and less rowdy. This time we played a number of lighter games, and it was also a good thing that we had a high snacks-to-gamers ratio.

By the way, it was scheduled to be a CosmicNight, but no one seemed to mind we didn't play Cosmic_Encounter?, even me.

--Ron_Hale-Evans?

Loco!

Game: Loco!? (a.k.a. Flinke_Pinke?)
Location: Dining room
Time: 5:20-5:40
Winners: Alex Rockwell, Ron Hale-Evans
Prize: Donated decks of cards to GamesToTheRescue

Karl arrived a few minutes after 5:00, and Alex a few minutes after that. Karl is trying to downsize his book, game, and magazine library, and had gifts for several people at game night. He glanced at the GamesToTheRescueBook binder of rules in progress, and remarked that the rules should be written so that even if you are alone in the hospital and don't want to play any of the solitaire games, you can still read the book and be entertained. Good idea, Karl!

Marty and I had recently put in a small order to Funagain and had a few new games we wanted to try out. One of them was Loco!?, the most recent reprint of the abstract Knizia card game Flinke_Pinke?. Apparently the only significant difference between the two games is that in Loco! you must shout "LOCO!" when you play a 0 (zero) card. As you might guess, we agreed to ignore this rule, and as you might guess also, some of us chose to shout "LOCO!" in a silly voice anyway.

In Loco!, there are cards running from 0-5 in five suits of different colours, as well as chips in matching colours. On your turn, you must play a card from your hand to the stack of cards next to the chips of the same colour, then take one chip of any colour. The game ends when the last card is played in any suit. At the end of the game, each chip is equal in points to the top card in that chip's pile. Thus, if the top yellow card is 3 and you have four yellow chips, your yellow chips are worth 12 points. Your total score comes from adding all of your chips together.

Alex and I tied for first place, with Marty a point behind. I blush to admit how I won: I figured Alex would score higher than anyone else, so I simply took the same chips he did, hence our identical scores. This is a weird strategy; I'm not sure I've seen anything like it in other games, and I can't really see how the player being mimicked can fight it without hurting herself. Is this a flaw? I'm interested to hear your opinions.

Chad showed up at this point (5:35), so rather than playing a number of rounds of Loco! and adding them for a total score, we stopped after just one round. For our prizes, Alex and I both chose decks of casino cards that Dave_Howell? had added to the PrizeBag so that we could donate them to GamesToTheRescue.

Scores

Comments from the players?

--Ron_Hale-Evans?

I dont think its a flaw. There is a way for this 'strategy' to be foiled. There are 5 chips of each color. If everyone takes one, and then the first player takes a second, the second player cannot copy them. Also, if you copy the wrong person, and they dont win, then you dont either.

--Alex_Rockwell?

Relying on other people to take the right chips for you isn't much of a counterstrategy. I guess you could try to persuade them to do yoiur bidding with some judicious table talk, but presumably you'd want to do this for chips you expect to score high, so you'd be raising your opponents' scores. As for copying the wrong person, in a multi-round game it's usually pretty clear who the right person to copy is, since you can see their running score and compare it to that of the other players. Admittedly, it's more of a guess in a single-round game, but I chose correctly, didn't I? :)

--Ron_Hale-Evans?

6 Nimmt! (x2)

Game: 6_Nimmt!?
Location: Dining room
Time: 5:40-6:10, 6:15-6:50
Winner: Karl Erickson (Game 1), Alex Rockwell (Game 2)
Prize: Roll of brass discs (Karl), Styrofoam glider (Alex)

Next up was the wonderful, mathful card game 6_Nimmt!?. We played two games. First-time player Karl won the first one, and Alex won the second one. I was proud of Marty; she usually complains she doesn't understand this game, but she came in second in both games. As for me, I used to be able to win this game, but I seem to be getting worse and worse. Maybe everybody else is just getting better and better. I consoled myself when I concluded there is more luck in this game than I initially thought, especially when there are so many players (five). For example, Chad tied with Marty for second place in the first game (a mere two points behind Karl), but lost badly in the second game, coming in 18 points behind his nearest competitor (me).

