The Mine Shaft Gap

Venue: Richard’s place.
Present: Pat, Brian, Neil, Mark, Richard, Paul.
Played: Apples to Apples Junior, Adel Verpflichtet, Hoax, 5ive Straight, Ave Caesar, Toepen.

Despite a certain, almost perfect non-primeness to it, six is a strange number of players to have for a game session. One too many to fit a vast range of 5-player Euro games (even though most are best with 4), and one too few for the obvious 4-3 split. Of course you can always split 3-3, and this happens often with our group, but I think that this tends to be slightly less satisfying than having more minds working on a given game when they are available. A 4-2 spit just seems socially incorrect, and 2-2-2 is a waste unless you are a Chess club.
But six presents opportunities for certain games that don’t often get played and that work well with more people. So our night was filled entirely with 6p games - no splits at all - and all from the classic collection of Richard. A fun night was had, with much bluff and deception a key feature of proceedings…
No Brad this week, so pics are all from the toy Nokia 0.1 megapixel phone camera.

Apples to Apples Junior: The main reason for pulling this one out was as a demonstration for Mark. As Richard explained, the only real difference between this and the regular (non-Junior) edition is that the cards are much harder to be interpreted in adult ways. Still possible though, with (ironically) puerile stretches of the imagination, as we found out.
20 mins (or less) playing time.
Results: Paul: 5. Brian: 4. Everyone else: less.

Adel Verpflichtet: This was mental. Second-guessing other players’ actions was impossible, and as The Cramps‘ song goes, “…they never do what you think they should, so people ain’t no good.” This was despite Pat often announcing what card he was going to play and for the most part (if not always), actually following through with his promises…
Mark seemed to storm ahead with plenty of antique pickups from the Auctionhaus, consistent scoring at the Schloss, and very few losses to thieving. Pat had some good hauls too although less evenly throughout the game, and had both of his thieves in the lock-up for a good chunk of the first half.
The rest of us limped ahead gradually, often in ridiculous circumstances. Having spent my most valuable checks in the first few auctions (on fairly mediocre pieces, mind) I had to resort to thieving. This worked exactly once each in the Schloss and Auctionhaus all game, and eventually both of my thieves were doing time together in gaol. A lucky break on one turn saw my successful Detective earn a 6 point jump to put me up with the leaders.
Despite some repetitive playing patterns and general uselessness in the Auctionhaus, I did manage to inch forward through frequent Exhibitions at the Schloss. Of course my collection was gouged every time as thieves seemed to be drawn to my cards like iron filings to a magnet. Exhibitions thus ended up more as amusing displays of my suffering than as presentations of historic collectibles (like Andy Warhol’s “Brille”, whatever that was (just looked like a pair of glasses to me ;-)).
Despite the frustrations of turn-by-turn plays, I was somewhat satisfied with my third place showing in this. 12 minutes rules; 42 minutes playing time.

Results: Mark 1st, Pat 2nd, then in order Paul, Neil, Brian, then Richard miles behind.

Hoax: This was mental. Wait - I already used that description for Adel Verplichtet… This was insane. Apparently chaotic, but certain regular patterns of play soon emerged:
“I’m the King, and I’ll take one gold.”
“No, I’m the King, and I declare that action illegal!”
“Well, I’m the Judge, and I fine that action one gold.”
“I’m the Vicar, and I pardon the (first) King for a tithe of one gold.”
“Wait - although I said before I was the King, in fact I am the Wizard, and I am immune from the Vicar’s tithes…”
This became a bit crazy as everyone queued up to take one of the “useful” actions (ie., Judge or Vicar). But for mine there was more fun to be had in leading a doubt-fest against someone, and I tried this on many turns:
“Richard, there’s no way you’re the Wizard. Mark, you don’t believe him, do you? C’mon Brian, yes! Thanks Neil - OK, that’s a majority…!”
Although this was often successful we seemed to get it wrong about once every three times, but that was ok too, because it forced an elimination from the round and therefore reduced the number of targets to work on. In the second round, with all eliminated but Pat, Brian and me, we seemed to get stuck in an infinite loop of taking tokens from each other without bringing any new ones into the game, a problem eventually solved by Brian who correctly nabbed me as the Wizard.
Very crazy fun, but I have to say that after half an hour or so of play it began to feel less and less like a game. Maybe more like a ride - one on a looping track where it’s not long before you’ve learnt all the scenery.
10-15 minutes rules, 2 rounds of about 25 mins each.
Results: Richard: 7. Brian: 6. Pat: 5. Paul: 3. Mark: 2. Neil: 0.

