Boardgame session; 29Dec2019

  

The final boardgame session of the decade! Time to get out those Xmas gifts.

First to hit the table was Castles of Burgundy; a classic now 20 years old (but new to my collection). The ‘new’ printing looks good (although the monasteries are still printed too small to recognise easily), and the inclusion of many small expansions is welcome. The game plays at a good pace, and presents interesting (and diminishing) choices as each round progresses. There appear to be many routes to victory, with none dominating at the expense of others. The game mechanisms are easy to understand (which makes teaching simple) but the possibilities available are large, which can lead to some AP if you are not careful. The final scores were tight but Chris was the winner. Elaine and I have played the 2-player version, and the game scales very well from 2-4 players. We played using many of the expansions, but have yet to use either the ‘trade routes’, ‘victory shields’, nor the ‘Inns’.

Next we played ‘Ticket to Ride- Japan’. In this map variant you have fewer individual trains, but you contribute to joint ‘bullet train’ routes which can be shared to complete tickets. There is a huge potential end-game point shift depending on a players contribution to the ‘bullet train’ project. In the 4-player game there is a 30 point shift between the first and last contributors, which has a profound effect on the relative scores. When we tried the map as a 2-player experience; the ‘bullet train’ effect seemed as strong. It is therefore vital to monitor the number of bullet train markers as the game progresses. The map board is large and the geography of Japan takes some getting used to. On the reverse of the board is the Italy map, which we have yet to try.

 

Christmas prezzie games yet to hit the table include ‘Brass – Lancashire’, ‘Jaipur’ and ‘Liar Dice’.

A painting year, 2019

The year of 2019 has come to an end and I can look back on what I have managed to paint. I am a ‘sad’ gamer who logs all the items painted, generally in chronological order, so here is my 2019 list:

Number	Scale	Period	Manufacturer	Notes:
77	15mm	Ancient Spanish	Lancashire Games
90	15mm	Ancient Italians	Lancashire Games
80	15mm	Ancient Gallic foot	Lancashire Games
20	15mm	2 Elephants & Generals	Lancashire Games
75	15mm	Sea Peoples	Lancashire Games
15	20mm	Wild West	Kolossal Games	Western Legends figures
22	28mm	Wild West civilians	Blue Moon
455	15mm	Han Chinese	Lancashire Games
24	28mm	Marlb. Infantry	Warlord	For ‘pirate’ militia
23	28mm	Pirates	Foundry
2	1/700	Nap. Naval	Warlord	Plastic sloops
2	1/300	WW2 coastal naval	Warlord	Vosper MBTs
1	15mm	Modern naval	??	Coast Guard vessel
225	10mm	C19th figures	Pendraken

 

Actually, 2019 was a quiet year in terms of painting. I completed my Punic Wars armies (15mm) and added a couple of large Han Chinese armies (15mm), all thanks to Lancashire Games. My 10mm Pendraken C19th armies have increased and I hope to get these on the table in 2020. Otherwise it has been odds & sods. My lead pile is all most at zero! I need inspiration!!

Impressions of Lasalle Napoleonic rules by Sam Mustafa

A few posts ago I mentioned that I had completed an inventory of my figures/armies, and that it was my intention to get some of the lesser used figures on the table. In the run up to Christmas my diary, and that of opponents, tends to get full and as a consequence the opportunities for competitive games dries up. I therefore turn to solo gaming and trials of different rule sets.

My large collection of 25mm Minifig Napoleonic armies are some of the oldest I possessing dating back to the mid-1970’s! The sculpts are poor by modern standards, but I find the old school style attractive. I have never considered the need to update any of the armies and the larger 28mm figures do not mix well. These armies have seen considerable action over their lifetime but have not come out of their boxes in recent years. I decided to rectify this and re-visit a set of rules I enjoyed when they were first released; ‘Lasalle’ by Sam Mustafa.

