- Posts: 3577
- Thank you received: 1732
Bugs: Recent Topics Paging, Uploading Images & Preview (11 Dec 2020)
Recent Topics paging, uploading images and preview bugs require a patch which has not yet been released.
An Odd Game of Samurai
Today's match was pretty odd though. I was doing super shitty, just losing pieces I thought I could get left and right. Not really holding on to anything. At games end I had a total of 6 pieces (4 food and 2 military) out of thirty while my two opponents had somewhere around ten pieces each. It looked like I was a distant third.
But then they counted up their pieces... 5 religion each - tie, three military each - tie. One had 3 food the other had 1.
This means that my shitty hand actually won the game. Because neither of them could lead in any of the three categories and I was able to lead for food.
At first this felt totally wrong, mainly because we had never seen it happen before. We chatted about it and I actually think it's pretty amazing that a game could be designed like this. Where someone who seems to be losing is actually the winner at the end despite performing poorly in almost every category including total number of pieces. The two dominant players were really strong, but they fought to a stand still in two categories leaving me with just enough to win the third category. If the 3 food guy had of just got one more food he would have won the game... but that's not how it went.
Now that I've thought about it (for a total of like 15 minutes) I think it's actually a strength of the game (we'll see what Doc M says about that though) - and not because I ended up winning on what seemed at first to be a cheap technicality, but because it makes for a viable and interesting under the radar kind of strategy I'm just not sure I've seen before - and that in an almost 30 year old game. I still don't think I deserved to win (not that it matters) but that's because I lucked into it, not because it's bad design. Now that we all know this things might change in later games.
It's pretty amazing that this ostensibly simple game offers so many different and unique strategic options with just a handful of pieces in a very short amount of time. Colour me impressed.
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
- Michael Barnes
- Offline
- Mountebank
- HYPOCRITE
- Posts: 16929
- Thank you received: 10375
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
- Sagrilarus
- Offline
- D20
- Pull the Goalie
- Posts: 8735
- Thank you received: 7349
You won a game of Fluxx, JJ.
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
sagrilarus wrote: I really hate Samurai's scoring. It's a bag of parts that all go to different machines. You can call it ingenious, but it's just arbitrary bullshit. No other designer could get away with it.
You won a game of Fluxx, JJ.
See, in two player none of this matters and your complaints about the scoring are rendered moot. But with three or four players it makes sense.. at least at first. In two player it's impossible for this type of thing to happen and the scoring will make sense in the traditional way. But with more players everything changes.
One is that with three or four players the points (or spoils, whatever) are hidden but two players is more like what Clearclaw would want... open information (because really you could figure it out anyway). With three or four it does require you to pay some attention to the game since the information is hidden.
When I won, at first I agreed with you and it felt cheap, but since then I've thought about the victory a lot and now that we all know this we all agreed we'd play differently. This will change how we play the game.
I'd never played with anything other than two until today, I have maybe fifteen games of two player under my belt and now just one with three players. I think they are very different games. But good in different ways. It was pure fluke that the other two players tied in both categories, that can't happen very often I'd think. I don't think it's arbitrary - with practice - I would still bet that an accomplished player will win more often, I think that it's still skill based (or at least experience based). But I can totally see why it would feel like arbitrary bullshit to some.
In all honesty though, I need more three or four player games to figure this out. I'm still trying to understand what the fuck happened.
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
- Dr. Mabuse
- Offline
- Ambassador of Truth
Michael Barnes wrote: . ... the guy with one should have focused on getting at least one more rather than taking a fifth religion piece.
That would be me. I'm still trying to remember end of game conditions and would not have taken the religion had I kniwn it would have ended the game. I thought the other guy had WAAAAAY more than I did.
Oh well live and learn. I'm not so sure this like Fluxx, but I hope with more plays under hand it will prove to be just the opposite.
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.