KGB

KGB returns

2007-07-02T13:14:00.000Z

KGB sessions will return on a regular basis starting this weekend.
I hope we can attract more people during the summer time!

Chronicles of the Cold War (part 1)

2007-05-08T11:37:00.002Z

Game: Twilight Struggle

Players: Ricardo – America
Me – USSR

This report will cover the events of two games of Twilight Struggle between me and Ricardo.

Round 1:

The game started with an earlier American advantage. Having Ricardo all the scoring cards of the the early war during the first two turns he was able to know were to invest and beat me in the scoring of those areas.

But not having any scoring card had its advantages! First of all, I had the chance to play more cards, meaning more influence around the globe. And second, without knowing were the scoring would be, I was investing in all the regions at the same time. These two factors combined allowed me to spread my presence in all the regions at the time, and not concentrating my efforts in a single one. The result was that during the middle war, I was able to unbalance the score in my favour, being able to keep it that way until the end of the game, rushed by the “war games” card. In the end, USSR won by a single point at the beginning of turn 10. If the game would finish in the end of the turn, I would probably maintain the win, since USSR had more influence overall.

USA 0 – 1 USSR

Round 2:

We played the round 2 of this game just three days after the first one. The start of the game was almost the same, with the Americans gaining an early advantage. But unlike the previous game, USSR was unable to catch up, and by mid war, USA had enough advantage to finish the game with the “war games” card, at the beginning of turn 8. Once more, USSR had more influence of the world, but with 3 more turns to play, the situation could become more balanced.

In this round I had more problems placing influence on South and Central America, and Ricardo kindly removed the influence I had as soon as he could. The scoring cards were more balanced this time as well, and I did not had the advantage of having more cards to play. Also, for the first time one faction achieved “control” over a region; I was able to control the Middle East, and having a huge score on that region, that helped me to lose by a single point only.

USA 1 – 1 USSR

After two “Cold Wars”, USA and USSR manage to win one of them, both by a single point only. Just like during the real Cold War, there seems to be a tie. Can you get more realism than that?

Civilization: 2007-04-22

2007-04-23T12:29:00.000Z

Line-up

Africa – Dalim Thor

Thrace – Red Piss Legion

Crete – Philip

Babylon – Me

Egypt – Sgrovi

The game started with an initial confusion concerning the rules. Sgrovi, the owner of the game, read the rules from a file downloaded from BGG, that had some rules different from those of the rulebook. We decided to go with that version, finding out later it was wrong.

The first turns all players expanded having no conflicts.

On turn 3 Crete builds two ships and starts expanding out of the island.

On turn 4 Africa and Egypt build the first cities (1 each).

On turn 5 all civs except Crete constructed at least one city.

Turn 6, Africa and Egypt bought the first advance (Mysticism).

The first trade occurred on turn 7 between Thrace and Babylon.

Crete constructed the first 3 cities on turn 8, the turn where things started to get interesting. The first conflict and 3 calamities occurred on that turn. The conflict was minor, but the calamities have done some damages. A volcano in Crete did not cause much damage. A famine in Africa affected all players. The last calamity was a civil war in Egypt (Babylon benefited from it). Egypt lost 2 cities and a token.

Turn 9: With all player having at least 4 cities, the first epidemic occurred. The “lucky” civ was Thrace, but it affected all but Crete.

At start of turn 10, Crete, Babylon and Egypt had a solid empire, while Africa and Thrace were struggling to build cities due to early decisions. 5 calamities occurred on this turn. Famine and a civil war (with no effect) in Africa, an epidemic in Crete, Heresy in Egypt and a civil disorder in Babylon. Thus far, the epidemics and famines were causing the most damage to the civs, and the heresy delayed Egypt a little.

On turn 11, a flood in Babylon destroyed all units and cities its flood plains, while an earthquake in Egypt caused minor damage. At this point, Crete and Egypt were solid, while the other civs were recovering from the calamities.

The first civil war that caused an impact was on turn 12 in Crete (Egypt benefited). Two cities and several units changed sides causing a major impact on Crete, that also suffered an epidemic that Egypt was immune. A volcano and a flood (with reduced effect) in Egypt were insufficient to unbalance the gains from the civil war. A famine in Thrace completed the menu of disasters that turn.

Turn 13 only had an earthquake in Babylon. At this point, Egypt was launched to win the game, only needing to buy the most expensive techs, maintaining 9 cities on the board.

Only two calamities occurred on turn 14. A civil war in Babylon (Thrace benefited) caused moderate damage (Democracy helped). A piracy in Africa caused that civ to lose 4 cities.

Turn 15 was the last turn we played. After resolving the calamities, we declared Egypt the winner. Egypt only needed to acquire a specific tech in 3 turns to win the game. Africa could also win, but required 2 specific techs in 2 turns plus an additional one, and another on the third turn, but the calamities on this turn forced the civ to lose many cities.

Overall, we all enjoyed the game. We played with a few rules wrong that benefited no one in particular. Not many conflicts occurred because we played with the entire board. Some calamities really caused many problems to some civs but overall, the game was balanced, only Thrace was a little behind. We played 15 turns in about 9 hours (with 1 hour lunch break). We didn't reach the end of the game, but by then, the winner was already known. We all had a great time playing the game and we all want to repeat the experience, preferably with Advanced Civilization!

Mr. JMendes appeared in the middle of the game, telling us of some of the differences between Civilization and Advanced Civilization. My opinion is that Advanced Civilization is more polished, and a game to try some day. But for this session, the civilization that will be immortalized in the history books will be Egypt. Historian FNunes signing out!

A game in a University

2007-04-13T12:01:00.000Z

I remember someone writing that “someday, I hope to see students playing Puerto Rico in the universities instead of the traditional card games”. Well... it's not Puerto Rico, and the players have already graduated and we played it in after work, but the fact is that one day two friends and I played a game of Ticket to Ride Europe in a bar inside the university of Lisbon.

The game was played when António received his copy. He and his girlfriend could not resist and invited me (the one that delivered it) to a quick game. The outcome is not important. What really matters is that al three of us enjoyed it. Here are some pictures.

António and Isabel at the beginning of the game

Not many student were in the bar at that time (arround 6.30 pm)

The endgame with points still being counted

baptism of Fire

2007-04-03T12:09:00.000Z

During the last month, there is some kind of wargaming disease spreading in our gaming group. It first started when Ferreira played Combat Commander Europe during the monthly encounter of boardgamers in Lisbon in February. At that point, the only wargame I had tried was BattleLore, and although it is a great game, I didn't get the “wargaming feeling” I was expecting.

