A blog about 2 player games. Games that are either published to be played with 2, games that scale to 2 and games which have variants/rule changes for 2.

Archive for Tony Bosca

 Thumb up

Endeavor for 2 - A Selective Look at the 2P Variants

Tony Bosca
United States
Royal Oak
flag msg tools
The purpose of this blog is in order to showcase some 2P games that my friends and I enjoy. I will attempt a brief rules explanation (in this case the focus will be on the procedures for the variants), just enough to give the article a little backbone. I hate reading rulebooks unless there is a game to be played immediately afterwards. I will write this series as I see fit for for reading myself - Light, quick and in parlance of our times.

--Let me just start by saying my review of this game is contained within the first sentence of the above preface. This won't be a review as much as it will describe the 2P variants and how they make Endeavor a viable option for two players.--

Game Designer(s) - Carl de Visser & Jarratt Gray
Game Publisher - Z-MAN Games
Game Type - Euro efficiency engine/area control/set collection

This article will discuss the two most popular variants:

The Official Variant:

Faster, Friendlier:

Well let's start with the official variant. This variant introduces a 3rd neutral player whose markers are played by both players. This is sort of a dummy player if you're familiar with that sort of concept. Most of the rules are identical to the full player compliment with a few exceptions. Often, when you choose different options for your action you are going to, in-turn, place down the neutral discs. When occupying, you can place a neutral disc afterwards in any region in which that neutral player is allowed to play a disc. The neutral player placement follows the same rules as the active player, this neutral player must have presence in the region in order to place his disc. Very often you'll be using these neutral discs to interfere with your live opponents progress. Attacking works exactly as it would with normal scaling. When you ship, you place a neutral disc into any shipping lane, just as it would be for any other player. There are no prerequisites for shipping however. Drawing cards works in a similar way to occupation. When you choose your draw action you can "take" a card for the neutral player in any area in which he is eligible according to normal rules. It is important to note that the blue "action chits" when spent do not provoke neutral actions. There are a few other subtleties and options, but that gets to the gist of the official variant.

As for the Faster, Friendlier variant, it is obvious that it is based on the official variant with a few significant changes. Besides the drawing cards action the neutral discs are assigned or allotted to the different regions during setup. Each region gets a specific amount of discs to be laid out during the occupation of each area, the shipping lanes start with a pre-determined amount discs, placed in the first few spot in the shipping lane. The decisions on behalf of the live players, regarding the neutral player, take place when you choose to draw cards. When you draw cards you may choose to discard the next highest card from the draw pile. The neutral player "gets" this card.

The only reason I'm writing this article, is because both actually work! Obviously both, in different ways, simulate the tightness in available area that you'd find with more players.

Here are some notes of comparison: (OV=official variant, FF=faster,friendlier)


- in the OV, your shipping is left inherently alone, the other live player may decide to interfere with you by placing neutral discs into your area, soaking up valuable space. Making you compete against the neutral player for control of the governance for that region.
- in the FF, there are a certain amount of neutral discs present in each shipping lane during setup. The competition is there regardless.


-in the OV, according to normal placement rules your opponent may place neutral discs into an eligible (for the neutral color) spot in an open region.
-in the FF, the neutral discs are spread out among the neutral regions and are added when there sufficient room left for placement. So, if there is a disc set aside for the purpose of neutral occupation (counted out and placed beside the region as a reminder) it is placed as soon as there is only 1 space left to occupy in that region. If there are four neutral discs for that region(europe only), they are played onto the board when there are only 4 spaces left unoccupied. Europe starts the game with 4 neutral discs to the side, whereas each other region has one neutral disc set aside for occupation.


-in the OV, the active player after drawing his own card may choose to draw for the neutral player by placing an eligible (for the neutral color) card in the box.
-in the FF, the active player after drawing his own card may remove the next card from the stack of cards he draws his own from, regardless of eligibility for the neutral player.


This pretty much breaks down the major differences between the two most popular variants. Now, which is better? Why would I want to write an article based on such a specific case of circumstances when there are so many other 2P specific games available?

The inspiration for this article, is that they both actually work. As in for me, they each have their own unique appeals and turn-offs, they each expand on the game, or at the very least present the system in a different light. There are games published to scale down to 2, that don't work this well!