Karl chose as his prize a roll of heavy brass discs donated by Dave Howell for use as markers in games. Alex chose a styrofoam glider in the shape of an historical airplane donated by Meredith Hale, who used to work at the Museum of Flight.

Scores (Game 1)

Scores (Game 2)

Comments from the players?

--Ron_Hale-Evans?

Karl did extremely well, given that it was his first time playing. (Winning his first game!) I had the following problem in both games: I would play a card which was just above some number on a high row, that was 'guaranteed' to be safe. However, the row was short, adn someone else would play a low number, take the row, and now I would be stuck playing my high card on a different row and taking many points. Thus, those plays werent safe after all, and I should have thought about it more.

There is a great section on 6 Nimmt strategy at [1]

For those that think the game is very random (like Jay), I recommend you check it out, it might change your mind.

--Alex_Rockwell?

Yes, this is a very good article. It's stapled to the 6 Nimmt! rules in my EmergencyGameKit. Unfortunately, I usually forget to reread it close enough to game night, and forget all its good advice. C'est le jeu.

--Ron_Hale-Evans?

Medina

Game: Medina?
Location: Living room
Time: 7:00-8:00
Winner: Karl Erickson
Prize: ?

Medina is a dish best served funky cold.

Next up, Karl and Chad played a game of Medina. If "ludemes" (game memes) are the genetic material of games, then Medina? and AlienCity are examples of the kind of parallel evolution that produced eyes in both human beings and squid. Although Medina and Alien City share a building-and-capping mechanism, Alien City designer Michael Schoessow recently described the thought process that went into his game, and he took nothing from Medina (although he did model his road mechanism on a second-hand description of Fresh_Fish?).

Karl won the Medina game, although I don't know if he took a prize for it. Karl? Comments from the players?

Scores

--Ron_Hale-Evans?

Karl played the end-game much better than I did. He was able to force me into claiming two smallish palaces. The rule I keep forgetting struck again: an un-expandable palace is complete and unclaimable. I was working to create a very nice grey palace when I suddenly realized that Karl's placement of a stable on a nearby palace resulted in this condition. He agreed to let me claim the palace anyway. I will remember this rule!

--ChadUrsoMcDaniel

My initial suspicion about this rule has led me to the rules, and I find no mention that an un-expandable palace is unclaimable. There is enough ambiguity in the rules that I feel this is uncertain at best.

The section on domes states that playing a dome "claims...and completes the palace", which only vaguely implies that domes must be placed on incomplete palaces. The section on palace pieces says "as long as a palace has no dome, it is incomplete". The palace section later adjusts this by saying "if there is no legal space orthogonally adjacent to an incomplete palace...[it] is complete (but not claimed by a player)." Nowhere does it say that it *can't* be claimed. The word "complete" seems intended to mean simply that you can't add additional palace pieces to it. This restriction is mentioned twice in the rules. "Claiming" seems to be an intentionally distinct concept.

If you have additional information that supports your version, could you point me to it? I could find nothing on boardgamegeek that clarifies this.

--Karl_Erickson?

Blokus

Game: Blokus
Location: Dining room
Time: 7:00-7:33
Winner: Alex Rockwell
Prize: ?

Alex blocks out Marty for the win.

It was time for me to walk the dogs, so Marty and Alex started up a quick game of Blokus. Marty played red and blue; Alex played yellow and green. I don't know who went first and thereby gained a big advantage (the main and perhaps the only real flaw of Blokus in my opinion), but in any case, Alex spanked Marty, 10-44 (lower scores are better).

I returned from my dog-walking duties in time to catch the second half of the game, and Mark Purtill showed up at 7:15, in time to observe the second half as well.

Scores

Comments from the players?

--Ron_Hale-Evans?