The Wednesday before the March monthly encounter in Lisbon, I had a chance to play Hammer of the Scots, a game about the fight of Wallace to free Scotland. I liked the game mechanics and how the two factions have different playing styles but maintaining the balance. I particularly enjoy how the re-enforcements are handled on both side.

The next game I played was on that encounter of boardgamers, where I played a quick game of Memoire '44. Although I've enjoyed the game (despite suffering a heavy defeat), I missed the retaliation rules of Battlelore.

But that encounter was important because I had arranged for my brother to play Panzer Grenadier Airborne Introductory Kit with Ricardo. That game has 20 scenarios, representing battles on D day and the following days, between the Americans (usually the airborne combat forces) and the Germans. They played a game in the morning, and after we've returned from lunch, bought a copy of the game. I tried the game next day. The game plays on an hex grid with cardboard tokens to represent everything and with no cards involved. The Panzer Grenadier system is the next step that a Memoire '44 player should take into heavier wargames.

Finally, last week I got the chance to play Rommel in the Desert with Ricardo (he's one the main responsible for the “wargaming disease”, Pombeiro is the other), a game with several scenarios of WWII in north Africa. The combat and movement mechanics are similar to Hammer of the Scots, and just like in Hammer, where the payers had to manoeuvre the forces to capture the nobles and keep them safe in the winter, the supply lines also force the players to do those manoeuvre.

So, what is the result of the “wargame disease”? I find myself wanting to play more wargames and less heavier eurogames. I still love to play the light ones. Also, I now want to add a wargame to my collection (Panzer Grenadier: Eastern Front my first choice) and not an hybrid.

Game Review: Werewolf

2007-03-06T12:38:00.000Z

Name: Werewolf
Genre: Party Game
Designer: Dimitry Davidoff
Publisher: Several
Category: Mystery/Bluffing/Deduction
Nº of Players: 8+
Cost: Very Cheap
Quality of Components: High
Age of Players: 8+
Rules: Very Simple
Strategic Depth: Low
Learning Curve: Very Low
Set up Time: Minimal

There are some games that are design to be played in very specific occasions, therefore people may ignore them when building a game collection. Werewolf is one of those games.

In Werewolf, all players assume the roles of villagers living in a peaceful community. But the peace is broken, when in a morning, one of the villagers is found slain. The marks on the body points to a werewolf killer. At this point, everyone panics and the villagers start killing each other until the werewolf is killed stop.

The game requires at least 8 people to be played. The game requires only a deck of cards (common cards will do). The cards represent the roles each player. One of the players is the moderator. The moderator is the first person to be killed, and the only player that knows everyone's roles. Werewolfs know each others and the villagers have no additional information. Other roles include the seer, the witch, the hunter, etc.

The game flow is simple, at the beginning everyone closes their eyes, the werewolfs kill someone (the moderator in the first night). At night all other roles are played as well. Next it's the day phase. All living players discuss with each other trying to agree on who are they going to kill. Usually people vote for someone and the person with the most votes is killed. And the game processes with the werewolfs killing someone at night and all the players killing someone in the day. The game ends when the werewolfs and the villagers are at equal number or when all the werewolfs are killed. Werewolfs win if the first condition is occurs. All others win with the second. If the hunter and a werewolf are the last players living, the hunter wins.

Simple game, lots of fun. I've only played this game in one occasion: in the return trip from Lagos two weeks ago. At first the players were lost, but very soon everyone realised that they had to kill someone during the day and a mob mentality could be felt, players screaming a name, trying not to be killed, some trying to convince the others not to kill someone claiming that he was the seer. Lots of fun!

FNunes@encontro mensal de boardgamers de Lisboa

2007-02-22T13:23:00.000Z

For the first time, the monthly encounter of boardgamers in Lisbon took place on a Saturday. It started at 10 AM and proceeded over the night as usual. This was my second presence, and since it began early, Davide Ferreira and my brother joined the event. It was a very good gaming day, I and really enjoyed it.

The first game I played was one that I wanted to play for a while: Power Grid. In this game, each played buys power plants and resources to try to supply power to different cities on the board. At first the players have a chance to purchase a power plant in auctions. After that, the players purchase the resources for their power plants, and finally, they buy “cities” on the board and connections to link them. I only played the game once, but I got the felling of playing a gamer's game. I loved playing the game, despite finishing last out of 5 players.

After a lunch break, I played a game of Ticket to Ride Europe with other three players that never played the game. Ticket to Ride Europe is a game that I enjoy very much, and one of the few I'm always in a mood to play. I've played the game so many times now, that I now exactly where all the cities are in the map, and I usually chose my tickets without looking at the board. In this game, my experience came to the top and I come out as the winner by a comfortable margin. I hope the other players enjoyed the game as much as I did.

The last game I played was Twilight Imperium 3^rd edition with the expansion. This was my first epic game. We started playing the game as 16h and by 24h (with a 2 hour dinner break) the game was not finished. I confess that I lack the skill to describe this game with a few words, since the game is massive and there is always to much going on. I just hope I can play it again soon.

From the left: My brother, me and Diogo playing Twilight Imperium

KGB - session 14

2007-02-22T11:32:00.000Z

Next KGB session will occur Saturday 24 February, 2007 at 14:30. Please confirm you presence.

Tournament Master:
David Nunes

My pick:
Lord of the Rings

No session this week

2007-02-13T13:25:00.000Z

This week there won't be a KGB session. Instead, I suggest you to participate in the monthly encounter of boardgamers of Lisbon. This month the encounter will be in a Saturday instead of the usual Friday. This is a unique opportunity to meet new people and play new games.

For more information please follow the link:

VI Encontro de Boardgamers de Lisboa - Fevereiro 2007

Game Review: Colossal Arena

2007-02-08T13:25:00.000Z

Name: Colossal Arena
Genre: Card Game
Designer: Reiner Knizia
Publisher: Fantasy Flight
Category: Fantasy
Mechanics: Betting
Nº of Players: 2 to 5 Players (best with 3)
Play Time: 20-45 minutes (longer with a high number of players)
Cost: low
Quality of Components: Average
Age of Players: 8+
Rules: Very Simple
Strategic Depth: Average (lower with more players)
Learning Curve: Very Low
Set up Time: 2-3 Minutes

Colossal Arena is a simple but fun card game that places the players as spectators of an arena where mighty creatures fight to the death. 8 creatures enter the colossal arena but only 3 come out alive. Players will bet on the creatures they believe that will end in the top 3, and victory is decided by the amount of money each player makes. The combatants are all powerful creatures like a titan, a unicorn, a cyclops and even an amazon.

