Yes. I’d hoped/thought that my reply above answered it. Did it not?

Yes. Sounds good.

I do however have a question on the request for cheat-sheets or player-aids…

Comment posted over there.

Yeah. The auctions ended up being comical in the end too; raising bids $10 at a time and cards going for +$90.

It is rare that a card will actually be worth that much late in the game, given that it has little time to earn revenue.

Anyways, I’d like to take a mulligan on that one and give it another shot again this week.

Fair dinkum. The rules are fairly terse and dense. I imagine it is easy to miss bits, especially if you’ve not played 1830.

PS> JC, did you get my PM re: theme?

Yes. I’d hoped/thought that my reply above answered it. Did it not?

I do however have a question on the request for cheat-sheets or player-aids, but I’ll post a new entry on that rather than further extending this session report thread.

Actually the game does work with that much money in it, as you saw, but it pushes the focus very heavily onto precise timing and loses all the cashflow management that is properly part of the game.

Yeah. The auctions ended up being comical in the end too; raising bids $10 at a time and cards going for +$90.

Anyways, I’d like to take a mulligan on that one and give it another shot again this week.

Sincerely,

Terribly Embarrassed in Ontario

PS> JC, did you get my PM re: theme?

I’ve discovered a whole other ’silliness’… I gave $600 to EACH player instead of dividing it among them!

Ouch. Does anybody remember how much it takes before the boy scouts revoke a playtester merit badge?

Actually the game does work with that much money in it, as you saw, but it pushes the focus very heavily onto precise timing and loses all the cashflow management that is properly part of the game.

Oops. -Costas

We missed this rule, however: “Multiple bonuses may be paid for the same card if it is a member of multiple bonus categories, but each property card may only score once in each of the four bonus categories.”

I think this is what added to the high scores, extensive calculations and AP; esp. when with on the rainbow runs. We were counting cards multiple times.

AHh, that makes more sense, and yes, without that limit the bonuses quickly become insane. For example. without that limit, 5 cards of a suit would allow for a dozen different 3-card suited bonuses (M choose N). The whole purpose of the once per category rule is to prevent that sort of silliness as well as the related difficulties in visualisation. Umm, don’t do that!

As expected much more interaction here with almost all the cards with multiple bids and money dropping dangerously low only in the last two turns

FWIW, and this is just for amusement, I think the 3-player starting capital is probably a little high. It should probably be closer to $175 rather than $200. That said, your arguments on the 5 player capital needing to be higher are growing on me. I’m still working the numbers there. I wouldn’t be too surprised if $25/player moved from 3 player to 5 player.

By the end I was able to complete a nice 6-7-8 square in 3 colours wihile the second managed to have a 7 cards run from 4 to 12

Nod. Squares are worth a lot more than suited runs, but they’re harder to visualise.

On the prices of the “passed” cards: I guess the reason is the fact that I lowered the price by 2 instead of 5 after a complete round of “pass”. This doesen’t seem to change much in the game except for making it a bit longer (with -2 every pass round). I think you can deduce 5 minutes to the playing time for my previous games.

Ahh, that makes sense. The $5 discount rate has a couple effects, one of which you noticed in that it makes the game a little shorter, but it also creates more cases in which players are not only a dollar or two off being able to buy the card they want, but the exact turn order of who gets first dibs on the card at a certain price is more significant more often. I like this little timing game and the maneuvering that goes on around it.

Also this time reaction to the game went from good to very good, with appreciation to the depth of the choices that have to be made to obtain the bonuses…

Excellent!

Please confirm thet the calculated bonuses are correct…

Your bonuses are quite correct!

We missed this rule, however: “Multiple bonuses may be paid for the same card if it is a member of multiple bonus categories, but each property card may only score once in each of the four bonus categories.”

I think this is what added to the high scores, extensive calculations and AP; esp. when with on the rainbow runs. We were counting cards multiple times.

As always about 60 mins + explainations.

Scores : 506 (me), 399, 270 I’ll give you later my cards to verify the score…

As expected much more interaction here with almost all the cards with multiple bids and money dropping dangerously low only in the last two turns

Wild cards purchased around turns 3-4

By the end I was able to complete a nice 6-7-8 square in 3 colours wihile the second managed to have a 7 cards run from 4 to 12

On the colours issue: I guess the only problem with the present pattern is that the two colours used in the cards are quite similar for occupied surface so if you speak of the “red card” I am almost never sure if you are speking of “the card with the red inside” or the one “with the red outside”. It would probably be enough to make the outside colour thinner so that the inside one will become predominant in the pattern.