Marty went first. There was a huge play in the middle of the game where I was able to block off Marty's red pieces with my yellow from a large area of the board, and thus play almost all my yellow pieces while she was stuck with many red left. This was basically the difference in the game. It was a great game, but, like in chess, one strong tactical move can nullify the effect of a whole bunch of good strategic ones, and swing the game.

--Alex_Rockwell?

Actually, I think that wouldn't have worked if I'd played better. Essentially, I shouldn't be placing all my eggs in one basket -- I should be leaving myself more places to fork. Also, I'm beginning to think that the Race For the Center isn't the only strategy, although I could be tripping about that. I think this may be particularly true with a two-player game.

I maintain, too, that going second in Blokus is almost as much of an advantage as going first. I also think that the two-player game is significantly more difficult than the other versions, because you basically have to play two players at once. I guess if you could get good at this you could play your two players as allies and try to make them support each other and not get in each others' way, but I can't think like that yet.

--Marty_Hale-Evans?

10000

Game: 10000? (really 5000)
Location: Dining room
Time: 7:20-8:05
Winner: Ron Hale-Evans
Prize: Giant dice

Mark decided to join me, Marty, and Alex in a game of 10000?, a game we are testing for the GamesToTheRescueBook. It is the folk original for such commercial games as Cosmic_Wimpout?, and while I have never enjoyed Cosmic Wimpout, I have enjoyed 10000 the few times I have played it.

Briefly, players are given six ordinary six-sided dice to throw. If they throw a scoring dice combination, they may add the combination's score to their running total for the turn, then set those dice aside and continue rolling -- or not. If you ever make a roll in which none of your dice score (such a roll is called a "farkle"), you lose your running total for the turn and play passes to the next player. You may only add your running total to your permanent score if you quit before you throw a farkle. The winner is the first player to score 10,000 points (or 5,000 in the variant we played).

There is a healthy helping of luck in this game, but impulsive play will usually get you in trouble. Mark Purtill had some bad luck, then started taking big risks because he was so far behind. I tried to ratchet up my score in a restrained way; this, combined with some good luck (including a very lucky final roll of 1,100 points) nabbed me the win. I chose as my prize -- what else? -- a pair of giant dice donated by AlphaTim Schutz. My goal is eventually to collect enough giant dice to play my three favourite dice games: Can't_Stop? (four dice), 10000? (six dice), and Reiner Knizia's Decathlon? (eight dice), so I'll need to win eight dice in total. Fortunately, Tim donated a big box of them. (By the way, the rules to Decathlon are online.)

The rules we used for 10000 were the basic version straight out of Reiner Knizia's book Dice Games Properly Explained, pages 131-132. We didn't do anything fancy, although as much as I hate to admit it, I think Cosmic Wimpout and some other 10000 variants have the right idea with their "last licks" rules, in which everyone gets a chance to beat the current leader when he has already broken 10,000 (or 5,000) points. It really was a close game until my 1,100-point windfall on my last turn.

I also think Mark might have had a better chance to catch up if we had been playing to 10,000 points instead of 5,000. The last time I played Decathlon? with him, he very nearly turned a last-place position into a first-place one over the course of the game. Consider that in games in which chance plays a large role, skillful players will sometimes lose individual games but will do well in the long run. In some sense, a game of 10000 is like two games of 5000, allowing skill more play.

Scores

Comments from the players?

--Ron_Hale-Evans?

The highlight of this game for me was that I was talking to Jay across the room about Pueto Rico strategies, and would come back for my turn, roll something amazing, take it, and go back to talking about Puerto Rico. I think it was Ron who remarked "he's winning the game and he isnt even here!" Then luck turned against me however, and Ron and Marty caught up.

--Alex_Rockwell?

I didn't say that, although I laughed when someone did. I think it was Mark, who was overcome by the injustice of it all.

--Ron_Hale-Evans?