The game comes with 12 creature cards, 146 combat, spectator and referee cards , 25 betting chips (5 of each colour) 10 rules cards (2 for each player) and the rulebook.

At the beginning of the game, 8 of the 12 creatures are randomly chosen to be the participants of the arena. The other 4 are out of play. The combat cards of the creatures not participating are removed. The other combat cards, referees and spectators are shuffled. Each player receives 5 tokens of a given colour, the 2 rules cards of that colour and 8 cards from the deck. After choosing the starting player, the game begins. Combat cards are associated with a creature and have a number between 0 and 10. Spectator cards are also numbered between 0 and 10 but with no participant creature association.

Each turn, the player may place a bet on a creature with no bets on that current round. After that the player must play a card. Combat cards are played on their specific creature, spectators can placed on any creature. The card text of the referees instruct the players what they should do. After that, the player may decide to discard up to 3 combat cards of creatures already eliminated and refill their hands up to 8 cards. When played a combat card on a creature, if that player is the backer of that creature he may activate the creature's special power. The backer is the player with the most money on a creature. During the first round, the player may decide to place a secret bet on a creature. The value of the bets depends on the round they were made. A first round bet worth 4 points, second round 3, third round 2, fourth round 1 and fifth round 0. A secret bet is concealed from the other players and it worth 5 points. A player may also spend his or her turn action to reveal the secret bet (it might be useful if he wants to be the backer of that creature).

A round ends end all creatures have one combat or spectator card played on them. At that point, the weakest creature is eliminated from combat. The game goes on until the 5^th creature is eliminated or when the draw deck is exhausted.

Despite having simple rules, the game strategy isn't. The cards in hand, the power of the creature and the bets of the other players are determining factors during the game. The ideal number to play the game is 3. With two players the luck of the draw is a determining factor on deciding the game winner. With 4, the game will most often end before 5 creatures are eliminated and players have also fewer control of the game. I haven't played it with 5 but I believe that the problems with 4 players will aggravated. With 3 players, the luck of the draw has a moderate impact on the game and deck almost never exhausted. The game has a very good flow of play, but the rounds tend to drag a little with more players.

This game has an addictiveness factor in our group. One we play one we want to keep playing more. The biggest problem of this game is the stupid tie breaking rule (the last player that played a card).

Overall, a very solid game with a very low setup time that can be played very quickly. The fact that 8 out of 12 combatants are in play during each time, makes the replay value high.

KGB - session 12 (round 3)

2007-02-02T13:37:00.000Z

Next KGB session will occur Saturday 03 February, 2007 at 14:30. Please confirm you presence.
(I hope this week is the one session 12 occurs)

Tournament Master:

Dinis

My pick:
Since there was no session the previous week, I'm in the mood of playing anything.

KGB - session 12

2007-01-25T10:20:00.000Z

Next KGB session will occur Saturday 27 January, 2007 at 14:30. Please confirm you presence.
The arrival of the Burning Crusade is not an excuse to miss the session.

Tournament Master:

Davide Bação

My pick:
Since there was no session the previous week, I'm in the mood of playing anything.

Sorry guys

2007-01-19T20:26:00.000Z

Cancel the session, a last minute lunch was arranjed by my parents and my cousin in Lisbon :P sorry

KGB - session 12

2007-01-18T17:04:00.000Z

Next KGB session will occur Saturday 20 January, 2007 at 14:30. Please confirm you presence.
The arrival of the Burning Cruzade is not an excuse to miss the session.

Tournament Master:
Davide Bação

My pick:

Lord of the Rings

Rules Change

2007-01-15T23:00:00.000Z

I've notice that some of the available games aren't hitting the table. In order to try to change that, each week, a designated knight (in rotation), will be the tournament master. He will select two games for the session. A third one will be chosen by all the other, like the actual system. The tournament master will also decie what will be played during the session.

The First tournament master will be Davide Bação.

Some Thoughts about Board Games and Board Gaming

2007-01-13T00:47:00.000Z

1. I have yet to know the cities of "Ticket to Ride", the other knights are already used for me to look at a ticket and ask where is X (X=Random City Name). :) Yet its a good way to learn while playing. If you need a argument to buy board games remember that you are always learning something, either logic reasoning, mathematics, city locations or even reading skills on biddings.

2. I think we have made a good selection of games, since every game caters for a type of playing, in fact there are no duplicate games, either in mechanics or in flavor, so good in fact that not playing our favorite game (Puerto Rico) is good for a change.

If you see Gameboard Geeks you will find out that all the games we bought are at least with a positive global rating of 6, generally speaking that means that will some people might dislike it and give it a 3 or 4, most of them probably voted 7 or higher. Reading the reviews of a game before buying it is also a good way of making good purchases.

3.Another curiosity is about our gaming group that wihout much trouble evolved from a core 3 player group to a consistent 4-5 player that allows for some games to become better than they were before.

Ex: Puerto Rico becomes much more brainbuster than before especially when using the "captain" or determining in what way other players may take advantage of your action, while others like Bonanza suffer a bit more from the downtime between player´s turns, since you cant do much during the time other players are haggling over a deal.

4. Board gaming has the advantage of being social, in the end of a gaming session we all enjoyed it, especially when we use the downtime of games to talk about other stuff, like WoW. (World of Warcraft) We usually bring food to our games so that we can sustain ourselves during the session wihout much breaks, with the bathroom being about 10 seconds away.

5. Since games are usually rotated, each knight having 2-3 games average (some with more, some with less) insure that the combinations of games played in a afternoon, usually 1 Light game (up to 60 min) and 1 Heavy game (4 hours with about 2 to 3 games, can become potencially huge. And even that "formula" has exceptions, like not playing the Light game and skipping to playing 2 Heavy games in the 5 hours available.

6. Managing Time, aside from the first time playing where we are extra careful about the rules, trying to figure out strategies and just enjoying the beautiful artwork on the games, we discovered that playing a game 3 times is faster than playing 3 different games, because of the setup time, and altough this might not seem like a big discovery it really helps the flow of the gaming session

There are many things i didnt talked about but i believe this post is already big as it his :)
Hopefully you might take some ideias to your own gaming sessions.