On the prices of the “passed” cards: I guess the reason is the fact that I lowered the price by 2 instead of 5 after a complete round of “pass”. This doesen’t seem to change much in the game except for making it a bit longer (with -2 every pass round). I think you can deduce 5 minutes to the playing time for my previous games.

I used 5 in this and will use it in future games.

Also this time reaction to the game went from good to very good, with appreciation to the depth of the choices that have to be made to obtain the bonuses…

My cards: Red7, Red8, Green6, Green7, GreenWC(8), Blue6, Blue7, BlueWC(8), Brown6, Brown7, Brown8, BrownWC(9), Brown12

Money $113 before bonuses

• Suits: $108
  • Green 3×8 $24
  • Blue 3×8 $24
  • Brown 5×12 $60
• Suited Runs: $108
  • Green 3×8 $24
  • Blue 3×8 $24
  • Brown 5×12 $60
• Triples: $78
  • three 6s $18
  • four 7s $28
  • four 8s $32
• Rainbows: $99
  • Green6, Brown7, Red8 3×8 $24
  • Blue6, Red7, Brown8 3×8 $24
  • Brown6, Green7, Blue8 3×8 $24
  • Blue7, Green8, Brown9 3×9 $27

Please confirm thet the calculated bonuses are correct…

Regards Lucio

In retrospect, we were bidding way too little for cards in the early game (average Cost+$10) and probably too much in the endgame (some going 2.5x Cost).

Ha! Yeah, card values and the rate and timing of their value decay takes a while to sink in.

JR – 959 Costas – 770 Paul – 701 April – 608

I suspect your scoring is a bit off there. There’s actually no way to get scores that high. Typical scores for 4 player games range between the mid 300s and the high 200s. 400+ is certainly possible, but everyone else has to fall to get it.

Too many calculations in the endgame.

I suspect you’re doing more calculation than you should be to get those scores you listed. A quick example of end-game calculation in a recent game here, but for a fictitious player we’ll call Bob because that’s not his name:

Bob’s holdings at the end of the game:

• Cash: $61 (after revenue collection)
• Cards:
  • Green 3
  • Yellow 7
  • Green 8
  • Blue 8
  • Blue 9
  • Brown 9
  • Green 12
  • Blue 12
  • Green Wild: value 9 Accumulated revenues: $36
  • Blue Wild: value 12 Accumulated revenues: $48

End-game bonuses:

• Suits:
  • Blue (4*12) $48
  • Green (4*12) $48
• Suited runs:
  • Blue: 8/9/12: $36
  • Green: 8/9/12: $36
• Triples:
  • Three 9s (Blue, Brown, Green): $27
  • Three 12s (Blue, Blue, Green): $36
• Rainbows:
  • Yellow 7/Blue 8/Green 9 (3*9) $27
  • Green 8/Brown 9/ Blue 12 (3*12) $36

Bob’s final score: ( 61+36+48+48+48+36+36+27+36+27+36) $439

Bob won rather resoundingly. The next highest score was around $250. Sob.

This has causes AP in the mid-late game.

The game is highly analytical, yes. There is a lot to think about and I’ve no problem with that.

Consider making a ‘basic game’ without the “Three or more property cards in revenue sequence with each card from a different suit” option, and an ‘advanced game’ with it.

Actually the game was like that for a long time. I added the rainbow runs because the game was failing. Without the rainbow runs early rounds will usually end after N+1 or N+2 bids when someone pulls the trigger so they can get their key cards cheaply. Rainbow runs increase the cross value of cards enough that this doesn’t happen (much) any more, and has the useful and necessary side effect of sucking money out of the early-game. A typical first round lot in a 4 player game here will usually only have the trigger pulled after 3 bids are on almost every card, with some cards having all players bidding on them. Of course the rate of contentive bidding falls as the game goes on, and that’s to be expected because the player values diversify, but it has to be there in the early game or the game simply doesn’t work.

There are four bonuses, two within suits, and two that cross suits and they’re effectively symmetrical. In both cases there’s 3+ of a kind and 3+ in sequence. That said, the way the players publicly display their cards before them can certainly make the pattern visualisation easier or harder for the other players. I like to lay out my cards so that all 4 bonus categories are clearly visible just by drawing a straight line across my grid of cards and seeing what cards or gaps are hit.

Color is a problem (already discussed).

Aye. It is funny. Only 2 of the roughly 30 tables I’ve played Corner Lot with here even mentioned the card colours or any problems with them. As soon as I send it out however everybody complains!