It was actually me. I think this game is good for the purposes of Games To the Rescue, in that it's engaging enough and fast to learn, but I'm not overfond of it in general.

--Marty_Hale-Evans?

Puerto Rico

Game: Puerto_Rico?
Location: Computer room
Time: 8:07-9:50
Winner: Alex Rockwell
Prize: Wyvern? cards

Puerto Rico with the usual suspects

Alex, Jay, Chad, and Mark split off for a game of Puerto_Rico?, Mark muttering he would play anything as long as it didn't have dice in it. :) Unfortunately, he got skunked in this game too. (It seems that everyone but Mark had just read a notorious strategy article posted to BoardgameGeek by a friend of Alex's who has played around 500 games of Puerto Rico...)

The notes on strategies in the table below were provided by the scorekeeper for the game -- Jay? Alex? Other comments have I none. Anyone want to help out?

--Ron_Hale-Evans?

That would be the article by jimc (icetrey), who has actually played over 1000 games. (More than anyone else in the world, I believe). We have been talking about various things related to that article for several months now, and I have been greatly anticipating it. Now there is somewhere I can point people to to learn about Puerto Rico, and they can read a well written, well organized strategy article that I completely agree with!

--Alex_Rockwell?

Yup. Here's the article: The Large Warehouse of Puerto Rico Knowledge, aptly named.

--Ron_Hale-Evans?

Scores

Mark left at 9:55. And then there were seven.

--Ron_Hale-Evans?

I was the scorekeeper. Mark fell victim to the only randomness in Puerto Rico: the order of that the plantation tiles come out. He chose tobacco in the first round and I (sitting to his right) chose it in the second round. This enabled me to use the trading house several times before he could get an office. I think the key to Alex's victory was in being the only coffee producer and claiming a coffee ship twice. Jay and I procured our wharfs too late and were only able to use them once each. I realized at the end that when I chose Mayor as my last role that I should instead of chosen Captain and Alex (last player) would choose Major in order to staff his Customs House.

--ChadUrsoMcDaniel

As Chad noted, Mark was a victim to drawing tobacco, only to have Chad start producing it right in front of him a little while later. However, in a way, this was only fair, as Mark did the exact same thing to me in the last game we played.

Probably, had I been in Mark's position, I would have tried to get sugar going instead and then build a large market or factory, but it didnt really work out for him.

At the start of the game, I decided to test jimc's thoughts on choosing the mayor as player 2, when player 3 received a sugar plantation. the more I try this move, the more I dislike it. First of all, it does have two benefits:

1) You get an extra colonist, so you will have three after the second mayor phase, and will be able to produce corn and indigo.

2) It prevents player 3 from running away with the game thrugh an early sugar trade. However, if the other players are all good players, and understand the threat of letting player 3 do this, then they will not allow it to occur.

It has the following disadvantages:

1) It costs you 1 doubloon, since you dont receive a free doubloon by choosing builder.

2) You fail to get a large market, since others will buy them before you get the chance. If you choose builder, you can buy one.

3) It gives a doubloon to player 1, as a result of their quarry being occupied before the first builder phase.

Because of the importance of early income, this is just too much of a tradeoff to make, especially for player 2, who begins in a weak position already. (Though if there is corn in the initial draw, things are ok for them, as was the case in this game).

As noted, I produced the only coffee that was produced during the game. I was able to trade it three times, I think, and I also shipped a total of 10 coffee barrels, gaining 3 harbor bonuses as well. The money from the coffee trades first paid for my harbor, and then for a customs house.

As a result, the 6 doubloons I invested into the coffee roaster, the two plantation picks to take coffee, and the 4 colonists to man them, ended up producing many, many points.

How many? Well, 10 coffee barrels shipped is 10 points. I probably scored 8 or so harbor bonuses during the game, plus 3 for the harbor itself, so that's about 11. And the customs house gave me a bonus of 9 VPs, so it was worth a total of 13. 10+11+13 = 34 points I derived as a result of my coffee production, and the initial investment of those 6 duobloons. That was more than 50% of my final score.