Gaming Seasion Saturday 13/1/2007

2007-01-12T13:36:00.000Z

Gaming Seasion Saturday 13/1/2007

As usual we will be playing this weekend, a few days ago i thought i would be unavailable this Saturday but i will probably be available, so, its as usual 14:30 here at my place. Altough we might need to move to another place depending on the works on my house but even that shouldnt be a problem

Runegarth will probably bring his new games as will i, so its going to be a blast :) Even if we dont have time to try them all.

The new games i bought are both card games, easy to learn and of easy-mid depth of strategy.
They are Colossal Arena and Alhambra.

KGB report - Session 10

2007-01-11T00:21:00.000Z

(D. Ferreira, D. Bação, Dinis, F. Nunes)

The session opened with a usual game of Bohnanza that I was setting up for 3 players. But Dinis showed up in the last minute and we played the game with four. Bad call for me, since Dinis decided to kindly offer me all the leftovers of his exchanges. That slowed my game considerably, but even worst, it didn't stop Bação from building his fields with beans that scored him high points. In the end he won the game by a large margin.

Bohnanza: Davide Bação

Next we played a game of The Princes of Florence. This game was new to Bação, and Dinis only played it once, last week. Last week's game was, in my opinion, our best game of The Princes of Florence so far. It all came down to the prestige cards, that allowed me to win by a single point Second was my brother, that had 2 more points that Dinis. Last player was Ferreira with 7 points less than the winner. Because of how the game when last week, I was more than happy to see the game on the table this week again.

Having two veteran players and two new guys really made a difference in the final score. Ferreira won followed by me. Last week the scores were closer, but this week's game the auctions were very aggressive. I believe that the most of the items were bought between 500 and 900 florins, in comparison to the previous games when paying 400 for an item was paying high. With the aggressiveness of the auctions, the players didn't spend all work points on prestige points as usual (at least in the beginning) having to cash in some florins in order to go through another round of bidding. Ferreira won in the end, by completing the most jobs ever in a game we played. He started collecting profession and scored some big jobs due to their high number. Unlike me, that did only 4 jobs, being denied the chance to do more, because no more profession cards remained by the end of turn 6. But the determining factor of Ferreira's win was the prestige cards (again). I had two by turn 7 having their needed requirements fulfilled. But Ferreira bought a prestige card on the final round, ending all questions on who won the game.

The Princes of Florence: Davide Ferreira

Next we played Ticket to Ride Europe. Unfortunately, after dealing the tickets, I realised that I didn't have a long ticket. I thought that I accidentally took my ticket from the short ticket pile. So I shuffled all my tickets, draw a new long ticket and 3 short tickets. And the game started. Only in the end I realise what really happened. A short and a long ticket were on the wrong piles, and Bação ended paying. In one of his ticket draws, he saw the misplaced wrong ticket. The problem was that he didn't knew that wasn't supposed to happen, and he even kept the ticket. Fortunately, despite being in last, it didn't affter the final scoring, since me (the winner) and Dinis had a big advance over the Davides. 13 points separated me from Dinis. The score could be closer if I didn't had the longest route. When counting the trains for the longest route, there was a draw between Bação and Dinis. When I was checking the rulebook to understand what to do with that situation, Ferreira insisted that I counted my longest route. I didn't believe that I had the longest route, so I didn't count them before, but with Ferreira insisting I did made the count and realise that I was the player with the longest route, breaking the tie.

Ticket to Ride Europe: Filipe “Sir Runegarth” Nunes

The second game of Ticket to Ride Europe was an unusual game. In the end, all the players had an unsuccessful ticket. That cost the victory for Bação. In the last turns he was rushing to claim routes, in order to activate the final turn, not realising that he still hadn't connected to a city he needed. Because of that, Dinis won a game that he didn't expect to win. I also wasn't expect him to win. In fact, the game didn't go well for every player except Bação. All of us were operating on the east side of Europe, but with Bação showing dominance. That was also unusual in the game.

Ticket to Ride Europe: Dinis

The third game was played rushing things a little, since it was getting late, and we where all getting a bit hungry. A regular game won by Bação. Not much to add to that.

Ticket to Ride Europe: Davide Bação

Session Notes:

When I was setting up Bohnanza, Ferreira said (joking) that Dinis would showed up in 3 minutes. Guess what? He did.
The Game of The Princes of Florence was our most aggressive game so far, in terms of auctions.
In one of the game of Ticket to Ride Europe, Ferreira used all three stations. This never happened before.
In our second game of Ticket to Ride Europe, all of us took a penalty for not fulfilling one ticket.
Also in that second game, we decided to refill the tickets deck. When the game ended we decided not to do that again.
All participating knights won a game this session.

My thoughts on how to decide the starting player

2007-01-05T00:03:00.000Z

I remember listening to an episode of The Dice Tower, that had a top 10 of the best ways to decide the starting player. After listening to that episode I realise that is a problem that our group faces when playing a game. Usually we roll a d20. But why we don't follow what the rules say. My opinion is that some methods to decide the starting player are very weak, and I just tend to ignore them.

But are are the methods that I consider weak and strong? In my opinion, the method is weak if it doesn't have a good connection with the game and another method could be used instead. For example, youngest player goes first. I'm still struggling to understand why that is even considered a starting player method. Every time the game is played in our group, the same person will start the game. I also consider weak methods that involve luck, like the roll of a die. Again, they have little connection with the game itself and other methods, like the youngest player could be applied.

A little stronger than that are methods that use game components to decide the starting player. Rolling a d20 when the game actually comes with a d20 is an example of that. While suffering from the same problems as the previous methods, the game itself provides the material, so there is no need to find the dungeons and dragons box where all the dices are stored.

The stronger methods are those that really make sense in the game and there are some good strong mechanics out there. Two of my favourite are: the starting player is based on the character and the blind bid. In the first one, the starting player is the one controlling a certain character/nation/etc. For example, in Bang the starting player is the sheriff; Fury of Dracula, the starting player is Dracula; Lord of the Rings, the starting player is the ring bearer. The blind bid mechanic is my favourite to decide the starting player. An example of this is Lord of the Rings CCG. Initially each player secretly selects 0-9 initial burdens on Frodo. When Frodo has 10 burdens, the game is lost, so the more you bid, the closer you are from loosing the game.

As a conclusion, if the game doesn't have a strong starting player mechanic, we simply ignore it, randomly decide who starts then we rotate the starting players clockwise. Since we all play to have fun, this system works perfectly.