I am happy I didn’t do the card art. If I had, the cards would just be a spreadsheet of the values, black 20pt courier, printed onto coloured craft paper and chopped up. Huge thanks should go to Ariel Seoane for generously volunteering to do the card art without any notice back when on #bgdf_chat.

Related to this is theme – don’t underestimate the value of making the cards more thematic for some players.

The rules of course barely discuss the game theme, and asides from some smaller aspects of colour palette and graphic form, the current cards don’t either. My (weak) vision for the game is that each suit represents a property market somewhere in the world. The current idea is for each suit to bear a lable of a major city: London, Hong Kong, New York, Buenos Aires, Casablanca. The cards possibly could even have some background art suggestive of their foreign locations or of the scale of buildings they represent. Ambiance-wise, the game is presumed to be set in the late 1940s. But, that’s all presentation layer stuff and a bit outside of my game-design focus. I’ve passed it on to Ariel, who has even more generously volunteered to redo the card art when he’s an incredibly busy guy with a wife and kids and a paying day job and a (new game art contract from a new publisher) and so forth… We’ll see what he comes up with!

Overall, it was a positive experience.

Cool.

April wasn’t impressed, but she rarely is when she comes in last. Paul wants more theme. JR and Costas enjoyed it.

Excellent. Please double check your scoring though. You may find out she did better than you thought!

Game group description:

4 players, all with exposure to the more recent bunch of Winsome games; a lot of Age of Steam experience.

JR – human calculator, enjoys trying new games, loves strategy games with math calculations

April – very competitive, enjoys Power Grid, Age of Steam and Lokomotive Werks; doesn’t like losing.

Paul – very open to trying new games, but will lose interest quickly if not stimulated. Current hot game – Through the Ages

Costas – loves games w/ auctions; admittedly, not much auction game experience passed AoS and Wabash. Enjoys trying new games

Took about 20 minutes to read through rules and explain gameplay.

Our first game:

The game got off to a slow start as we were trying to wrap our heads around the gameplay.

JR went for as many cards as possible. April went with a more minimalist approach (she had 6 cards in the end) with solid runs. Paul and Costas were somewhere in the middle.

No wildcards were purchased in the first round; all were gone by round 3.

By the fourth round, the bonus structure sank in and we started to scramble for cards we needed to make runs. By then we were also discussing the value of the strategy of going after a card simply to prevent another player from getting it.

In retrospect, we were bidding way too little for cards in the early game (average Cost+$10) and probably too much in the endgame (some going 2.5x Cost).

Playtime: 60 min.

Final scores:

JR – 959 Costas – 770 Paul – 701 April – 608

Post-game comments:

Too many calculations in the endgame. This has causes AP in the mid-late game. Consider making a ‘basic game’ without the “Three or more property cards in revenue sequence with each card from a different suit” option, and an ‘advanced game’ with it.

Color is a problem (already discussed).

Related to this is theme – don’t underestimate the value of making the cards more thematic for some players.

Overall, it was a positive experience. April wasn’t impressed, but she rarely is when she comes in last. Paul wants more theme. JR and Costas enjoyed it.

I hope to try again soon.

Scores: 245, 235, 193, 154, 150

Much better!

A bit more interaction here with 4/5 disputed auctions going up to twice the cost of the card (2 times), wild cards bought quite late (3 still available entering the last round) and a really limited ammount of money in our hands till the end;…

That’s not too unusual.

…last round had 5/3, 10/4, 2×35/9 and 3×40/12 cards available and the last five were sold for far less than their values (between 8 and 24)

Huh, what? You have a rule wrong somewhere. All costs are always a multiple of 5. How do you get costs of 8 or 24? That’s just not possible when card prices are falling due to everyone passing.

The winner said he loved the game while my GF did not at all, but she is biased on 18xx and derivatives (after a 19 hours 18c2c closed for consumption after a 5 hours stock round a couple years ago) so she played the game only out of her love for me… the other two players enjoyed it enough.

Ha! I understand. We have a ritual 18C2C game here very year. We’ve never actually finished even once. After ~14 hours we’re too tired and just call the game and spend the next year arguing over who was in the best position to win if we’d actually finished.

One last doubt on the bonuses: if I have, let’s say, Red 15/5, Green 20/6, Blue 25/7 and Brown 25/7, I understand that I can have 2 bonuses for 3×7$ (one for Red 15/5, Green 20/6, Blue 25/7 and one for Red 15/5, Green 20/6, Brown 25/7), is that correct ?