This shows two things. First of all, the importance of money early in the game, which allows one to build buildings such as the coffee roaster. Secondly, the value of a monopoly on a trade good, especially if one is able to both trade and then ship that good, which has the effect of reducing the shipping points scored by the other players, because one of the boats is occupied by a good they dont have.

Jay played the 'early factory with corn, indigo and sugar' strategy very well, and was in the lead for most of the game. However, during a builder phase late in the game, he had 9 doubloons worth of purcahsing power, and bought a wharf. The wharf brought him only a couple victory points, as it was used only one time before the game end. A better play would have been to buy large indigo for 1 doubloon (2 quarries), and then buy a large building uring the next builder phase.

Chad similarly bought a wharf which was of little use, though he did manage to get two large buildings anyway. However, during a mayor phase several turns before the end of the game, he did not occupy his large building. When he bought a second large building, he then had two of them unoccupied, while I had one. This left him in a position where he had to choose between the role he wanted to take (Captain), and the role he was forced to take (Mayor). If he didnt mayor, he could not guarantee that I would do it. Whether I would choose the mayor would depend on whether I though Chad or Jay was a bigger threat at the time, since while it would gain points for me in comparison to Jay, I would lose in comparison to Chad. Becasue he did not know just how many points my customs house was going to score for me, he had to take mayor. (In fact, I was going to gain more than he thought I was, and would likely have had to take it myself at the end if he did not, but in some cases, this is not the case).

The moral of the story is: Always occupy your large building during a mayor phase, even if you KNOW that another mayor phase will occur. The reason is that if you have more unoccupied large buildings than your opponents, then they will force you to choose the mayor, since it helps you more than them, and you might lose out on a critical late game role choice, which can often lead to large point swings.

--Alex_Rockwell?

In addition to the improper purchase of the wharf, I made at least one other major error in the game. At one point, I saw the possibility to achieve what jimc describes in his article as a "double craft" opportunity, and seized it. Since there were few goods left in the supply, I got all I deserved, both in terms of goods and in terms of factory bonus, but others got somewhat fewer. In the end, though, it wasn't a worthwhile move because, lacking a warehouse or wharf at that point, I was forced to dump most of my goods when Alex inevitably called for the Captain on the next phase.

I enjoyed playing after reading the strategy article. It opened my eyes to a deeper Puerto Rico game.

--Jay_Lorch?

VisualEyes?

Game: VisualEyes?
Location: Dining room
Time: 8:10-8:45
Winner: Michelle Teague
Prize: Styrofoam glider

1. Michelle tots up the score.
2. VisualEyes dice

Next up in the dining room, we played a PartyGame that Jay and Michelle had just bought from Funagain called VisualEyes?. This was a game at which I expected Marty to do quite well and myself to do miserably, and I wasn't disappointed -- in my expectations at least.

In VisualEyes?, numerous pictographic dice are rolled and players compete to form the most two-word phrases (sometimes with short "connecting words") from combinations of two dice at a time. We speculated as to the replay value of the game: see enough pictures, form enough phrases and hear enough phrases made by others, and the game may become less a creative exercise than one of rote memory.

Michelle won the game and selected a styrofoam glider (a Thunderbolt model) for her prize. Marty came in a close second, and Karl and I scored about half of what they did.

Scores

Comments from the players?

--Ron_Hale-Evans?

Fun game; I'd like to play it again.

--Marty_Hale-Evans?

Man Bites Dog

Game: Man_Bites_Dog?
Location: Dining room
Time: 8:47-9:23
Winner: Michelle Teague
Prize: Ballpoint pen bracelet

Next up for the dining room crew was another PartyGame of sorts, Man_Bites_Dog?, a game Marty had recently obtained from Funagain. Players are dealt five cards with words on them, and then they try to form newspaper headlines. Each card is worth a certain number of points, so it is best to use your high-scoring cards if you can make a grammatical headline with them. Players may exchange up to three cards, Poker-style, in order to better their score or form a grammatical headline. There are also Exclusive cards, which double the value of your headline. Only one Exclusive card may be played per turn; if more are played, they cancel out.