To end my thoughts on this subject I would like to mention a method described on that episode of The Dice Tower. The method uses a game: “Start Player: A Kind Of Collectable Card Game”.The idea of this is to have a deck of cards, each describing a the method to decide the starting player. For example, the youngest player goes first; the person with the most facial hair; the last person that took a shower; the player that can name the most spiel des jahres winners; the player with the most 7's on their phone number; etc. I haven't tried this, but it sounds more interesting that the weak methods, because each time a new card will describe the method, and from what Tom Vasel some of the cards are very funny.

KGB - session 10

2007-01-04T08:56:00.000Z

Next KGB session will occur Thursday 6 January, 2007 at 14:30. Please confirm you presence.

I'm going.

Game Review: Initial D

2006-12-27T23:03:00.000Z

Name: Initial D
Genre: Collectable Card Game
Designer: David Williams
Publisher: Alderac Entertainment Group
Category: Street Racing
Nº of Players: 2 Players
Cost: ???
Quality of Components: High
Age of Players: 8+
Rules: Simple
Strategic Depth: Low
Learning Curve: Very Low
Set up Time: Minimal

This is collectable card game based on the manga with the same name. The game is about challenging an opponent to a car race. I got to play this game due to a friend (Renato) , that lend KGB two pre-made decks.

The game play is simple. There are 4 types of cards. One is the car. There is only a single car per player. These cards have two three values: engine power, traction and cost.

To improve the performance of the cars there are mods that can be applied to them. Mods are another type of card. Up to three mods can be placed on a car. Pilots are also on this category.

Another type of card are track cards. Each of these cards have segments, that can either be straits, curves or obstacles. Each player will have 3 of those.

The car is placed on the board along with the mods, and the tracks are put on a separated pile. The other cards are the action cards. These are the cards that will determine the curse of play, and the outcome of the race. Each action card belongs to a certain category: speed, turn or tactics; each have a strength in each segment type and a strength to counter other types of action type cards. They also have a requirement that can either be engine power or traction.

So for example, a speed card requires 6 engine power to be played and has a strength of 7 for straits, 3 for curves and 4 for obstacles, with a counter of 4 in speed, 6 in turn and 2 in tactics.

The game play is simple. The owner of the most expensive car (including mods) is the challenger, and will race on a randomly selected opponent's track. The owner of the track starts in front. The objective is either to win two consecutive stages or to be in first at the end of the track's last stage.

Each player draws 7 cards. The owner of the car with the most style points will get an additional card, just like the person who's in front. The front player starts playing a card. To play a card, the player's car must meet the requirements of that card. If not, for each point needed, the player must discard a card. The strength of the manoeuvre is determined by the type of stage the players are in.

Using the above example, to play that card I needed 6 engine. However, my engine power is only 4. So in order to play the card, I needed to discard 2 other. Now let's say that the stage is a strait. The manoeuvre has a strength of 7.

Then the opponent gets to play a card, trying to counter the opponent's manoeuvre. The card played (besides the requirements) must have a counter of the previous manoeuvre, equal or greater to that manoeuvre's strength.

Using the card I gave as an example, to counter that same card. My opponent's engine power is 7, so it's fine. But the previous speed manoeuvre has a strength of 7 and this can only counter a strength 4 for that type of action, so in order to play it, my opponent has to discard 3 cards. The manoeuvre also has a strength of 7.

The play goes on until one player runs out of cards or if they can't play any of the remaining. That player loses the stage.

The race proceeds to the next stage. New cards are drawn, and the car in front get to chose if they want to keep any of the remaining cards.

This game has a few problems. First of all, it's a very short and simple game for a CCG. I believe that it would be better if this was just a card game without the collectible components. Then it's the starting player. Being the challenger the most expensive car, unless I change my deck, the starting player will always be the same.

The standard winning are weak. Unless you play a 2 out of 3 or 3 out of 5, where the the winner is going to be the next challenger, the game will seem woefully repeating. It also makes little sense that I'm preparing an uber-expensive car and still have to throw some tracks that I know I'm never going to race on them.

Theme is a little weak when playing the game. Have the car and it's mods, and a set of “home” tracks is cool. However, the manoeuvres.... I know it's not simple to put the manoeuvres into card draws, but I think they could of done a better work. A simple text describing the manoeuvre would suffice. Nonetheless, the art on the cards is super, and it's really a pleasure looking at them.

Also, a negative mark must go to the pre-constructed decks I've trying. Both had a card that could not be played, and one had a track that hurt the deck more than it would benefit it. I've seen this once and in my opinion it's preferable to put a card that does not benefit the deck but it also would not hut it.

Besides the artwork on the cards, the rare cards are also a plus. Just lovely to know that these cards are foil, making them even more beautiful.

My final thoughts about the game: it's not worth it. The game can be resumed in playing cards until someone can't play. The game is not involving (I didn't get the feeling I was racing someone), the game play is to simple; strategically it's almost a no-brainer. The artwork does not compensate for the poor mechanics. This game will probably only please the fans of the series.

But I do recognize it might be a good game for kids to play. Boys just love cars, and this game could be extremely appealing if they also like the Japanese cartoonish look of the cards.

Game Review: Shadows Over Camelot

2006-12-27T12:35:00.000Z

Name: Shadows Over Camelot
Genre: Board Game
Designer: Serge Laget & Bruno Cathala
Publisher: Days of Wonder
Category: Adventure / Medieval / Mythology
Mechanics: Co-operative play / Hand management
Nº of Players: 3 to 7 Players
Cost: High
Quality of Components: Very High
Age of Players: 10+
Rules: Simple
Strategic Depth: Average
Learning Curve: Very Low
Set up Time: 2-3 Minutes

I bought this game as a replacement for Ticket to Ride Europe, that was unavailable when my order was processed.

Before launching myself in reviewing the game I must explain what a cooperative game is, since it's an unusual mechanic. Cooperative means that all the players are on the same team trying to beat the game, and the outcome of play (win or loss) is shared. This means that either all win or all lose. There are no individual winners. A cooperative game can also put a single player against all the other players, which is always nice, and usually, everyone wants to be that player.

The first thing to notice when you open the box is the quality of the components. From the cards to the boards and miniatures, they look awesome. The miniatures of the knights and the relics came in a plastic box case with spaces for each of them; just lovely.