No, that is not correct. There are four bonus categories. Each card may participate in each bonus category only once. Thus a card can score a suited bonus once, a suited run once, a set of triples or more once, and a rainbow run once. You are scoring the Red 5 and Green six twice for the same bonus category. The Red 5 and Green 6 can each only score one bonus for a rainbow run, thus your total bonus for the above 4 cards is for one rainbow run of Red 5, Green 6 and either Blue or Brown 7 for a total bonus of 21.

Scores: 245, 235, 193, 154, 150

The only player with experience (my GF) was second. Players in this game were more experienced but none of them (except me and my GF) had enough experience of 18xx to remember clearly the starting auction.

A bit more interaction here with 4/5 disputed auctions going up to twice the cost of the card (2 times), wild cards bought quite late (3 still available entering the last round) and a really limited ammount of money in our hands till the end; last round had 5/3, 10/4, 2×35/9 and 3×40/12 cards available and the last five were sold for far less than their values (between 8 and 24)

The winner said he loved the game while my GF did not at all, but she is biased on 18xx and derivatives (after a 19 hours 18c2c closed for consumption after a 5 hours stock round a couple years ago) so she played the game only out of her love for me… the other two players enjoyed it enough.

One last doubt on the bonuses: if I have, let’s say, Red 15/5, Green 20/6, Blue 25/7 and Brown 25/7, I understand that I can have 2 bonuses for 3×7$ (one for Red 15/5, Green 20/6, Blue 25/7 and one for Red 15/5, Green 20/6, Brown 25/7), is that correct ?

Tomorrow evening I’ll have another chance to find people to try it…

On the “names” of the cards: I agree but as I see a 3- and a 5-card I can suspect the presence of a 4-card but, as the revenue is a relevant part of the game, I am not sure if this is true or the 4-card has been removed because of some sort of evaluation on the revenues (expecially if I have already discovered that between 9 and 12 there is no other card), while, if I see an A-and a C-card, as the letters have no influence in the game I am almost sure of the existance of a B-card (expecially if I have already discovered that between 9/G-card and 12/H-card there is no other card).

Regards Lucio

This is a set collecting game. We’re going to be buying cards in a weird auction and collecting revenues for the cards we get. At the end of the game we’ll get bonuses for having certain patterns of cards. The player with the largest net worth wins.

There are 5 suits of cards with 8 cards per suit. (Lay out 8 cards, one of each value) Property cards have a cost and a revenue. The cost is the baseline of how much they cost to acquire and the revenue is roughly what they’ll pay you every round for owning them. With one exception the cost is always the revenue minus two times five. And the exception is…? (Wait for someone to point at the 40/12) Correct!

The deck will be shuffled and five cards will be laid face up to the side. (Lay 5 cards off to the side) These are out of the game and yes, you get to see them. Then 7 cards are laid in a sorted row as so. (Does this) This is the current market: the cards up for auction first. Then another 7 cards are set out, and make the future market: the cards auctioned in the second round. Later they’ll move down to become the current market, a new set of 7 will be dealt to be the new future market and so forth. As there are 40 cards in the deck, 5 are out, leaving 35, the game has 5 rounds of 7-card lots.

Okay, we’ll also pick a start player. They’ll get the first turn, then the player to their left and so on. Always purely rotational. That never changes.

On your turn you may bid, buy or pass. That’s it, just bid, buy or pass. Bidding! You may bid on any card in the current market that isn’t the cheapest/bottom card and that you haven’t bid on already. Just to keep the bids straight, make your bids by putting your chips on the corner of the card nearest you. So you get this corner, you get this corner you get this corner etc. (points) The minimum bid is the cost of the card plus $2, or $2 more than the highest bid on the card, whichever is more. Instead of bidding you can just buy the cheapest/bottom card for face value: this number on the card. (points) Pay your money, take the card. And of course, you can pass. If you pass you’re not out: you can come back in later.

So why bid ahead and pay that $2 premium? Because the high cards are worth a lot more than their face value and the low cards, are well, not so good. (Quickly throws some chips on the various cards, some cards with a single bid, some two, some three, usually the penultimate card with none) When someone buys the bottom card we then look at the next card up. If it has just a single bid on it, then that player gets the card instantly for his bid. (Shows this) Then we do it again. Ahh, the next card has two bids! Those two players then go clockwise bidding for the card until only one person is left and they win the card for their bid and the losers get their money back. The minimum raise is $2. This next card has 3 bids on it: same thing happens, round robin etc, And this keeps on going, the stack keeps unrolling until there are either no cards left or you get to a card with no bids on it. Then it stops. Usually all 7 cards in the market will go all at once! The key thing is that by bidding ahead you are securing the right to bid later. You are bidding for the right to bid!