I have played four games covering all four theatres of operations (Conquest, Empire, Liberation and Peninsular) using French versus Austrian, Russian, Prussian and British forces. Each game revolved around the basic ‘Line’ Division, plus one additional brigade as outlined in the force selection part of the rules. I was pleasantly surprised how smoothly the games flowed, and appreciated how the game end victory conditions worked. The key rules design feature is a simple re-ordering of the standard player turn; instead of the normal move/fire/melee sequence, Lasalle changes this to fire(react)/melee/move. This basic change, at a stroke, removes all those ‘what if’ situations and out of sequence reactions found in almost all other rules. It introduces clarity and order, makes players choices clear, and allows greatly improved structure and order in the rule writing. The QRS is sufficient for most of the game, but when a point needs to be looked up, it can be quickly found in the relevant section of the rule book. Sam Mustafa’s writing is concise and thoughtfully illustrated with examples where needed, and the rules are beautifully produced. I used the advanced/optional rules because they are not complex and do add to the experience.

I think Lasalle represents one of the best sets of rules (of any period) that I own. They give a great game experience, and are an exemplar of how a set of rules should be written and published. They are not perfect, no rules are! I feel the terrain selection rules do not work well, the set up choices are limited and too often the defender will place a long stone wall across his frontline. This problem is easily rectified by substituting whatever terrain method a player prefers. I also feel it is too easy to charge artillery head on; the gunners really have no choice but to retire out of harms’ way rather than delivering a devastating blast of canister and stopping the attack in its tracks. I have a few minor ‘house’ rules I will introduce to my games, none of which drastically alter the nature of the game. I can see more Napoleonic games using Lasalle in the near future.

Boardgame Session 1Dec2019

‘Brass’ is a boardgame that I have been interested in playing for a while due to its reputation. This Sunday we finally got to play ‘Brass – Birmingham’ with Val and Chris. There is a lot going on in the game and many possible paths to riches and victory. The range of actions open to a player is both limited and straight forward, but the options available is much wider and frequently depends on what others have done and the positions on the map. Which of the three manufacturing industries do you wish to invest in? Will you concentrate on building a good network? Do you put your money into coal or steel, or beer? When do you get a loan so you can invest in your empire? Do you trash lower status factories to enable you to invest in possible better facilities later? Do you build early before another player snatches towns away from you? Decision making in this game is tough, and players who suffer from analysis paralysis will struggle and slow the game down! The game also splits nicely into to two, with the canal era being followed by the rail era. The board is partially re-set, and the parameters for establishing a network change so that coal is a more important resource. In our game beer was the limiting factor in the canal era, and for me, the beer mechanism seemed a bit strange thematically although I can see that it is necessary for game play. The card play is good and provides a time/clock mechanism for the game, and you only have a few turns to accomplish what you want to do.

Our game took ~3 hours to complete, which seems like a long time but game play is reasonably fast and you become so absorbed that time passes un-noticed. I had a healthy lead in terms of victory points at the end on the canal era, but my income was low and I had ignored building potteries (which can yield large victory points). I therefore entered the rail era with some trepidation! In the second half of the game Chris came storming forward, upgrading his potteries and utilising his coal production to good effect to construct a good rail network. Val and Elaine both had good income streams, and I felt I was struggling financially. Elaine and I had to leave before the final scores were calculated, and I was sure I had come last. It turned out that Chris won with 123 points, I was only just behind on 120 points, Elaine was third with 100 points and Val came in last.

On reflection, I can see why Chris won but am not sure why/how I managed second place. I felt both Elaine and Val had played better than me in the second era, and I don’t think my success early on would result in a high score at the end.

Both Elaine and I really enjoyed the game. It makes you think and you are constantly interested in the actions of the other players. As a result I am thinking of buying my own copy of Brass. I think I might buy the ‘Lancashire’ version, which has some differences in rules and geography, but still has the same core mechanics. The ‘Birmingham’ version appears to be rated by gamers as the better of the two, but I would prefer not to duplicate Chris’s game collection. My only negative criticisms of the game are (i) the dark artwork, but I suppose this is to convey the black, satanic mills of the industrial revolution Black Country, and (ii) the ‘night’ board on the reverse of the ‘day’ board. I can’t see the point of this, surely the publishers would have been better advised to use a different area of the country, or maybe, simply combine the two games (‘Birmingham’ and ‘Lancashire’).