Front Page

Content

Authors

Game Index

Forums

Site Tools

Submissions

About

KK
Kevin Klemme
March 09, 2020
35150 2
Hot
KK
Kevin Klemme
January 27, 2020
20830 0
Hot
KK
Kevin Klemme
August 12, 2019
7405 0
Hot
O
oliverkinne
December 19, 2023
3967 0
Hot
O
oliverkinne
December 14, 2023
3501 0
Hot

Mycelia Board Game Review

Board Game Reviews
O
oliverkinne
December 12, 2023
2076 0
O
oliverkinne
December 07, 2023
2583 0

River Wild Board Game Review

Board Game Reviews
O
oliverkinne
December 05, 2023
2255 0
O
oliverkinne
November 30, 2023
2497 0
J
Jackwraith
November 29, 2023
3017 0
Hot
O
oliverkinne
November 28, 2023
1973 0
S
Spitfireixa
October 24, 2023
3694 0
Hot
O
oliverkinne
October 17, 2023
2625 0
O
oliverkinne
October 10, 2023
2461 0
O
oliverkinne
October 09, 2023
2290 0
O
oliverkinne
October 06, 2023
2506 0

Outback Crossing Review

Board Game Reviews
×
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.

× Talk about the latest and greatest AT, and the Classics.

An Odd Game of Samurai

More
01 Dec 2015 17:12 - 01 Dec 2015 19:12 #216313 by OldHippy
I've been playing a lot of Samurai at work recently and I really dig it. Great game.

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.
Last edit: 01 Dec 2015 19:12 by OldHippy.
The following user(s) said Thank You: Dr. Mabuse

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
01 Dec 2015 18:17 #216315 by Michael Barnes
This is one of the things that make this such an amazing game. It takes that concept from Tigris & Euphrates where your overall success is measured along four metrics and your empire is only as valuable as its weakest factor. But it modifies it and it turns into something different. I love how you have to "qualify" to win and then it comes down to counts like this. You didn't do poorly. You wound up with the most of the most valuable/important resource resource in the game. The other two players squandered their assets squabbling over the two factors that weren't as significant in this particular game. The guy with three food should have kept better tabs on it and the guy with one should have focused on getting at least one more rather than taking a fifth religion piece. You won this fair and square, but I think you just didn't realize that you were in a position to win with the most food.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
01 Dec 2015 23:29 - 01 Dec 2015 23:31 #216340 by Sagrilarus
Replied by Sagrilarus on topic An Odd Game of Samurai
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.
Last edit: 01 Dec 2015 23:31 by Sagrilarus.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
02 Dec 2015 00:46 - 02 Dec 2015 01:10 #216342 by OldHippy
Replied by OldHippy on topic An Odd Game of Samurai

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.
Last edit: 02 Dec 2015 01:10 by OldHippy.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
02 Dec 2015 01:04 - 02 Dec 2015 01:05 #216345 by Dr. Mabuse
Replied by Dr. Mabuse on topic An Odd Game of Samurai

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.
Last edit: 02 Dec 2015 01:05 by Dr. Mabuse.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
02 Dec 2015 01:04 #216346 by dave
Replied by dave on topic An Odd Game of Samurai
Samurai is in my top 10 (as is E&T), and the pressure to be first in something is what totally makes the game for me; it adds a lot to how you use your wilds and special tiles. The fact that both it and E&T have closed holdings and that I have a shitty memory are also key to them being my favorites; I like the surprise at the end.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

Moderators: Gary Sax
Time to create page: 0.140 seconds