5ive Straight: A nice tactical puzzler for the evening, which worked perfectly with three teams of 2. A number of times I thought Brian and I had this one cracked, only to be stymied - not simply by others’ blocking pegs, but by opponents’ almost-winning plays that required an immediate block. But Mark and Pat proved to be the most successful pairing and eventually brought this one home. 5-Straight should definitely be rolled out again on sixer’s night.
30 mins start to finish (5+25).
Results: Pat + Mark def. Paul + Brian, Richard + Neil.

Ave Caesar: This was mental. Much carnage and blood on track, as usual.
The trick is, and this is almost entirely luck-dependent, is to try and be positioned in about 2nd place or a close 3rd for most of the race. Up front and you run the risk of the dreaded three 6s, and further back you’ll just get crowded out at choke points and suffer the injuries of the inevitable whipping exchanges.
We ran three races. No drastic surprises in the first, but I was frequently forced to take longer routes on the outside lanes of the course, more so than anyone else. As a result, my horse just run out of puff on the third lap, after Richard, Mark and Neil had safely crossed the finish line (Richard and Mark pipping Neil on the last card play). Pat and Brian also both succumbed to exhaustion and failed to finish.
The starting line-up for the second race was in reverse order of finishing the first. Since I was the first to expire in race 2, I was given the dubious privilege of starting first in the second. Here’s the rub: When you start with one 6 in the hand, and draw your second after the next move, things start to look very dodgy. So I took the lead early, hoping to be passed by at least one horse after 2 or 3 turns. But this didn’t happen, and I cantered around the track in first position for the entire first lap, holding two 6s and playing the the newly-drawn card on every turn. I finally made it to Ave Caesar and drew my third 6, hoping desperately that someone would now pass me.
But noooo - the bastards all decide to queue up behind me for a little Caesar conga-line action. To everyone else’s delight, my horse thus expired. Pat then moved into the lead, and not before long he too fell victim to the three-6 death!
I’ve sometimes wondered whether prisoners about to be hanged (or guilloutined or whatever) take any small comfort from seeing others up on the scaffold also about the suffer the same the fate. Well, I think I now know the answer - seeing Pat’s horse die the same way mine did, while not as good as winning, was certainly consolation. Even better when Neil went the same way on his third lap!
[Questionable taste disclaimer: Some might think this a horrible comparison to make. If you’re offended, please just go away. One cross each, line on the left…]
Back to the racing, and Richard crossed in first place again! Mark managed to expire a few spaces short of the end, allowing Brian to stroll past for 2nd place. Yes indeed - having 4 out of six chariots collapse during the race is completely thematic. You can almost hear the crowd - an ocean of togas in its massive Colosseum seashell…
The third race began eerily like the second. I tried to maintain a poker face with my two 6s again, and again I tucked in to Ave Caesar and drew my third 6.
When it’s not you, it’s funny. When it is you it’s not funny when it happens once or even twice. When it is you, and it happens three times, OK, it’s funny.
Pat very closely avoided it happening to him again, and in fact went on to win the race. Yippee. Mark crossed 2nd, and Brian ran out of cards one space before the end. Richard crossed third and Neil fourth.

