After missing the past three weeks due to our travels to
It was good to have Jonathan and Allison Douglas back with us after an extended absence.
ON THE TABLE: Amazing Flea Circus, Marvel Heroes, Animalia, Fossil, Tutankhamun,
ROLL CALL: Sheila Morton, Jonathan Douglas, Allison Douglas, Alison Blake, Paul Blake, Bo Link, Rachel Ely, Kevin Bender, Rhonda Bender, Gail Schloesser, Greg Schloesser
After missing the past three weeks due to our travels to
It was good to have Jonathan and Allison Douglas back with us after an extended absence.
ON THE TABLE: Amazing Flea Circus, Marvel Heroes, Animalia, Fossil, Tutankhamun,
ROLL CALL: Sheila Morton, Jonathan Douglas, Allison Douglas, Alison Blake, Paul Blake, Bo Link, Rachel Ely, Kevin Bender, Rhonda Bender, Gail Schloesser, Greg Schloesser
Editor's Note: My full review of Amazing Flea Circus will appear in Knucklebones magazine. What follows is an abbreviated version.
Prolific designer Reiner Knizia must like fleas, and appears especially enamored with performing fleas. He has released two games using the theme of a flea circus, both bearing very similar names. While this can be confusing, there is no confusion over the fact that both games are entertaining for the entire family.
The Amazing Flea Circus, released by R&R Games, is a card game featuring an abundance of talented fleas performing various circus acts. Observing the various acts – and serving as scoring tokens – are dozens of adorable plastic bulldogs and cats. The object is to collect the most dogs and cats by the opportune play of your cards.
A player’s turn is quite simple: play a card, collect animals, and draw a replacement card. When playing cards, each player places the card face-up in front of him, covering any previously played cards. This is known as the player’s “show stackâ€. The player collects a number of animals equal to the value of the card played. Dogs are worth 2 points, while cats are 1 point. If another player has an identical card face-up on his show stack, the animals are taken from that player. Otherwise, the animals are taken from the general supply.
|
|
|
Collecting dogs and cats in Amazing Flea Circus are Rhonda Bender, Paul Blake, Kevin Bender, Alison Blake and Gail Schloesser. |
If a special card is played, its particular function is executed. Acrobats earn points equal to the total number of acrobat cards face-up on opponents’ show stacks. Free tickets allow the player to steal two points from an opponent. Multiple clowns may be played, with the player collecting points equal to the number of cards played. The animal catcher forces players to return some animals to the general supply, and all show stacks are then returned and re-shuffled with the deck. Timing the play of these special cards – indeed, all cards – is the critical tactic to be employed.
The game ends when the final animal is taken from the general supply, and the player with the greatest value of animals in his collection is victorious. The game plays to completion in 15 – 20 minutes, making it a good choice as a filler.
Don’t expect too much from the game, as it is clearly intended to be a light, family game. Decisions aren’t terribly taxing, and there aren’t many long-term strategies to employ. Play the card that will give you the most animals, perhaps conserving the clown cards in order to accumulate duplicates, and delay the playing of acrobat cards until others are face-up on opponents’ show stacks. That’s really about it. You also don’t want to get comfortable with the animals you have collected, as the nature of game play means that they will constantly be stolen by other players as the game progresses. Don’t worry, though – you will assume both the role of the thief and victim throughout the game!
In spite of the fact that there aren’t many tactics or strategies to employ, the game is perfectly suited for families, especially those with young children. The artwork is cute, and game play is easy, fast and fun. This is one group of fleas you won’t mind bringing into your home.
While Alison and I constantly swapped animals, Rhonda steadily built a stable of dogs and cats. She survived the assaults from her opponents to capture the victory.
Animalia has an interesting background, being designed specifically for an insurance company as a promotional item. This begs the question: What do animals have to do with an insurance company? Well, it seems that this Swiss company markets insurance for animals, which explains the theme of the game. Sadly, since the game was an exclusive for the company, it means that it is generally unavailable outside of
Designed by the team of Bruno Cathala, Sebastien Pauchon and Malcolm Braff, Animalia places players in the role of animal breeders seeking to present their finest collection of animals in shows over the course of three seasons. Players assemble a show of five animals, and collect medals based on assembling duplicate or unique animals. The player with the most medals over the course of three rounds is the champion breeder, and wins the game.