The objective of the game is to fill the round table with swords. There are two types, white for completed quests and black for unsuccessful quests. To win the game, the round table but be fill with at least 12 swords and the majority of those being white. A draw always benefits evil and the game is lost when that situation occurs. The game is also lost when all the participating knights are killed or when the 12^th siege engine is placed around Camelot.

The rules of the game are very simple; each turn, the current knight will perform a progression of evil action, followed by an heroic action. There are different actions but the principles are these.

The theme can be felt during the game, and even when a game is won, most of the time the knights are never comfortable with the way evil is progressing and there is always a felling in the air that the game could be lost in just a couple of moves. The presence of a possible traitor among the knights augments that feeling because, if not revealed before the game ends, the traitor flips two white swords turning them into black swords.

Depending on the game flow, this game could require some high strategic thinking, but since this is a cooperative game, all the players share the same effort. Because of that I've introduced this game to new players in a lot of success, but leaving the traitor outside the first time we play.

Overall, I love this game. The cooperative mechanic is something that is quickly becoming my favourite. I really enjoy the possible presence of the traitor, making the environment of the game very tense and sometimes stressful.

Podcasts Update: 2006-12-24

2006-12-24T21:10:00.000Z

Boardgame Babylon

Episode 29 released in 2006-12-20

Have Games Will Travel

Episode 82 released in 2006-12-23

The Dice Tower

Episode 80 released in 2006-12-24

Report of 23rd December Session

2006-12-23T23:15:00.000Z

This session was different from usual as we had the oportunity to try a new game: Lord of the Rings - A cooperative game where the 4 hobbits tried to destroy The One Ring.

After 2 games where we failed miserably, we decided that the task was beyond our strenght...
indeed the game can be very difficult as the right decision is not always evident.
Also luck is a big factor in the game.

Even so we were a bit closer to win the last of the 2 games as we didnt do any major mistakes. I believe the next few tries will still see us struggling against the mighty shadow of Mordor.

Then a friend of mine (Pedro) appeared and we played our easiest game - Bohnanza. That game was a bit slow for our standarts as we needed to explain the rules to the newcomer :)

Davide Bação took advantage of the game passivity to take huge stacks of crops and along with good trading with the other players won by a couple of points.

The second player was Filipe Nunes with a strange but working strategy of not buying a 3rd field, adapting easily to the increased number of players and less time for planting and reaping crops.

After that our guest went home, and we decided to play Shadows over Camelot. The 1st game was easy to win, even though there was a traitor among us, he made a couple of less than good actions that led to a correct accusation. Indeed a traitor among veteran players can have a really hard time.

The 2nd game was quite the opposite with the knights stumbling across several failed quests and a stalemate versus the shadow that was slowly eating our resources away. We won by 1 sword and only because there was no traitor. Very close call.

KGB - session 9

2006-12-23T19:39:00.000Z

Next KGB session will occur Thursday 28 December, 2006 at 14:30. I may bring a friend to the session.

My picks:

Shadows Over Camelot.
Bohnanza.

If my friend doesn't come:

Puerto Rico

KGB - session

2006-12-22T19:31:00.000Z

Next KGB session will occur Saturday 23 December, 2006 at 14:30.

My picks:

Lord of the Rings (boardgame)
Puerto Rico

Podcasts Update: 2006-12-19

2006-12-18T23:40:00.000Z

Boardgames with Scott:

spectial episode release in 2006-12-17

The Spiel:

episode 19 released in 2006-12-18

PS: I appreciate the email Stephen send me, and the link he added to The Spiel website. I hope he and Dave gain a few listeners from our site. Thanks again Stephen!

Session 7

2006-12-18T22:01:00.000Z

(D. Ferreira, D. Nunes, F. Nunes)

Back to the Saturday regular session and some of our favorite games.

We kicked of the session with Bohnanza, which is a great session starter. It's friendly rule set and sociable game play allows the players to settle in their game mindset and prepare for more challenging games. We often take advantage of the game's simplicity to chat about other stuff, as was the case, only applying ourselves on the final stretch, which resulted in a low score tie.
This fun little game has a great entertainment value for it's price; we must do a review some time soon...

Bohnanza winners: D. Ferreira / D. Nunes

For the next game, after some dispute, The Princes of Florence was chosen. I must confess I was pushing for Puerto Rico of which I'm a huge fan.

We started the first game with D. Ferreira taking the first turn.
On previous session the first player always managed to win but this time was not to be. Being on the last spot I made sure my adversaries paid a good price for what they wanted on the auction phase, a strategy that already gave dividends on previous sessions. The last spot is also great to choose your construction timing.
Players will try to make big score works at least every two turns to rack up the bonus for the best work. Seeing what your opponents are doing allows you to strategically postpone your big work for the next turn or pickup a bonus card to give you the edge required to top your opponents.
Being on this privileged seat I managed to pickup most of the bonuses allowing for a large margin win. D. Ferreira had problems fitting all the buildings on the board and fought hard for his second builder which helped my strategy allot.

On the second game F. Nunes took the first turn and everyone rushed to get builders. This seems to be a recurring theme in our sessions since a building costs a whopping 700 without any builders (1 builder reduces the cost to 300).
While everyone focused on getting builders I chose to focus on delivering works as frequently as I could and postponing the acquisition of buildings until i got a builder, which interestingly never appended.
With the builders disappearing at the speed of light I knew my opponents wouldn't surrender one without a fight so I profited from this situation by engaging on several builder auctions but never making the final offer, which dried resources around me while I used jesters and bonus cards to increase my work's scores and avoided buying buildings.
On the last turn I bought my first building (700 florins ouch) to deliver the last work which allowed for a tight but flavorful win.

I must confess I'm impressed with the strategical depth this game allows as long as your prepared to think outside the box.
This session quelled my concerns regarding this game but I still think it as room for improvement. The addition of more players will certainly make this game more interesting.

Princes of Florence winners: D. Nunes
D. Nunes

To end the session we switched to Puerto Rico, a favorite among the knights.

I started on the first game and played conservatively as the stressful work week started to weigh on my shoulders. Investing heavily on the constructions axis I managed to maintain a narrow lead which clinched a very tight win.

The second game broke our first man wins rule, with some brilliant plays from F. Nunes, featuring a balanced investment in all axis and using the wharf to great effect. This allowed him great success in goods deliveries and a severely hindered our options, allowing for large margin win.