6 mins rules explan for newbies (Mark, Neil).
Results: Race 1: Richard 1st, then Mark, Neil. Pat, Paul, Brian: dnf. 20mins.
Race 2: Richard 1st, Brian 2nd. Paul, Pat, Neil and Mark: dnf. 18 mins.
Race 3: Pat 1st, then Mark, Richard, Neil. Paul, Brian: dnf. 16 mins.
Thus a tournament ranking system would probably award Richard the title of Chief Charioteer, Mark 1st Lieutenant, Neil 4th Chariot rider from the right, Pat 2nd Arrow Fodder battalion, Brian the guy who scrapes the horse crap off the wheels, and me the speed bump in the Ave Caesar track. (What I’d give to scrape horse crap off the wheels… Bloody Caesar’s pet…)

Toepen: The name is Dutch and is pronounced like too - pehn. I assume this comes from the knocking on the table action but Richard can probably correct this.
It works great with six and can accomodate more, but you probably wouldn’t play with fewer than four. It actually feels a bit like Poker, since it is about risk and bluff rather than calculated hand play, although it is much simpler both in terms of the play and the stakes management aspect.
Briefly then, players are dealt a hand of 4 cards each from a regular deck ranging Aces down to 7s (although the deck size may depend on n. players - another point for Richard to confirm). A player may immediately discard their deal face down for another set of four cards, claiming a weak hand with no court cards. Any other player may challenge this and inspect the discarded hand: If the challenger finds one or more court cards in the discard, the “liar” is taxed one point. If not, the challenger suffers the point loss. In either case the entire hand is re-dealt.
Hands are played as standard tricks, no trump suit, and play must follow suit if possible. The winner of the last trick will score one point positive, while all others score one negative. Immediately before playing a card to a trick, a player may tap the table to indicate they are raising (in fact, doubling) the points value of the remaining hand. In turn order, players then indicate whether they fold (and take one negative point) or stay in for a shot at double the points value. Hand play continues as normal, and players may continue to raise the stakes by knocking immediately prior to playing a card. Those that fold do so at the points cost prior to the raise. Those that stay in until the end and lose, take a loss the size of the final raised bid, while the winner’s score goes positive by this value. When a player reaches (negative) 14 points, they become known as the pelt (pitiful one) and trigger the last hand of the game (unless they win it and are taken net positive again). In this last hand the pelt automatically raises the bid to 2 points (they have no choice), and may not fold. When any player’s score drops under -15, the game ends. The player least negative is the winner!
In summary this is neat little alternative to Poker, requiring less “equipment”, and not suffering the down-side of what to do with players when they run out of chips! Is good fun. Try it.
5 minutes rules, 24 mins game time.
Results (absolute; lower is better): Mark: 8. Richard: 9. Pat: 11. Paul: 13. Neil: 14. Brian: 15.

Venue: Paul’s Place.
Present: Mark, Brian, Alex, Brad, Paula, Paul.
Played: Carcassonne, Caylus, Amun Re, Princes of Florence, Master Labyrinth.

A rare but welcome appearance by Mark.
Pics by Brad, except for the Master Labyrinth ones at the end.

Carcassonne: I didn’t get to see any of this one, but Brian proudly presented me the following results:
Brian: 71. Brad: 58. Paula: 51. Alex: 50.

Caylus: No participation in this one again for me while I managed fatherly duties. I did get a spectator’s view for maybe a good, but discontinuous, 45 minutes or so towards the end.
It can actually be quite interesting to take the position of a detached observer once in a while in a game like this, to see the relative merits of various plays and the consequences of different turn tactics. As an active player, especially in a game like Caylus with so many “moving parts” (which I’ve talked about here before), one is focussed so intently on their own strategy and perceived needs that strong alternative plays can often be overlooked. I watched as
Alex jumped on the bonus points Favours track, picking up only 1, then 2 points at first - apparently so trivial as to be not worth the trouble. But by the end of the game only another two or three turns later, he’d made it to the end of the track for a tidy total of 15 extra points, nearly 30% of his entire score.
I also watched in dismay as Mark selected the ‘build a brown building’ tile (don’t know what it’s called), not once, but twice without having the necessary resource cubes with which to build the tile entitled to! Perhaps this is an easy trap to fall victim to, as the mind has registered an earlier choice to gain cubes from another tile, not taking into account that the cubes won’t be delivered until too late in the turn!
I’m only slightly miffed that I didn’t get to play this one. But since it is now in the collections of both Alex and Pat, I expect I’ll see it again some time soon…
Approx 30 minutes rules; 115 mins game time with 5p.