The deck of large cards depicts five types of animals: dogs, cats, horses, parrots and rabbits. Some animals are tops in their class, indicated by depicting elegance stars, while some animals are less-than-impressive, which is illustrated with a black “scallywag†stain. The artwork, penned by Mathieu Leyssenne, is delightful, and some of the best cartoon images I’ve seen in games.
|
|
|
More animals! Rachel Ely, Sheila Morton and Rhonda Bender assemble animals in attempts to win medals. |
On a turn, the active player reveals one animal card and either keeps it or passes it to the player on his left. That player then decides whether to keep it, or continue to pass the card around the table. As soon as a player opts to keep it, play passes to the left of the active player, who reveals a card and follows the same procedure. If, however, no one takes the card, the active player reveals a second card and has the same choice: keep them both, or pass them around the table. Likewise, if no one opts to take the two cards, a third card is revealed. If these, two, are not taken, the active player MUST take them, thereby ending his turn.
The game seems influenced by Reiner Knizia’s Medici, as each player may only possess five cards. Thus, deciding whether to take a card or collection of cards can be a tough decision. Ultimately, players are attempting to collect multiples of animals, as single animals normally do not yield medals. Further, presenting the most “elegant†ensemble earns bonus cards, which can be used to further enhance one’s animal assembly. The five card limit really does force players to make some tough choices.
Making one’s decisions even more difficult are the special cards, of which there is one wild card (an owl) and three “special ability†cards for each type of animal: thief, spy and prankster. The thief allows the player to steal an animal from an opponent, while the spy allows the player to rearrange the top five cards in the deck. The prankster may give a card to an opponent, who must place it into his collection. These powers can be quite useful, but since a player must possess two of a particular type in order to execute its power, it can be a difficult choice whether to take one or not when it appears.
Sadly, the special ability of a card is not indicated by a symbol. Rather, it is part of the illustration itself. It took us awhile to realize this, and it necessitates carefully looking at the illustration on each card. A symbol on the card would have made spotting its identity easier.
Once each player possesses five animal cards, medals are awarded. First, players determine who has presented the most impressive assembly by tallying the number of elegance points on their cards and subtracting one each scallywag. The player with the most points receives two bonus cards, while the player in second receives one bonus card. These cards can be used immediately to replace an animal in their collection, or be saved for a future round.
Players then receive medals. If a player possesses two or more of a particular animal, he receives one medal for each. A single animal earns no medals, unless a player possesses one animal of each type, in which case he receives five medals. Medals are animal specific, so a player who has three cats and two parrots in his assembly will receive three cat medals and two parrot medals.
All cards are returned, the deck re-shuffled, and another round is conducted. Three rounds are conducted in this fashion. After the third round, player will receive a bonus medal worth five points for each five medals they have a particular animal type. So, if Alison has five cat medals and ten dog medals, she will receive three “5 point†medals as a bonus. Players then tally their medals, and the player with the greatest total is named “Best Breeder†and wins the game.
While not a brain-burner or filled with deep strategy, there are some interesting decisions to be made. Deciding which animals to keep and which to by-pass can sometimes be tough – but never agonizing. While the special ability cards can be quite useful, one must keep a constant eye on the long-term goal of collecting medals in groups of five, thereby earning bonus medals at game’s end. This is essential, as these bonus points seem to always determine the ultimate victor.
Serious gamers will not likely find much here to entice them, but clearly the game is not targeted for that market. Rather, it is aimed at families, and in that market it appears to fit quite well. Sadly, unless you live in
Six of us vied for the coveted medals and title, breeding and displaying our animals. In the end, both Sheila and Alison managed to three groups of five like-type medals, thereby each earning three additional 5-point medals. They ended the game in a tie, which was broken in favor of Sheila as she had more animals of one type of animal. This victory does merit an “asteriskâ€, however, as on the final round there was only one card remaining to distribute as a bonus card. Alison allowed Sheila to take it, which enabled her to complete another set of five. I’ve written to the designer to determine how this situation should be handled.