Now all this unrolling and bidding and cards going places etc happens during the turn of the player who bought the bottom card. Once it is all done, the next player gets his turn.

Now of course with this card here (points to the penultimate card with no bids), say you (points) have the next turn, you can just buy that card for face value, you can bid on this last card if you haven’t already, or you can pass. It might be a good deal. Or not.

Okay, once all the cards in the current market are gone we get revenues! You get paid for every card you have. But you don’t get the full revenue! If the wild card for that suit hasn’t been bought, then every card in that suit pays $2 less. (I’ll talk about the wild cards and how to get them later) So this 5/3 card only pays $1 and this 25/7 only pays $5 and so forth.

So we all get our money, a new future market is dealt and we do it all again. We do that 5 times and the game is over and we figure out how much I won by. Or not. Again. Bahh!

At the end of the game you get bonuses for the cards you have. There are four bonuses. For 3 or more cards in the same suit you get the number of cards you have of that suit times the highest revenue card you have in that suit, Then, 3 or more cards in the same suit in adjacent numerical order (and 12 comes after 9 as there is no 10 or 11) pays the number of cards in the runs times the highest revenue card (so 4/5/6 or 7/8/9/12 for instance), 3 or more cards of the same value pays the number of cards time the revenue, and 3 or more cards of adjacent values but with each card of a different suit and each suit only occurring once pays the number of cards times the highest revenue. Sort of a “rainbow” run. It is always 3 or more cards.

Each card can pay all four bonuses, but it can’t pay any bonus more than once. So 5/6/7 in suit will pay two bonuses, one for the suit and one for the run! But you you can’t take four 7s and say you have three sets of triple 7s as you mix and match them, and you can’t take two 5s, a single 6 and two 7s and say you have two rainbow runs.

So these bonuses are where the real money is in the game. And what you really want is for all of your cards to pay out multiple bonuses in different directions. Something like a 5/6/7 in 3 suits will pay every which way, for the suits, the suited run, the triples, and the three rainbows, see? See why the big cards are so much more valuable? (Get an answer)

So we do all that and the player with the most money wins! It takes about 45 minutes.

Oh, the wilds! Okay, remember the bid, buy or pass business? You can just buy a wild card. It costs $20. This is just like buying the bottom card, but it doesn’t start the stack unrolling. When you buy a wildcard you have to instantly say what it is. It is a 7! This is a 12! Whatever, just one of the card values: 3/4/5/6/7/8/9/12. But! But! When it comes to revenue time, the revenue for the wild card goes straight to the card and just piles up there. You don’t get it until the end of the game. Also, you have to pay the bank $5 for each wild card you own. You do get your revenue income first, so you can pay from that, but if you still can’t you have to put the wild card back and you lose all the money that piled up on it. Not good.

Now for the bonuses the wilds are just like any other card. They have a suit and they have a value. You can have the wild be a duplicate of another card you have, so you could have a blue 40/12 and have a wild blue 40/12 too. That’s cool and sometimes good.

And of course, once someone buys a wild, all the cards in that suit will now pay their full revenue.

There’s also a trick in passing. If everyone passes in a round, $5 is put on the bottom card. It is now $5 cheaper! However the first person to pass doesn’t get first dibs at the card at the new price. The turn marker moves forward and the next player does. Of course if everyone one passes again, it gets $5 cheaper again and the turn marker moves forward etc. If it ever gets to $free the next player has to take the card. Such a problem!

So we do all this: bidding, buying cards, move about, vast amounts of money leap out of the bank and go to me, all that stuff. We do 5 rounds, then we pay out the bonuses, count up the money, and see that I won yet again. Do I really have to be the banker?

Any questions?

It is not the best teaching script ever, but it does seem to handle or prevent some of the problem’s y’all are encountering. I hope it helps. Hopefully I’ve not forgotten anything, as that was written from memory.

Strange thing the 35/9 cards are payed so much as they seem to be those with the lowest revenue rate\u2026 I\u2019d prefer to use a Wild card instead of a 35/9\u2026

The 35/9 and 30/8 cards are the best cards in the game. It is that simple. The problem with the wild cards is the combined hit on cashflow and on cash holdings. The 36/9 is a huge hit on cash holdings, but it at least offers cashflow, and quickly. Frankly, a 35/9 is a better deal than a wildcard 35/9 for most cases. There are several exceptions, especially once you have a decent cashflow source already going, but I’ll let y’all work out the arithmetic on that. I’ve spent a lot of time with a spreadsheet and calculator on this game.