The two best headlines of the game were undoubtedly the following:

EXCLUSIVE: NAKED UROLOGIST WEEPS FOR WALL ST. (Michelle)

340 LB. DOG REVEALED! THOUSANDS INDICTED! (Karl)

Since Karl's headline, we have kept our decidedly chubby little canines away from the windows, just in case.

Replay value of this game is probably middling. There is strategy to the game, but frequent players might get bored with the cards. Marty and I also decided we will probably remove the Exclusive cards from the deck. Marty and I drew none, while Karl drew one, and Michelle drew two, gaining 250 points on her last turn alone. The rule about the Exclusives cancelling out never seems to come into effect, as there are only three Exclusives in a deck of over 100 cards, and they just add too much luck to a game in which luck is probably too big a factor already. (By the way, all else being equal, if we had no Exclusives in the deck, I would have won the game instead of tying for second.)

Michelle selected a pen bracelet from the PrizeBag.

Scores

Comments from the players?

--Ron_Hale-Evans?

Mer, Kisa, and I played a followup game after this without the Exclusive cards, and it did even the scores out somewhat, although they still seem pretty arbitrary. We can't figure out why some cards score so much more than others, or if there's actually a strategy. Kisa proposed a variant in which players add cards one by one to a developing headline, with the last player able to add scoring for the headline, one point per card. Whether or not the scoring is tweakable, the focus of this game is clearly to laugh about the headlines created.

--Marty_Hale-Evans?

Take It Easy

Game: Take_It_Easy?
Location: Dining room
Time: 9:30-9:45
Winner: Karl Erickson
Prize: Roll of brass discs

We then played a quick 15-minute filler, the competitive puzzle game Take_It_Easy?. First-time player Karl smoked, skunked, and spanked the rest of us with a score of 191. I thought I was doing well, but came in last place with 127 points. I'll have to start practicing against the computer again.

Karl chose another roll of brass discs as his prize.

Scores

Comments from the players?

--Ron_Hale-Evans?

Give Me the Brain (colour edition)

Game: Give_Me_the_Brain?
Players: Karl Erickson, Marty Hale-Evans, Ron Hale-Evans, Michelle Teague
Location: Dining room
Time: 10:00-10:25
Winner: Ron Hale-Evans
Prize: Giant dice

Next up, we broke out that old favourite, Give_Me_the_Brain?, from my EmergencyGameKit. I didn't have the Brain most of the game, but managed to empty my hand while everyone else still had two cards. I chose more giant dice as my prize. (Dice! I'm rolling in 'em! I now have enough to play Can't_Stop?.)

Comments from the players?

--Ron_Hale-Evans?

Pizarro & Co.

Game: Pizarro_&_Co.?
Location: Computer room
Time: 10:00-10:35
Winner: Alex Rockwell
Prize: Wyvern? cards

The three remaining Puerto_Rico? players started the auction game Pizarro_&_Co.?, one of Chad's favourites. Chad almost won, too. Those of us playing Give Me the Brain in the dining room laughed when we heard Alex shouting "We can't allow ties!" in the computer room. Evidently a tiebreaker was determined, because Alex won by one point.

Scores

Comments from the players?

--Ron_Hale-Evans?

I think Pizarro & Co. is a very elegant game with significant depth for is simply mechanics. It's also a very short game (we played in 35 minutes) that doesn't get much longer with additional players. I'd own a copy if I didn't know Jay and Tim already did ;->

--ChadUrsoMcDaniel

Well, it wasnt a tie, but we were wondering what would have happened if it had been. Generally, all of these German games have tiebreakers. For some reason, it seems, they dont like to allow ties. (Thus the comment of 'we can't allow ties!', which was also mimicking Ron's cries of 'Whats the tiebreaker', which have occurred at several times in the past).