Finals: Sheila 30, Alison 30, Greg 25, Gail 12, Rachel 12, Rhonda 11
Ratings: Sheila 6, Greg 5.5, Gail 5, Alison 5, Rhonda 5, Rachel 5
It has been a long time since I played this Klaus Palesch title, which, much to the surprise of many, won Game Magazine’s “Game of the Year†back in the late 90s. While recognizing that it isn’t in the same league as El Grande or Torres, I’ve always enjoyed the title, and have found it a good choice for family play. The only fiddly aspect is determining when all the pieces of a particular fossil have been removed from the board, thereby triggering a scoring. This requires constant vigilance, something we failed to do in this game.
|
|
|
Digging for fossils are Rachel Ely, Sheila Morton and Rhonda Bender. |
Since the game has set idle for so long, and it was the first time we played it during an East Tennessee Gamers session, I’m reprinting my review of the game from many years ago:
When I first read the description of Fossil, I thought it sounded quite a bit like Tutankhamun, one of the few Reiner Knizia games that I do not enjoy. I found Tutankhamun to be fairly bland with not much excitement. I feared that Fossil would fall into this same mold. (Editor’s Note: Oh, how times change. I know enjoy Tutanchamun, and there are other Knizia titles of which I’m not overly fond!)
I was able to give Fossil a try for the first time while attending The Gathering convention in
The idea behind Fossil, now available in the
Movement is executed by moving one of the two stones on the board to a fossil piece you are looking to collect. The stones move either horizontally or vertically (similar to a rook in Chess). You are free to move it as far along the row the stone is in as you desire. However, you must pay one point for each fossil piece you pass over and one point for the piece you actually land on and collect. Players begin with 30 points and the only way to gain points is when all nine pieces of a fossil have been collected. Thus, one must watch how he spends his points. Do you spend three points to pass over several fossil pieces and take that tasty '3' value piece, or do you conserve some points and simply move one space and settle for a '1' value piece?
Points are scored when all nine pieces of a fossil have been collected. The player collecting the ninth and final piece of a particular fossil can force a trade with any other player, usually boosting his own score. The player collecting the final piece gets to trade any fossil piece from his collection - even those that are not of the particular piece which was just completed - to any other player and take a piece from that player. The only restriction is that the pieces traded must be of equal value (for example, a '2' value piece for another '2' value piece). When a fossil piece is closed, it is scored. All players having none of the just completed fossil must pay a penalty to the player who was able to collect the majority of pieces of that fossil. This penalty is equal to the number of pieces of the completed fossil that the player with the most pieces of that fossil has in his collection (example: if Jay has 5 pieces and Eric has none, then Eric must give Jay 5 points). Then, points are totaled for each player who managed to collect pieces of that fossil. Basically, each player receives points based on the following formula:
Number of fossil pieces collected X the cumulative value of the pieces collected
The game continues until all fossil pieces have been collected OR the two movement stones reach spaces where they can no longer be moved. At that point, final points are tallied and the victor determined.
During the course of play, one must constantly keep an eye on what pieces are being collected by one's opponents and be very careful not to make a move which will allow an opponent to scoop a high-valued piece or, worse, collect a ninth and final piece of a particular fossil and thereby be able to execute the extremely powerful 'trade' power I mentioned above. As the game progresses, the decision on how to move the stone becomes tougher and tougher as the fossil pieces become fewer and fewer.
Another big feature of the game is no one is ever out of contention for victory. After the first fossil is completed and scores are tallied, usually one player shoots ahead on the scoring track. However, players are usually concentrating on collecting different fossils, so as those particular fossils close out, each player has a shot at a large score. Final scores in the many games I have played have always been very close.
This game gets more and more intriguing each time I play it. I caution players to not judge the game after only one playing, as it is the type of game wherein the strategies and tactics become clearer and more evident with each playing. In spite of very simple mechanics and rules, it is, indeed, a thinking-man's game.
I fell victim to having numerous valuable fossil pieces scooped from me, being given a relatively worthless piece in return. This upset my long-term plans of concentrating on three fossils, hoping for big payoffs when those fossils were completed. Gail benefited from a big fossil piece exchange near the end of the game, which shot her past Sheila and Alison to claim the victory.
Finals: Gail 88, Sheila 72, Alison 68, Rhonda 64, Rachel 57, Greg 49
Ratings: All 6.5
Editor’s note: Due to my brief comparison of the two games in my old Fossil review, I found it interesting that we played Tutankhamun immediately after playing Fossil. I didn’t realize this connection at the time, but only spotted it when preparing this session report.
We were moving onto another six-player game when Bo arrived from his class. I was happy to teach the group Tutankhamun, Reiner Knizia’s Egyptian-themed set-collection game. We played the original Amigo version, featuring the giant scoreboard.
|
|
|
Bo Link prepares to move his archaeologist, while Alison Blake, Gail Schloesser, Rachel Ely, Sheila & Ruby Morton and Rhonda Bender await their turn. |
Gail pursued a strategy of securing small-valued artifacts and closing them quickly. She led early, but was by-passed by several players who were pursuing a longer-term strategy. Ultimately, Rhonda closed a valuable collection a step ahead of Alison to claim the victory.