Results: Alex: 52. Brian: 48. Brad and Paula: 41. Mark: 26.

Princes of Florence: We split into two groups of 3p at this point, with PoF running at the other end of the table.
Approx. 105 mins total.
Results: Alex: 58. Paula: 52. Brian: 44.

Amun Re: Because this one gets played so infrequently I effectively had to go through an entire rules review before we could start. Before I realised it was three-quarters of an hour later, and we still had not yet revealed the first three region cards! However, once underway Mark, the token newbie, took to ancient Egypt like he’d been there before…
Bidding for regions in this game is a fascinating process - perhaps more tricky for 4 or 5p, but certainly tense enough with three. There’s a trade-off between getting the region you really want versus spending as little as possible to keep enough cash back for the Sacrifice and the all-importat purchasing and harvesting phase. I actually got this balance wrong early in the game and overpaid for one region at a time when I really needed to hang onto some cash. I did this because I was holding a particular bonus points card, and really needed the region to reap those points. The trouble was that this was only turn 2, and to complete the set needed was going to require another very specific region in the following turn (which of course I didn’t get). So I overpaid in the hope of getting an extra 3 on the points track, when I might (in fact, would) have been better off just spending the money on extra pyramid blocks.
Mark succeeded in getting the most pyramids bonuses for both the old and the new kingdoms, but really had no competition in this. I focussed my pyramid building on simply trying to get equal sets across all three regions, and I don’t think Brad’s intentions were any different. By the end, Mark had chosen the best combination of regions for bonus cards and harvest value, paid the right prices, and got the best return for his pyramid investments. He looked like the clear winner from the halfway point of the game.
45 mins rules rehash; 78 mins game play.

Results: Mark: 46. Brad: 30. Paul: 27.

Master Labyrinth: Mark brought this set with him which came in handy as the perfect way to end the night with something light and short for the remaining die-hards (three of us). There’s quite an elegance in the design of this game, although I only wish the movable rows and columns were slightly better distinguished from the non-moving ones.
All three of us noticed that from a completely random starting arrangement of tiles, a well-ordered pattern emerged by the end (only vaguely distinguishable in the low-res pics here). Apart from trying to move your dude onto the scoring chips, one is also trying to make it difficult for opponents, so I would not expect so much order to arise like this. Must be an emergent property of the game.
10 minutes rules; 30 mins game play.

Results: Mark: 136. Paul: 114. Alex: 105.

Venue: Paul’s Place.
Present: Ken, Alex, Brad, Pat, Paula, Paul.
Played: Fairy Tale, Diamant, Shadows over Camelot, Canyon, Carcassonne Hunters and Gatherers.

Almost returning now to the normal Sunday night pattern, except for a few absences and the welcome additions of Ken (visiting Sydney) and Paula (no Idol or Big Brother on TV). BTW, happy 40th again, Ken!
Pics by Brad with a new fish-eye lens (his camera, not Brad himself), although he seems to have used it for only one of the snaps below…

Fairy Tale: Some strange-looking Japanese card game about dragons, elves and fairies. Approx. 30 minutes.
Results: Alex: 44. Pat: 40. Ken: 37. Paula: 29. Brad: 17.

Diamant: According to Pat’s rules rather than the “correct” ones.
Brad is truly proving himself to be a master of this one now…
18 minutes.

Results: Brad: 54. Paula: 39. Alex: 34. Pat: 29. Paul: 22. Ken: 17.

