Some monthly stats for July
Total games played: 68
Unique games played: 23
Total Gaming Time: 47:55
Average Game Length: 0:41
Games played more then once this month (other then Magic):
Set 8
Gold Digger 5
Rack-O 4
Quiddler 4
Pirateer 4
Torres 4
Space Beans 3
My Word 3
Scrabble 2
Bohnanza 2
New games this month: (in order of preference)
Gold Digger
Switch (aka Qwitch)
My Word
Apples to Apples
Pirateer
Bean Trader
Basuri
Fish Eat Fish
Wheedle
Carcassonne: Builders and Traders (with expansion)
Blink
The Garden Game
New gamers this month:
Jessica
Lara & Matt
Kurt & Jen
Various people at GenCon
Game of the month: Switch (aka Qwitch)
While Gold Digger is at a local maximum right now, I'm not sure if it's destined to be a classic yet. S/Qwitch, however, combines the best things in a quick-play, use all your cards game. Spit and Blink, both good games in their own right, could be played as subsets of Switch. With two dimensions to work in at the same time, and the reset-every-five cards game, it's hard to image a better game on this basic theme.
Notes:
The influence of GenCon on this month's report is obvious, we played over 10 hours of Magic on this trip alone. Even with the focus on role-playing games, Sara and I were able to find lots of board and card games to play. I'd highly recommend it to anyone who has the time to travel out to Indy. Be sure to pre-register if you go - the lines on Saturday were so long, GenCon is offering partial refunds to those who had to wait.
GenCon 2003
I'm not sure if this qualifies as a session report, but it would be a shame to attend the "best four days of gaming" and not share the experience with like-minded gamers. My wife and I attended all 4 days of GenCon. We played Magic, Set, Torres, Rack-O, and Quiddler, Scrabble, Bohnanza, and Apples to Apples. In addition to playing games we knew, we also played the following new games.
BEAN TRADER (1:05)
Sara 180
Mike 107
Chip 65
The first thing to note is that we played most of the game incorrectly - we were trading gold for beans which is against the rules (as it is in Bohnanza).
Before playing the game, I had dismissed it as a board game designed for those who "didn't get" European games, like Monopoly with beans or something. I was very mistaken. I found scoring to be very difficult, and I tried to fulfill every order. This probably led to my downfall.
I'd definitely like to try it again.
At the Out of the Box booth, I met Reiner Knizia (!) and playtested the following games with Mark Osterhaus, president of OTB Games. All of these games took 15 minutes or less.
GOLD DIGGER
Of the games Sara and I purchased, this one has been played the most often. To me, it has a Lost Cities-feel to it. If you commit too early to staking a claim on a mine, your opponents will invariably fill it with worthless dirt. If you wait too long, you won't get all of your claims out.
I've been trying to find a strategy that maximizes my chances of getting a mine all to myself. Unfortunately, this often means that I end up missing out on the high-value shared mines.
WHEEDLE
Everyone else says this is very Pit-like, but I haven't played Pit, so I can't make the comparison yet. My initial impression is that it moves too quickly to make good deals, but I'd like to try it again.
MY WORD
For those who like word games, this is a good quick filler. When we demoed the game, I saw the word "Chip", but I hesitated, as proper names aren't allowed.
BLINK
This game is a lot like Spit (in fact, it was based on it), and while the gameplay is fast and fun, I think that I prefer playing the original with a regular deck of cards.
QWITCH (aka SWITCH)
This is another think-fast, be the first to use up all your cards game. The difference is that each card has two separate dimensions on it, letters and numbers, and you only have to match one or the other. Also, the rules switch randomly between matching, playing the next number/letter in the series, or playing the previous number/letter in the series.
This game is for 3, 4, or 5 players, and all the cards are dealt out, setting one aside). It would have been aesthetically pleasing to me if there were 61 cards - all of the cards would be dealt out every time. Instead, there are 64 cards, one of every combination. I would remove the A1 and the H8 cards, as they tend to stop play more then any other combination. Using two face-up piles instead of one would leave 60 cards to be divided evenly.
That minor problem aside, I think this is the best of the think-fast, play-fast games that I've tried.
FISH EAT FISH (prototype)
This game, which should be able later this year, involves stackable fish laid out on a grid. As fish eat other fish, they become more powerful. If the attacker and defender have equal power, they are both eliminated.
This game has some interesting decision points, and it plays quickly. The only thing that I don't like is that fish can move any number of spaces orthogonally, and then also move any number of spaces in another direction to attack. Thus, board position is of negligible importance, as you can get from any space to any other space. It's possible that I misunderstood this rule, I'll have to double-check when the game is released.
BASARI
This is the most complicated of games that I tried at the Out of the Box booth. Players move their tokens around the board, each space around the board has some gems and a number. Each player secretly indicates which action they'd like to take: 1) Take the Gems on their square, 2) Take points equal to the number on their square, or 3) roll a die, move that many squares forward, and then (7 - die roll) points. If you are the only player to select an action, you simply perform that action. If two people both select the same action, then they must bid (in gems) for the right to perform the action, the loser gets the gems offered by the winner, and the winner takes the contested action. If more then 2 people select the same action, then none of them do anything.
Obviously, trying to anticipate what your opponent is going to do is very important in this game. Occasionally, if all players are on squares with a high number, no one ends up getting that number of points as everyone selected a different action. In the demo game I played, three of the four of us picked the same action on a few turns. Not surprisingly, the remaining player won the game.