The official variant seems to try and simulate a 3 player game. Now I know what you're thinking, this game isn't even close to "best with 3". I think this is because of the size of the board. It leaves too much open space and freedom to expand without worry. If you've played a 3 player game of Endeavor, there still is too much room to expand your domain uninhibited by the other players. I've heard things like, "well, who would actually play the game that way, the conflict is part of the fun"... this is true but just having that idea in mind isn't enough to achieve that tension in a real game. Why? Because there's still too much damn room! If one player makes it their goal to be the fly in your ointment, he is going to lose track of his own goals and effectively only be able to disrupt one of three players. That's where the "dummy player actually makes it interesting. You see, he's soul-less. He doesn't care about his own win, he gets his jollies in creating havoc and disruption. That is because you are in control of him. So where maybe only a certain percentage of your plays will be in confined spaces, all of his will be. He is your drone. He thrives on conflict. This makes up for the plays where a live player would be seeking to "carve-out" his own territory.

The "Faster, Friendlier Variant" seems to try and shorten the board size down. There are spots on the shipping lane already occupied by the neutral player at the games beginning. So besides that neutral player being a legitimate candidate for governor, these spaces might as well not even exist. This is in stark contrast to the OV because the neutral counters are spread equal. You can't elect as the opposing player to push most of the neutral discs into one area. There isn't much to wonder about as far as the occupation strategy of the neutral player. It's pre-determined, in timing and amount.

Card drawing is significantly different between the two. In the OV the discarded card draws are going to be a little more spread out. Some defensive (blocking your opponents ability to pick up a card by snatching it up for the neutral player) or offensive (removing cards from regions you are in in hopes of getting through the deck a little faster to get to the more powerful). The FF just works on the 2nd premise alone. You can only draw cards out of the decks for the neutral players from the same deck as you just drew your own. There are rare circumstances that arise that may carry some of the tone of the defensive position. This happens when 2 players are competing along with the neutral player in one region. The neutral player will have a fairly decent presence to start and there really isn't much room at all in each. Therefore if all 3 players are present you can sort of snuff out the weakest player (always one of the 2 live players) from the quality cards... or really any cards at all.

"Are these really dummy players, I've already been told this is a terrible mechanic, I don't know why I hate it so much... I just do!" Well clearly that was the inspiration for the FF variant. Or atleast it presents an alternative for those with a similar attitude as the quoted fella. For the record, the official variant came first, the FF is almost, as I see it atleast, a variation on the variant. Get all that? A whole separate article could probably be written on the pro's and con's of such mechanics, from fun to un-fun, strategic to annoying. One thing that is very clear and I sort of alluded to it earlier, is that for every few moves you make in this game you're going to be getting into someone's business with your own moves. That is with the normal player compliment (3-5). Yes I am aware of the butterfly effect, not everyone likes to think of all remotely abstract games as being as fluid as GO and me thinks for good reason. The neutral player serves just to complicate and interfere. So yes, you might understand that although a normal live player's move might have some interference associated with it there are personal motivations for it. The move helps further their "efficiency engine", if it slows you down in the process, all the better, The neutral player's moves don't share that quality. If taken too emotionally and in context of normal play, they seem mean... because they are. Another reason for the FF as stated by the author is that it is easy to forget the neutral actions after taking your own. I would agree, but that isn't the fault of the variant. It definitely feels less intuitive to play these neutral markers, so I think in combination with residual habits formed by the normal order of procedure, it seems to break the flow of the game up. I think there's something to this, but it's definitely not the fault of the variant.

Something I found very interesting that I didn't expect was the realization that this is more of an abstract game than I had thought. Sometimes I get caught up in the distraction of theme. Pretty pieces, an interesting layout, these things are very much to the benefit to the game but sometimes these elements overshadow the beauty and simplicity of the abstract quality of the game play. The phrase I keep coming back to, whether it's because of the quicker games, lack of motion between turns, or just more directly seeing the implications of certain positions, "these variants strip away some of the mystery of the game". This phrase over and over in my mind has been ringing. But what are the mysteries? This is a game of open information and zero luck, so the mystery has something to do with the abstract play. Seeing the further implication of your placements and decisions in more brevity and clarity. This is the only thing I can come up with. I'd like to rant along more about this, but again it's a bit off topic and would make this article less appealing or digestible for some folks with a more casual approach to gaming. I also don't want to ruin the game by exposing people to strategy that I haven't fully thought out or they weren't looking for.