The third game ended up revealing one of the few downsides of this great game. By this point I was starting to get really tired and stumbled around in the first turns.
Having a very slim chance to recover the lost time I forced the game end by choosing the mayor action as often as possible. On these unusual condition D. Ferreira adapted he's strategy well, profiting from highly successful trade sessions and took a well deserved win in what must have been the fasted Puerto Rico game we played.

Since the previous game was so fast we decided to play one more.
Once again being the starting player I tried to lead a balanced game, as did my opponents and despite some early mistakes ended up snatching a narrow win.

I must confess this game never ceases to amaze me. The available depth of play is seemingly endless and although the first turn actions are starting to solidify game always flows in unexpected directions leading to very enjoyable games, not unlike chess as D. Ferreira suggested.
On a personal note I must try to include the wharf (featuring heavily on F. Nunes recent strategies with great success) on my strategy portfolio.

Puerto Rico winners: D. Nunes
F. Nunes
D. Ferreira
D. Nunes

Podcasts Update

2006-12-17T21:23:00.000Z

Boardgames To Go:

episode 66 released in 2006-12-13

The Dice Tower:

episode 79 released in 2006-12-15

Board Games for Christmas

2006-12-15T21:36:00.000Z

You want to offer a board game to a friend or family member for Christmas? Are you short on budget? Want to buy a new game for yourself? You might want to listen to episode 18 of The Spiel.

The Podcasts

2006-12-13T22:53:00.000Z

Name: Boardgames To Go
Hosts: Mark Johnson

This was the first podcast about boardgaming I've listen. I discover it in the first days of October, when searching for new podcasts to listen. Searching for "boardgames" on itunes, it was the first on the list.
I started to listen to episode 1 (from the website), when Mark was less comfortable in front of the micro, talking about games and sessions, and I was astonished, imagining how great it would be to play those games. In a way, Mark's podcast was the main force behind my current interest in boardgames.
My favourite episodes were the ones with is son and daughter.

Overall, I like the podcast. I think Mark has a good voice, and he's not annoying despite being the single host of the show (in some episodes he has a guest). The only think I dislike is the current length of the show. I believe that 20-30 minutes for a solo host is the ideal.
Although he does less episodes than he used to, it still a podcast I like to hear.

Mark has released a good intro episode for those who are new to these kind of boardgames. Here's the link.

ps: it took me more than a month to listen to all of the episodes.
ps2: it was from listening one episode of this podcast that I decided to buy bohnanza.

Name: Boardgame Babylon
Hosts: E.R. Burgess

I think I discovered Boardgame Babylon through Mark's podcast. Again, I started listening from episode 1, that had a unique feature; it was recorded while Erik was driving home from work. I found that fabulous, but unfortunately (or not) he started recording at home. The sound quality improved but it lost something that the podcast had on the first two episodes.

The style is similar to Mark, in deep reviews, session reports, guests in some shows. However, I think this show is more scripted than Boradgames To Go (at least when he's solo), which is a less polished podcast. I usually prefer a less scripted approach (perhaps because of my storytelling background), but nonetheless, Erik does a really good job, and I can't really decide which of the shows I like the most.

Name: The Dice Tower
Hosts: Tom Vasel (the man who puts the views in game reviews) and Sam Healey (the man who just love to play games)

By far the most professional looking podcast I've ever heard. These guys put an episode every week; unless in special episodes, they follow the same structure on all episodes; each regular episode feature at least 5 contributors of each with its own segment; each segment has an intro done by Mike Fitzgerald, just like the ending and starting of the show, all look very professional; and of course, a weekly top ten. After more than 2 month, I'm finally getting up to the lastest shows.

I've began to listen this podcast from episode 51, since the first 50 when of the air. My favourite episodes so far are the Origins 2006 review and episode zero that I advice everyone who is new to board games to listen.

Name: Have Games Will Travel
Hosts: Paul Tevis (freelance writer and game reviewer)

I decided to listen to this podcast after it been mentioned on the previous podcasts. Unlike the others, this podcast is also about RPGs. It's also the podcast with the best and more detailed in-depth reviews, and that's the main reason that I enjoy this podcast.

Although is a solo host of the show, is style is very distinct of the other shows I listen. I also enjoy Paul's voice and the accent when he says “last year”. Sorry Paul, I just couldn't write about your podcast without mentioning that.

PS: The main reason to why I bought Shadows Over Camelot was the detail description of the game in one of the podcast's episodes.

Name: Board Games With Scott
Hosts: Scott Nicholson

This is the only videopodcast on my list (and I believe it's also the only one about boardgames). On each episode Scott presents a game, explains it and briefly review it, to help us decide if it's a game we might want to purchase.

Scott does a really good job on each episode. Each game is explained in great detail. I didn't read the Ticket to Ride Europe manual before I played it with my brother because we both saw the episodes that he talked about the Ticket to Ride games.

Overall, I think Scott's objective is fulfilled. I greatly recommend this podcast to people that might be interested in a game and are new to boardgames. The video is always the best way to explain how a game is played.

Name: The Spiel
Hosts: Stephen Conway and David Coleson

This is my favourite podcast. It's last on the list because it's the last I discovered. But it's really nice.

What's unique about it? The segments. Games news and notes is a normal news segment. The List: these guys have a huge list of unplayed games, and in each episode they play at least two of them and review it. Backshelf Spotlight, where they bring two old games and explain why they are great. Truckloads of Goober : never seen anything like it on any other podcast. They select a game with tons of components or one with a very unique component. Game Sommelier : each week, ,one of them issues a challenge to the other, where they must select 5 games for a particular occasion or group of players. These last two, for me, are the heart of each show.

I'm hoping to find more podcasts. I know of a few more, but I haven't tried them. In another post, I will review one podcast that is discontinued, but it had a lot of quality.

KGB - session

2006-12-13T15:14:00.000Z

Next KGB session will occur Saturday 16 December, 2006 at 14:30. I might not be able to attend it, so I won't select any game for the session. I leave that to you guys.

I hope to upload an audio report for the session last Saturday, an I hope someone else posts the report of Friday.

KGB - session

2006-12-04T21:53:00.000Z

Next KGB session will occur on Friday 8 December, starting at 14:30.

Since the list of game is getting bigger, besides confirming our presence, we should also chose the game we want to play. Because it's the only small game I have, Bohnanza will always be present, even if we do not play it.

My picks:

Ticket to Ride Europe

Hopefully, this time we'll be able to play Carcassonne.