Shadows over Camelot: Pat did an excellent job of concealing his traitorous intent. I don’t know if anyone suspected him other than me towards the end of the game. In truth, I was actually favouring Brad near the start, then leaning more towards Pat and Ken - the latter primarily because Paula seemed certain that Ken was the man. But by the last few turns I was convinced it was either Pat or no one, and leaning towards the guess that the traitor card had been left in the box.
To cut a story short, Paula as King Arthur brought the 12th sword to Camelot by completing the Grail quest with a bonus. Pat revealed his traitor card, and by swapping the white:black sword ratio from 7:5 to 5:7 could take a technical win. However, having overlooked this rule previously Pat chose not to claim this, leaving the rest of the loyal knights to a ‘moral’ victory.
Rules explan time: 30 minutes. Game playing time: 81 minutes.

Canyon: With the Grand Canyon expansion (at long last). The expansion powers add a bit more interest to a simple but good trick-taking game. We didn’t play with the extra pieces, ie., more rock obstacles and extra rapids squares. And we left out a few of the cards (Mad Move: Change the no. of cards dealt; and Wooden Heart: Place extra obstacles).
I could happily play either way next game; ie., with or without Grand Canyon expansion.
10 mins rules explan; 66 mins game play.

Results: A comfortable win by Alex, trailed by Paul, Ken, Pat, Brad, Paula, in that order.

Carcassonne Hunters and Gatherers: The evening wrap-up with just three of us left. 32 minutes.
Results: Paula: 134. Paul: 133. Pat: 100.

Venue: Pat’s Place.
Present: Rob, Brad, Pat, Paul.
Played: Yucata, Fuerio, Viking Fury, Corsari.

An opportunistic dip into Pat’s Thursday night world, although most regular participants are still on holidays. A few pics here, all taken with the Nokia.

Yucata: A filler, but quite a clever one. There’s more in this than meets the eye at first!
Due to either newbieness or carelessness or hopelessness, I ended up eating most of the blue (bad) stones in both games we played.
5 minutes rules, 2 x 15 minute games.

Game 1 Results: Rob: 5. Pat: 2. Paul: 1.
Game 2 Results: Rob: 8. Pat: 5. Paul: -16.

Feurio: Form the most valuable bucket brigade chains into a hexagonal fire advancing on multiple fronts. Judicious use of fire breaks can help mitigate bad luck on tile draws.
5 minutes rules, 2 x 15 minute games.

Game 1 Results: Paul: 42. Rob: 40. Pat: 31.
Game 2 Results: Rob: 45. Paul: 37. Pat: 23.

Viking Fury: This is by Ragnar Bros., apparently the same team responsible for History of the World, and Blooming Gardens. Apt, since this game is somewhere in between :-).
Brad has already written a review of this on BGG here. I agree with most of his observations and would add only the following:
1. When Pat explained the complexities of sea movement, my initial thought was that it seemed unnecessarily complicated and burdensome. However on playing, my experience was that this was not the case, and in fact this was an interesting aspect of turn planning. But given the rate that we accumulated and played Rune cards, I think the cost to change the wind modifier was rather cheap, and could probably be two cards instead of one.
2. Like ssmooth (see Brad’s review), I too found the dice-rolling aspect of conquest a real downer. I lost far too many opportunities on dice rolls than I should have given the weight of overwhelming force, and would like to see an alternative or modified raiding/settlement system, in which the strength of units on one’s longship is the main determinant of success rather than a dice roll. Eg., remove one die pip required for each surplus unit on board the longship (or something similar). The point is that a massively overwhelming force should win, even if the losses are heavy. At present, a mediocre force (of 3 units) is no less likely to be successful in a given turn than an advanced longship full to the brim with 7 Viking units, which just doesn’t feel quite right to me.
3. I’m not all that enthusiastic about the way points are accumulated, which are weighted heavily in favour of colonising than anything else. There is an exponential (or is it geometric?) progression in the value of settlements as others nearby become occupied. I would have preferred to see these values capped more reasonably in favour of adding more weight to the completion of Sagas, which would have the effect of increasing the competitive pressure in the game. However, I concede that the current weighting of points is arguably just as legitimate and a reflection of what the designers intended. New players simply need to be aware of this when they start playing - that a set of three 4-val settlements is actually worth more than earning the Saga majorities for all three nations (36 points versus 30).
Despite these criticisms, I’d be happy to play this again. I’d be even happier if there was a consensus house rule on eliminating, or at least reducing, the influence of the dice-roll gods of Ragnarok…
Rules explan time: 30 minutes. Game playing time: 158 minutes.