Tonight replay with new players\u2026

Excellent! I look forward to your report.

So you can print on the cards a “name” to clarify that between 35/9 and 40/12 there is no other card or that between 10/4 and 20/6 there is another card (15/5)…

So: A=5/3, B=10/4, C=15/5, D=20/6, E=25/7, F=30/8, G=35/9, H=40/12

Strange thing the 35/9 cards are payed so much as they seem to be those with the lowest revenue rate… I’d prefer to use a Wild card instead of a 35/9…

Tonight replay with new players…

Gameplay ~55 mins plus explanation.

Winner had 210, second 186, third 176 and fourth 164, last 135.

FWVLIW our 5 player scores started out similar, moved up by around 20% as we played more and then fell back down to ~10% larger.

I too would suggest some revenue markers for the Wild cards and a “name” on the cards to show the position in the sequence (even A,B,C…H is good enough) as I had to repeat many times the order of revenue.

I’m afraid I don’t understand the bit about the name and order of revenue. What sequence? What order of revenue? Could you explain a bit more? I apologise for the struggle, but I’m afraid my Italian is far worse than your English.

There was almost no struggle for the cards, only once two players placed their bet on the same card nad then the bidding went on for not more than a couple of calls

Yeah, this is common with 5 player games with new players. The largest decision in the game isn’t what or where to bid, it is the attempt to control who pulls the trigger on the stack when, and it can take a game or two before they really see that well. I find with more experienced players many bids start being placed not in attempt to win a property card, but purely in order to ensure that the next bidder doesn’t pull the trigger yet — even if there’s another card they personally want and haven’t bid on yet.

There was a substantial lack of money, in 4/5 occasions there were many rounds of “pass” before somebody was ready to pay for a card (and almost nobody was “holding back”, they just had no money to buy the card)

If the high cards come out early and fast, if over-bidding averages over ~25% per card or if the wild cards sell quickly before players have an income stream going, then this is normal and expected. Timing those passing rounds so that you are the player with the cash and the right position in turn order just when the card gets cheap enough can be an important aspect of the game. Most games, even 3 and 4 player games, have at least 2 property cards (and often 3) which have their prices driven down either because no players have enough cash to afford them or because they simply have negative value to everyone but one player and that player waited until the cheapest moment before buying. This is normal, expected and desired. More than a few games are won on the margins gained by that exact timing.

What I feel is that the money was not enough for the 5-players game (and this would be even worse for a 6-players grame). Think that 30 $ more would mean at least 1 bidding more per player in the game and so more than 1 bidding more per turn and so a notable increase in the interaction.

I forgot to mention this, but I removed support for 6 players in the latest rules revision. I also recommend the 4 player game more than the 5 player game. For me 4 players is the clear sweet spot. 3 and 5 players both work but are less interesting than with 4.

Adding $30 for 5 players is possible. I’ve been thinking about it for a while and will think about it more. How well it works depends hugely on the order at which cards come out and how aggressive bidding is. The problem with extra capitalisation, such as it is, is that a player late in the resolution stack can readily be held ransom to a far larger degree than players earlier in the resolution stack. They easily end up paying through the nose simply because the cost of not getting the card is extreme where-as the over-bidding penalty for their opposition is typically far smaller. In short, the last high revenue cards get bid up even more. In most of our games 40/12 cards in the first rounds have final prices well over $60 with 35/9 cards well into in the $50s (that’s with 4 players, the numbers are a little lower with 5 players). That over-bidding rate for the high cards is about right and the resulting game works well from there. I fear that putting more cash into the 5 player game would push those bid points even higher, well past reason as getting at least one card, especially a decent revenue card, is so important in the first round and that can be exploited by the players against each other. Reducing player Capitalisation actually reduces this problem because the penalty for over-bidding is now larger (there’s less cash slop).

Hurm. I’ll think about this some more. Please feel free to try a little more money in 5 player games if you’d like. I’m very uncertain what if anything I’ll do there.

Moreover I think that having a bit more money would give the players the perception of being able to spend more and to do more.

If the money fairly instantly washes out into over-bidding payments, there’s really no difference there.

One last issue I have is with the possibility of having a very uneven distribution of cards in the first rounds that might somehow “kill” the game (think of the 5 12$ or, even worse, the 5 9$ cards coming out all in the first round). I’m actually not sure of what would happen to the game but I think you should analyse it.