I must say I enjoy the official variant more than the FF for the following reasons:

-The neutral discs set aside for occupation present a very stale set of circumstances once they enter the game.
-I feel less of the original strategy remains viable when playing the FF version.
-The card drawing aspect of FF feels cheap, for a reason I can't fully describe. I guess it just feels so much different than the normal game.
-There are certain shipping situations in the FF that feel scripted, broken, or less than inspiring from a design standpoint. Even though the neutral player has a leg-up on the competition in the governor race, it feels as though at some points the strategy becomes far less elegant.
-The spread out approach of the neutral player is a bit unrealistic. I like the ability to "preempt" my opponents future strategy by playing discs in a diverse and varied way, at a variable rate and concentration.

That being said, the FF is what it set out to be.

-Faster,especially at first when compared to the original order of operations.
-Friendlier, you get no choice where the neutral discs will be placed, well at least as far as concentration.

I actually very much enjoy both. I remember thinking, would I like this game if it was published as a two player game with either of the variants as the official and only set of rules? I honestly can say I would. This is one of those variants that if more people knew about it, I think sales might have been even better for this game. Endeavor really doesn't have a lot of "screwage" to begin with, and unless you've been coddled by non confrontational Euro's for most of your playing, you'd probably find that even with the intentionally blatant disruptive force that is the dummy player, it really doesn't feel all that nasty. The attack action is already weighted pretty heavily in expense, so if you could handle that and can accept the fact that your opponent taking up space to meet his goals is already hindering your chances to expand, the blatant motivation behind neutral play should be seen as nothing more than a little slap on the ass. Even though the dummy player can't speak up to tell you, his motivation are very much the same as yours would be, just remember that guy is a dummy after all.

New blog location
Twitter Facebook
Fri Aug 12, 2011 2:23 am
Post Rolls
  • [+] Dice rolls
 Thumb up

Aton - A puzzle of pips.

Tony Bosca
United States
Royal Oak
flag msg tools
The purpose of this blog is in order to showcase some 2P games that my friends and I enjoy. I will attempt a brief rules explanation, just enough to give the article a little backbone. I hate reading rulebooks unless there is a game to be played immediately afterwards. I will write this series as I see fit for for reading myself - Light, quick and in parlance of our times.

Game Designer - Thorsten Gimmler
Game Publisher - Queen Games
Game Type - Abstract Strategy

Thinly veiled in theme, Aton is a truly elegant game of equal forces vying to occupy space. I must say that I am generally a fan of abstract games that "disguise" themselves with nice bits and pretty colors - Ohhhh the pretty colors. Anything that gets these abstract games to the table on a lighter, less intimidating note, is welcomed among my pals. Keep in mind we know damn well that underneath that neat little box lid is a nasty game of cutthroat tactics, plotting and scheming... it just helps to break the ice. You'll need the ice later, to cool your noggin of course.

In Aton, players each get a deck comprised of equal forces. The cards are nothing more than numerical ranks (1-4) that are shuffled and drawn gradually at random. The deck consists of 9 of each rank (9 4's, 9 3's...) for a total of 36 cards apiece. These are shuffled and drawn 4/turn. So you know what's in there, you just don't know what/when you're going to get.

The game board is divided up into 4 regions with 12 "spots" in each. Your goal is to strategically place your markers in these "temples" in order to either meet one of the instantaneous winning conditions or to score more points than your opponent through superior placement. How you place your markers in the temples will depend on how you'd like to spend the strength of your individual player deck. There are 4 "cartouches" or as I like to call everything, spots, on each side of the board. You take one of your 4 cards drawn at the beginning of the turn and place it in each cartouche. After a simultaneous reveal, you will spend your cards' pips. The first spot is a little different than the other 3, so we will get back to that guy. The 2nd cartouche is an offensive action which allows you to remove your opponents previously placed markers. The higher the strength of your cards the more markers you can remove. Careful though, if you do not spend enough pips on this location you might end up removing a few markers of your own! The 3rd cartouche dictates the highest numbered temple you may place your markers in that turn. Temples are numbered 1-4 and the equity within these temples increases with the numeric value. The fourth cartouche tells you how many markers you get to put down that turn. Laying a "2" in this cartouche means you get to play 2 markers in your eligible temple. So what you have here is the want (most times) for a "4" in every spot. You want to be able to use your high cards to remove more of your opponents markers, play in the highest valued temples, place the most markers you can... but alas the deck makeup does not allow you such freedom. The very first cartouche is a straight points bid, scoring two points multiplied by the difference between your 1st cartouche card and your opponent's. The player with the high card in this cartouche get's point right away. If none of the instant win conditions are realized, this race comes down to points alone, so although this is the least functional cartouche, it offers a great share of points.