Results: Pat and Rob: both 162 (despite completely different patterns of play!). Paul: 121. Brad: 116.

Corsari: Get ready to set sail, me land-lubbin’ hearties, aaarrr…
Collect pirate suits.
One game of three hands for three players in about 30 minutes.
Game 1 Results (lower is better): Paul: 33. Pat:34. Brad:42.

Venue: The Entrance.
Present: Paul, Paula, Anthony, Leonie, Kellie.
Played: Carcassonne Hunters and Gatherers, Aqua Romana, Ticket to Ride Europe, Texas Hold ‘em Poker, Golf.

A brief account here of games with family at the in-laws’ house.

Carcassonne Hunters and Gatherers: Paula won one 2p game; I claimed a 4p victory.

Aqua Romana: All 2p games. Paula won two, I won one.

Ticket to Ride Europe: A convincing victory for me, but partly through Paula’s bad luck. She attempted a two-space tunnel 3 times in a row, with one card in reserve, and drew two matches from the tunnelling attempt on all 3 tries.

Texas Hold ‘em Poker: Inspired by Channel 10’s Wild Turkey Joker Poker, and also curiosity on the part of both Paula and myself, we had a crack at this with brother and sister-in-law Anthony and Leonie. According to Dr. Lee ‘Final Table’ Nelson, Australia is the fastest growing market for poker in the world, which is not hard to believe: Walk into any book, games or “$2” shop and poker sets and chips, “Dummies Guides” and other poker books, etc., seem to be front and centre in sales displays.
Neither of us entirely sure of the betting rules, Paula managed to track down during the day a little book that gave the briefest of summaries, which seemed adequate to fill in the gaps from what we could glean from the show. The main things I wasn’t sure of were what “checking” meant and what were the circumstances under which it could used, and how an “all-in” was played. The book’s explanation for “checking” was about one sentence long and not much help, but we played with it anyway and it all seemed to work. A later check on Wikipedia confirmed that how we played was all correct and basically fine, although we should have had limits on raise sizes so that they could only be in rounded-up multiples of the small blind.
We used a cheap set of poker chips, 25 x 4 colours, which cost about $2 from a discount store and worked perfectly well, and arbitrarily set them to be worth $1, 5, 10 and $50. For our first hands we set the blinds to be $1 and $2 small and big respectively, but on the next round they were doubled, then set to be $5 and $10.
Rather than playing eliminations, which is how the TV show works, instead we just played to a time limit (or rather, hand no. limit), but mainly because for the time available, and given the typical size of our bets per hand, no-one was likely to exhaust all of their chips. By the end I was up more than anyone else, thanks primarily to a single big win with a full house, later in the game when everyone had warmed up and become less conservative with their bets. An audit check revealed an accounting error somewhere, but even if the mistake had been all mine I was still comfortably ahead.
I could easily go at this again, with more or fewer players, using the same rules and patterns of play.

Golf: Arguably this entry doesn’t really belong here. But, three players, a variety of components, and score-keeping, so what the heck. Course was Wyong.
Approx. 150 minutes.
Results (lower is better): Anthony: 60. Paul: 68. Paula: 72. (Yes, it was nine holes, not 18!).
Is there any known good card or BG implementation of Golf? Maybe I should invent one…