Been there, done that. In fact we’ve had a 4 player game recently in which the first round Current Market was exactly as follows in order:

• Brown $7
• Red $8
• Blue $8
• Green $9
• Blue $9
• Red $9
• Brown $12

The 5 removed cards were:

• Blue $6
• Green $8
• Brown $8
• Brown $9
• Red $12

I don’t have record of the Future Market cards, but recall that they were all just as much low value as this market was high. Amusingly enough there were no yellow cards in the Future Market either. It wasn’t until the third round that they started to dribble out slowly. The markets for the fourth and fifth rounds were almost solid yellow.

The game worked just fine, but the first round bidding was amusingly vicious. As soon as someone bid on a card, almost everyone else bid on it too. Nobody was willing to allow any chance of any card going for merely $face+2. The players started bidding way over minimum, just to decrease the competitive bidding rate IIRC the Blue $8 sold for $43 and the Blue $9 for $60, both to the same player — who then went on to win the game by a $3 margin. Ahh, it was great.

Now I’m going to have the cards printed in full colours for wednesday night games so that I’ll be able to give you better infos on the time of playing… I’ll try to get some poker chips too…

Excellent!

Played a 5-players game with paper money and cards printed in B/W and marked with a letter to be better recognized.

The missing colours were a delay but not an issue for the card acquisition (nobody spent money unwillingly for a useles card)

Gameplay ~55 mins plus explaination.

Winner had 210, second 186, third 176 and fourth 164, last 135.

We used wooden cubes as player markers and it worked perfectly.

I too would suggest some revenue markers for the Wild cards and a “name” on the cards to show the position in the sequence (even A,B,C…H is good enough) as I had to repeat many times the order of revenue.

I missed a point in the rules so I did not show the missing cards in the beginning.

Here my thoughts on the game:

There was almost no struggle for the cards, only once two players placed their bet on the same card nad then the bidding went on for not more than a couple of calls…

There was a substantial lack of money, in 4/5 occasions there were many rounds of “pass” before somebody was ready to pay for a card (and almost nobody was “holding back”, they just had no money to buy the card)

What I feel is that the money was not enough for the 5-players game (and this would be even worse for a 6-players grame). Think that 30 $ more would mean at least 1 bidding more per player in the game and so more than 1 bidding more per turn and so a notable increase in the interaction.

Moreover I think that having a bit more money would give the players the perception of being able to spend more and to do more.

I’d suggest to start with 150$ also the game with 5/6 players instead than using the 18xx method of dividing the total sum for the number of players.

One last issue I have is with the possibility of having a very uneven distribution of cards in the first rounds that might somehow “kill” the game (think of the 5 12$ or, even worse, the 5 9$ cards coming out all in the first round). I’m actually not sure of what would happen to the game but I think you should analyse it.

It did not happen but I started wondering “what if…”

Now I’m going to have the cards printed in full colours for wednesday night games so that I’ll be able to give you better infos on the time of playing… I’ll try to get some poker chips too…

Regards Lucio

I played two 4-player games today with players that seem to enjoy economic games, but are not hardcore gamers. The games went surprisingly well. After the first game, they all immediately wanted to play again. This surprised me quite a bit. I wasn’t keeping track of time, but I think the 45-minute goal was about right.

Cool! Could you expand on that a bit please? What did the other players think? What did they think about the game? What was interesting? What was appealing? What was disenchanting? All that subjective stuff.

As for the game, I suppose I am a horrible playtester because I can’t think of how to improve the game. There might be something to balance better with the card values, but I certainly wouldn’t know where to start with that and don’t necessarily think there is anything to fix.

No worries. I’m pretty pleased with it as it is! It is tempting to up the price of the wildcards to $25 (as they are very strong), but that can make the mid-game quite a bit rockier than I’d like.

We used wooden cubes for player markers from a different game. That worked great.

I haven’t bothered with player markers here. I’ll probably use glass bits for the review copies I send out. We just have each player put their bids on the card corners closest to that player. With the rare 5 player games, that player just plays in the middle of one side. However the published game (if there is to be one) should clearly have player markers. That would allow bids to merely be placed adjacent to the cards, which is a bit simpler and clearer.

How were we supposed to mark what the wilds were worth? We used mini poker chips from another game for this. I think some revenue markers need to be included with the game.

I don’t mark them. The player simply remembers until the revenue round. At that point the chips that collect on the card have acted as an effective documentation for us. Still, you’re not the first player to ask for a better system there. I’ll try and think of something. Richard Irving has suggested a second card which sits underneath and is slid up to show the value. Ariel has suggested either a number track with markers or even a little marker track on the card itself. I dunno.