This game came down to the end, we Chad ahead by six points before I was to draw 4 cards as a bonus for winning Marco Polo during the final round. (We were using the alternative side for those three explorers). I drew cards totaling a value of 7. (The average is 2 per card, so I had to draw significantly below average in order to lose at that point, but it was possible). The fact that Marco Polo gives out a random number of points at the end is interesting, and makes the final score unclear until the very end.

I agree that it is a very elegant game. At one point last week, someone (chad perhaps), compared it to Amun Re. I can see the comparison. The bidding over explorers with many different advantages and disadvantages is similar to bidding over the different provinces in Amun Re.

--Alex_Rockwell?

I don't think I fully understand everything I did wrong in this game, but I think a major part of my bad play was overpaying for explorers early in round 1. This left me unable to mount serious challenges to bidding by Chad and Alex, so they got explorers toward the end of round 1 relatively cheaply. I was thus at a big disadvantage of my own making for subsequent rounds, having little money and a not-so-great set of ships.

--Jay_Lorch?

Bleeding Hearts

Game: Bleeding_Hearts?
Location: Dining room
Time: 10:45-12:05
Winner: Alex Rockwell
Prize: ?

Karl left around 10:30 PM, after Give Me the Brain. I went outside with him to browse the discarded books in the trunk of his car. I scolded him for discarding The Dispossessed and The Left Hand of Darkness by Ursula K. Le Guin, and he pulled them, promising to read them.

Chad left around 10:40, after Pizarro & Co., and then there were five.

Alex and Jay remarked they had heard some buzz around the club about Bleeding_Hearts?, an excellent card game by David Parlett that we are considering including in the GamesToTheRescueBook. The game is similar to Hearts in that players are trying to avoid taking cards of a particular suit; however, unlike Hearts, players bid for which suit they are trying to avoid, which can mean that each player is trying to avoid taking a different suit (in a five-player game with a standard four-suited deck, at least two people are trying to avoid the same suit, of course).

Jay and Alex had both played Sticheln?, a commercial game with a similar suit-avoiding mechanism, but agreed Bleeding Hearts is better. (Alex likes Sticheln, but Jay does not.) In any case, I think Bleeding Hearts predates Sticheln.

For most of the game, it was a contest between Jay and Marty. Jay made steady progress but never made a big score, while Marty scored 100 points with a mis\xE8re bid on the second hand and advanced steadily thereafter. On the second-to-last hand, however, Alex scored 100 points with a mis\xE8re bid, bringing him from 123 points to 223 points, and then scored 40 points on his last hand, bringing him to 263 for the win. Michelle, who is fairly new to TrickTakingGames, did pretty well with 193 points. Although I swore in my last game that I would bid mis\xE8re whenever possible, I never summoned up the gumption, and only tried to make steady progress by scoring 30 points a hand for simply taking no tricks. I was only able to do this once though, and came in last with a crummy 116 points. I don't agree with the other players, therefore, that 30 points is too much for taking no tricks; it happens seldom enough in the game that 30 points seems about right.

I do agree with the other players that my new plastic playing cards should probably be used on a tablecloth, felt-topped table, or similar rough surface, so they don't fly all over.

Final scores were as follows:

Scores

Comments from the players?

--Ron_Hale-Evans?

Well, at least several of us agreed that for a 5 player game, giving 30 points for taking no tricks, and 100 for Misere was too much. I would recommend 20 points for no tricks, and somewhere from 60-75 for bidding and making Misere.

The reason is that there are many less tricks in total (only 10), and five players taking those tricks, so the average is only two per player. In a four player game, the average is 3 1/3 per player. In a five player game, your first taken trick decreases your score from 30 to 20 (assuming no bad suit cards). While this is also the case in a 4 player, it is expected that you will take several tricks in a four player game, while in a five player, you might not get a chance to take another.