Finals: Rhonda 0, Rachel 3, Gail 5, Bo 5, Alison 6, Sheila 11
Ratings: Gail 7, Rhonda 6.5, Rachel 6.5, Alison 6, Bo 6, Sheila 5.5
QWIRKLE
Scott Alden of the Boardgame Geek was singing the praises of this Ingenious-like tile game, wherein players lay tiles in attempts to align like colors and/or symbols. I was able to secure a copy, and was anxious to give it a try. When I described the game to Rhonda Bender, she was even more anxious, and made sure I didn’t depart until she had played.
Qwirkle, designed by Susan McKinley Ross and published by MindWare, consists of 108 thick wooden blocks. On each block is printed a symbol – circle, starburst, square, diamond, cross or clover – with three each in six different colors. There is no board, as it will be formed by laying the blocks to the table. Players do need to keep a running tally of points scored, so paper and pencil are necessary.
Game rules are exceedingly simple. Basically, a turn consists of playing one or more blocks into the growing grid and scoring points. A few rules must be observed:
1) All blocks placed must link to the existing grid. No isolationist blocks allowed!
2) All blocks must be placed in one line, and they must share one common characteristic – color or shape – with other blocks in that line.
3) Each line of shapes can only have one block of each of the six colors. For example, a line of circles cannot have two blue circles in it. Likewise, a line of colors can only have one block of each shape in it.
It is possible to place blocks so that they will align with more than one line. That is actually preferred, as the player will score points for each line connecting to the blocks that they have placed. The true challenge of the game is spotting the optimal placement of the tiles at your disposal so as to score the most points.
|
|
|
Gail Schloesser and Bo Link ponder their choices in Qwirkle. |
When tiles are placed, scoring occurs immediately. One point is scored for each block in the line or lines created or extended, including blocks already in that line. In addition, a six-point bonus is earned if you placed the sixth and final block in a line. Players must exercise care to not continually provide this bonus opportunity for their opponents by placing a fifth block in a line.
After placing blocks and tallying the score, the player refreshes his hand to six blocks. Instead of placing blocks, a player may exchange blocks with the general supply, but that constitutes his entire turn. Play continues in this fashion until the supply of blocks is depleted and one player completely depletes his personal supply of blocks. That player receives a six-point bonus, and the player with the greatest cumulative score is victorious.
The game is very easy to learn and play, but it does require some planning and tactics. Mostly, it is a game of opportunity and observation, as players should try to spot the plays that will earn them the most points. However, care must be exercised to insure that one’s placements do not provide bonus opportunities for the next player. Further, it may also be wise to conserve a tile or two if they will likely be able to be used later in the game to complete lines and earn bonuses.
Fans of Reiner Knizia’s popular Ingenious will find much to enjoy here. Ingenious puts a bit more pressure on the players, as the board is fixed, so players can play aggressively to block their opponents. Since there is no “fixed†board in Qwirkle, the playing area expands without limit (well, perhaps the edge of the table is a limit!), so blocking an opponent is more difficult.
In my one playing so far, I derived the same feeling as I do with Ingenious – it was fun, but in spite of winning, I honestly felt I didn’t do anything clever. Each turn I studied the grid for my best placement opportunities, and chose the option that earned me the most points. I was able to complete several lines and earn bonuses primarily due to possessing the right blocks at the right moment. I won, but didn’t feel it was due to any superior tactics. That somehow isn’t very satisfying to me.
That being said, I do recognize that it appears that the vast majority of folks adore Ingenious. I’m fairly certain they will also be enamored with Qwirkle. I recognize that it is an ideal game to play with families and friends, which is quite likely the game’s target market. Gamers searching for deep strategies and mind-bending options, however, will likely not be satisfied.
Gail, Rhonda, Bo and I waged a see-saw battle, with the lead exchanging hands numerous times throughout the game. My final two placements each earned me 12 points, mainly due to the fact that I was in possession of all three orange starburst blocks, and was able to use them to complete lines and earn bonus points. This was enough to pass Rhonda for the victory.
Finals: Greg 146, Rhonda 123, Gail 101, Bo 91
Ratings: Rhonda 7, Gail 7, Bo 7, Greg 6
OTHER GAMES PLAYED: MARVEL HEROES,
|
|
|
Kevin Bender explains the rules of Marvel Heroes to Allison & Jonathan Douglas and Paul Blake. |