The first game, everyone went for one color each and didn’t bother with other colors unless they were very cheap.

Yeah, that’s typical with new players. It seems to take a game before they learn that grids pay off much better than straights.

One player basically tried to buy as many 12s/wilds as possible, not quite successfully.

Getting a lot of wild 12s early can be great, but you’d better also hope that you have the cash flow at the right times to get a good spread of matching 8s and 9s. That’s not so easy.

A card-sized player aid would be helpful. The one for Schotten-Totten could be used as a model. http://boardgamegeek.com/image/137317

You’re the second of ~40 players to request that. I’ll see what I can come up with.

A minor comment on the card design–the choice of the same colors on multiple cards created minor confusion. Someone would ask for the “red” card and someone else would ask “which red one? The outside red or inside red.”

Yeah, that’s a fairly common complaint. I’m currently working with the chap who did the card art for me (Ariel Seoane) on new card art. He’s got some great ideas! I hope to have something there Real Soon Now.

The game was very easy to assemble and the cards were very easy to use and I like the look. Good job.

Thanks.

As for the game, I suppose I am a horrible playtester because I can’t think of how to improve the game. There might be something to balance better with the card values, but I certainly wouldn’t know where to start with that and don’t necessarily think there is anything to fix. We used the $2 minimum raises which worked fine. I think $3 might be too much. Money was already tight, though we rarely ran out.

We used wooden cubes for player markers from a different game. That worked great. We played with poker chips. How were we supposed to mark what the wilds were worth? We used mini poker chips from another game for this. I think some revenue markers need to be included with the game.

As for the scores, we were in the 200-300 range similar to how your games have gone. The first game, everyone went for one color each and didn’t bother with other colors unless they were very cheap. The winner was the one with the most complete straight flush (generating 96 points x2). The second game was completely different in that we focused on things other than the flush. Scores were a little higher, with the winning score at about 370. Others were something like 170/250/300. Wilds were bought up more quickly. One player basically tried to buy as many 12s/wilds as possible, not quite successfully.

As for the rules, they seemed clear enough. I had a friend read them on the drive to the gaming event and he explained the game. As he was explaining, I realized it was the 18xx auction and helped him explain the rest of the rules. I later read the rules. One thing he was confused about was which cards to resolve after the lowest card was bought. I looked back in the rules and it was written clearly enough. We had to go back and forth a few times about the scoring, but the rules are clear. A card-sized player aid would be helpful. The one for Schotten-Totten could be used as a model. http://boardgamegeek.com/image/137317

A minor comment on the card design–the choice of the same colors on multiple cards created minor confusion. Someone would ask for the “red” card and someone else would ask “which red one? The outside red or inside red.” The game was very easy to assemble and the cards were very easy to use and I like the look. Good job.

JC, super short notice, but if you send me a playtest kit, I think I could get a play and report in tomorrow (Sunday).

Instructions going out by email in a few minutes. This is an easy one to make: just 45 cards.

ObNote: I’m also updating the rules tonight. In order to get the instructions to you ASAP the kit you get will not have the updated rules. The only change will be that the minimum bid-raise when resolving cards in $2.

End game scores… I lost with 284, then 323, 327 and winner had 366.

That’s impressively high for a 4 player game. Typical here is for the winner to be over 300 and the rest at or under.

Too much information is easy — my friends would’ve preferred something tad more random. For example, the five cards out of the game could be hidden (I wouldn’t necessarily want to play that game).

The calculations is what makes the game unpleasant, and particularly the mathematical type of calculation, the arithmetic nature of the game that is. After all, the guy who complained about that was just previously very happy thinking about routes in Greentown.

Nod. Hehn. Thanks for the clarification.

We had some issues with the rules… From my first reading of the rules I thought buying wild cards launched resolving, but obviously it doesn’t. That was the biggest thing, I think.

Ahh Okay. I’m very interested in any portions of the rules that are ambiguous or confusing.

I would suggest having a same minimum bid everywhere, I don’t like rules where same things are done in different ways (for example dividends vs Chicago dividend in Wabash), those are always hardest to remember. It feels like an unnecessary complication (makes you wonder why is the minimum $2 here when it’s $1 elsewhere).

I’ve played both ways. I’m going to go back to $2 raises everywhere, perhaps for a somewhat silly reason. A forces $2 minimum raise allows players to play little odd/even games in order to try and force other players into corners. I like that: a new modestly interesting decision point for (nearly) free.

But, as I said, I definitely want to try this one again.

Cool. I look forward to your further reports.