Session 5

2006-12-03T00:10:00.000Z

(D. Ferreira, D. Nunes, F. Nunes, D. Bação, R. Dias)

We decided to make this session on Friday (holiday), so that Renato could join us for a while.

The session started with a game of Puerto Rico, that was initially intended for 3 players, but bação arrived before the end of the setup, and he also joined. I think it was not the best game for him, since he was a new player, and the game isn't easy for first time players.

The game began with D. Nunes taking an early lead, by the time Renato arrived. When we decided to make room for him to seat, Bação accidentally destroyed the game setting, and we decided not to continue and play Bohnanza instead, with all 5 players.

Puerto Rico: unfinished

This was the first time a game of bohnanza was played with more than 3 players, and we where anticipating that.

The first thing notice was the lower number of points of the final score. We usually manage to get 20+ points in a 3 player game, but in this game D. Ferreira only had 15 ( the highest point player) . Renato, who add to keep one eye on the game and another on his like kid, was second tied with D. Nunes.

Overall, it was fun, and I got the impression that the game works better with more than three players and the game was faster, even with the third run through the deck.. We still need to play the game with 7 and see how it scales.

Bohnanza: Davide Ferreira

Renato had to leave, while we finish to setup Shadows Over Camelot.

I've already tried this game alone (controlling 3 and 4 knights) and with my brother (each controlling a knight) with a small rule change. Unfortunately, that change made the game easy and my brother had a bias opinion of the game. he was reluctant in playing it.

Unlike in the games played before the session, loyalty cards were distributed. I had a feeling that the possible presence of a traitor would change the game from the experience me and my brother had.

The game was a litte slow at first, since Bação and Ferreira didn't knew what to do first. Some mistakes happened (the main one an incorrect use of King Arthur's special power). In the end, the knights won the game with only 3 black swords on the round table. The loyalty cards revealed no traitor.

Shadows Over Camelot: The knights (D. Ferreira, D. Nunes, D. Bação, Filipe "Sir Runegarth" Nunes

The previous game was really fun, and because (since we had time), we decided to play another. Only two of the knights were the same, and the other 2 changed, and for the first time Sir Kay was in play.

The game had a bad start. Bação started moving to the grail quest and placed a couple of grail cards. During the first turns no despair cards came out, and he manage to fill 3 spots with no despairs on the table. I when to the Excalibur quest and the other knights stayed in Camelot.

A few turns later, both Bação and D. Nunes were at the grail quest and this is were the game started to be difficult. Bação saw the top black card (he had Sir Percival) and said it "it's very bad", and the knights began to sacrifice life points or adding siege engines. The card was later revealed and it was a dispair card. But by the time the grail quest was completed and another siege engine was added (7 or 8 total), and we had only a few white swords. To add more trouble, the Pict and Saxons had no progression on the quests and already some warriors where there.

At this point, the game was true to it's name; there really was danger to Camelot, and we had to fight wars on almost every front. One time during the 10 siege engines were outside Camelot with 3 Picts on the table.

It was only a matter of time before the game was lost, and I gave the final stroke by adding the 12th siege engine and revealing myself as the traitor.

Shadows Over Camelot: Traitor (Filipe "Sir Runegarth" Nunes)

I received some criticism after the game saying that I didn't do enough to betray the knights. But the fact is that in the beginning of the game I when to the Excalibur quest and discarded all my grail cards and my Merlins, when I could just move to the grail quest and help with it. After, I obtained the Lancelot's armour and I got the ability to chose the worst card for the knights. I didn't always chose it because Bação sometimes saw one card and decided not to use it. Finally, for most of the game I was a bit lost, moving to one quest and dropping a card, moving again to another, always reluctant to sacrifice life points.

I could of been exposed when I chose to play the Morgana that played the next 3 black cards, but no accusation was made, and in the next turn, I added the final siege engine, and Camelot fell.

I admit that I could of done more as the traitor, but the other knights did half my job, by adding early in the game siege engines to Camelot, and there was no need to over-expose myself. I could just wait a few turns and select the worst black card to play, and eventually the knights couldn't cover all the holes and I would attack the weakest flank.

After the session ended, everyone wanted to be the traitor next time.

First Impressions on Puerto Rico

2006-12-02T13:16:00.000Z

Name: Puerto Rico
Genre: Board Game
Designer: Andreas Seyfarth
Category: City Building/Economics
Nº of Players: 3 to 5 Players
Cost: Average, good value for components
Age of Players: 13+
Learning Curve: Average
Setup Time: 5 to 10 minutes

It´s actually a very good game.

First of all it has a deep amount of strategy yet the number of actions each turn is limited. As you can see from the previous posts it was the most played game so far :)

The components are of good quality and the rules are simple enough to play out of the box, any doubts we had the rulebook answered them.

The goal of the game is to have the most Victory Points at the end. You get victory points by either delivering goods or buying buildings.

The game ends when there is no more colonists to ship to Puerto Rico or when one player completes all building spaces. At that time the Victory Points are counted to see who wins.

Altough the game is good with 3 players, i believe its even better with 4 or 5 due to an increased difficulty on players guess what their neighbours will do, as each action you take affects all players.

First Impression on Puerto Rico i will rate it 8/10 that will probably increase if your average playing group has more than 3 people.

Session games and winners

2006-12-01T21:30:00.000Z

Session 1 (D. Ferreira, D. Nunes, F. Nunes):

Bohnanza - Filipe "Sir Runegarth" Nunes
Bohnanza - David Nunes
Puerto Rico* - David Nunes

---------------------------------------------

Session 2 (D. Ferreira, D. Nunes, F. Nunes):

The Princes of Florence* - Davide Ferreira
The Princes of Florence* - David Nunes
Puerto Rico - David Nunes
Puerto Rico - Davide Ferreira

---------------------------------------------

Session 3 (D. Ferreira, D. Nunes, F. Nunes):

Puerto Rico - David Nunes
Puerto Rico - Filipe "Sir Runegarth" Nunes
Puerto Rico - Davide Ferreira
Puerto Rico - David Nunes

Note: The winners were the players who started the game.

---------------------------------------------

Session 4 (D. Ferreira, D. Nunes, F. Nunes):

The Princes of Florence - Filipe "Sir Runegarth" Nunes
The Princes of Florence - David Nunes
The Princes of Florence - Davide Ferreira
Bohnanza - David Nunes

Note: The "Princes of Florence" winners were the players who started the game.

---------------------------------------------

* The game was payed with one bad rule that had a significant impact on the gameplay.