For a six player game or seven player, you begin using two decks in order to make it work, and then the scoring is fine again. So probably, like in normal hearts, five players is just a strange amount for the game, where there are too few tricks, but if you add another deck there are too many tricks.

I like the game, and prefer it to Sticheln, which I also like. Taking a bad trick in Bleeding Hearts is not nearly as damaging as it is in Sticheln, where it can literally cost you all of the points you would score for the entire game of 5 rounds (or more). In bleeding hearts, it will merely cost you most of the points for one hand.

--Alex_Rockwell?

I like this game much better than Sticheln (though this isn't saying much), since it's less nasty. However, I can't really say I like Bleeding Hearts, mostly because there are much better choices of games for five players.

--Jay_Lorch?

Alex, you are wrong about a few things. First, a nit: in a four-player game, the average number of tricks is 3 1/4 per player (13/4), not 3 1/3. Second, in six- and seven-player Bleeding Hearts, you do not use a second deck, so the average number of tricks per player is even lower than in a five-player game (1 1/3 and 1 respectively). You may not like them, but those are the standard rules.

Jay, I take it there are no other two-player games in your household than Go and Chess. After all, since they "are" the best games for two players, there is no reason to play any lesser ones, such as Magic:_The_Gathering?. ;)

--Ron_Hale-Evans?

After Bleeding Hearts, the three remaining guests stuck around for another 45 minutes or so and chatted with me and Marty. Topics discussed:

• Game night hosting issues and a possible six-week rotation among five houses
• The decline of grocery delivery in US cities
• ReplayTV? vs. TiVo
• The evilness of DirecTV? vs. the evilness of Comcast and AT&T
• Gaping plot holes in the fifth Harry Potter book

Then everyone went home. (Marty and I didn't have to move much.)

Thanks, people! See you next week!

--Ron_Hale-Evans?

By "gaping plot holes in Harry Potter", this does not suggest that we do not like the book. Indeed, Jay, Marty and I, the three who were discussing it, all like the book quite a lot. I dont see the two 'plot holes' that Marty talked about as 'gaping', merely a bit unrealistic. (I wont go into it, so as not to give out spoilers).

For anyone who would like to participate in (or watch) a high level of dscussion of the Harry Potter series, I recommend the yahoo group 'HP for grownups'. (High level both in terms of volume and level of analysis). Be warned that there are hundreds of messages a day, and you should set it to daily digest, and will probably only end up reading a fraction of the messages posted, but I recommend it anyway).

--Alex_Rockwell?

Well, I'd like to make it clear that the "we" in Alex's comment does not apply to me. I dislike the Harry Potter juggernaut.

--Ron_Hale-Evans?

Acknowledgments

Thanks to Marty Hale-Evans for an edit pass on this newsletter, and help with the photo captions.

NEXT MEETING

Saturday, 30 August 2003, 5:00 PM, a special "fifth Saturday" meeting at the house of Kisa Griffin and Meredith Hale in Tacoma, also featuring Mer and Marty's mom! Come play for fun and FABULOUS PRIZES from the PrizeBag!

Remember, Seattle Cosmic Game Night occurs every weekend, in one of three locations: Kent, Mill Creek, or Tukwila. Email Ron Hale-Evans for a full schedule and directions. If you come, please bring a snack or drink to share (cookies, chips, soda, juice, etc.)

Supporting Seattle Cosmic and Games to the Rescue

GamesToTheRescue is a philanthropic project of the Center for Ludic Synergy and Seattle Cosmic Game Night. The aim of the project is to provide game equipment and a book of game rules to hospitals, for use by patients and visitors. You can support GamesToTheRescue by buying games via our Funagain affiliate program, buying Seattle Cosmic Gear, and in a number of other ways. See the GamesToTheRescue page for more details.

NewslettersFor?2003 | CategoryGameNight? | FrontPage