There are also instant win conditions to be watchful of. Each temple has a row of green spaces and a row of yellow spaces. If you can manage to fill up the green spaces in each separate temple you win outright. No need to play out the decks any further or wait until the end of the round to score! Same goes for the yellow spaces in each temple. It's important to note, that after each round ends the majority owner of each temple scores for the amount of markers he has in the temple. Often times the instant win strategies and point optimization strategies are contradictory to eachother. Meaning, to go for an instant win is often at the sacrifice of potential points. If you miss out on your opportunity to make this winning condition, you're giving your opponent an opportunity to score a lot of points. Note: another winning condition, 40 points prior to a scoring round... if 40 is met during the scoring the player with the most points wins. The trick is that first cartouche, it allows you to score prior to the scoring round. So if you're too aggressive in going for one of the non-point scoring victories you can let your opponent get dangerously close to hitting that 40 point mark prior to you achieving your instant win. Another instant wins - filling up a single temple completely with your stones only. This one is tricky for sure, as you'll be aiming for the most in each temple already. If MOST becomes ALL, it's over.

Once a track comprised of removed stones is full the scoring round goes as follows: in each temple the majority owner scores points, there are some bonus point individual spots in the temples, there are also black squares in each that instead of instant win conditions allow you to score a lot of points if you have the majority of them out of all temples.

To me, this is the core conflict of the game. To go for the instant win, or to pile up the points. But it's not that cut and dry. This isn't so much a "multiple paths to victory" game as it seems on paper. What usually happens is that while someone is going for all the green spaces on the board, you'll be going for all the yellow. They'll get close and you'll throw some stones on the green spaces in order to play defense, they'll commit higher cards to the 2nd cartouche in order to remove those stones... this opens up the other areas of the board for you to exploit. Maybe you'll get closer to victory with being able to capture all the yellow spaces, but chances are you'll have to re-respond to their green effort again... It sort of bogs down at some point, either from the start or when someone gets too close to an instant win and demands attention. What results is a tactical delight, involving card counting, conservation of resources, bluffing... it get's sort of tit-for-tat, little moves here, mini-swing there - until someone, tensely, grabs the reigns and rides the pony in to town.

Some people have argued on here that the game is good but simply not fun to play. Luck is pretty low. Turn to turn play is very samey. To me it's the tactics and "open" feeling of the strategy that are the appeal. The best move is sometimes very easy to recognize, especially in end game situations, but the mid-game is a beautiful mess. Although Aton is an area majority game, it really doesn't feel that way while playing it. It should, for every reason I described in the little rule synopsis, but it doesn't. This hearkens back to my first paragraph on theme. These thinly themed abstracts seem to fool unsuspecting players. As a friend of mine's girlfriend said, "What, do you get to be that guy on the box or something?", to which I answered, "No, you get to play chess with a pharaoh suit on." It had me thinking for a bit. Maybe the lack of perceived fun has something to do with the expectations that are presumed upon seeing the imagery and theme?

As for replay-ability, I think Aton holds up fairly well. No two games seem to be the same. Strategies change, the bluff or distraction from experienced players, or the amateur naivete of the noobs... because of the set value of each players' forces, there is nothing that can be squandered. That "4" has to go somewhere, whether it's the optimum placement or not, we may never know. The mechanic of placing the cards and doing the elementary math needed to determine the cards true value in each cartouche is a turn off for some people. I've even heard it called convoluted. I think it's rather simple, and even if it is a little convoluted aren't all game mechanics?

Aton a very nice game. It's actually impressed a few people that I didn't think it would. The area majority/area control genre is pretty void of good games for 2, I believe it to be one of the better, one of few that actually works. It's not gonna rock your world, but it might consume more of your 2P filler time than you thought. It feels like there is something here to "figure out", "let's do it again" is a common chorus. There are just so many moving parts here.

This is my first attempt at contributing here on BGG besides comments and photos, so hopefully you enjoyed reading it. I plan on doing a few of these little articles a week... hopefully showing a little improvement as a writer each time. I picked this game for my first rather hastily and regretted it almost immediately. It's really hard to describe the mechanics this way, I'm sure the designer probably encountered the same. It's almost as if you need to play a few hands to really see how it goes down. Ah well, welcome to my weird little spot on the intrawebz, a place where everyone is a writer, yet no one writes. They type.

*edited to include minor synopsis of scoring round, for clarity.

New blog location
Twitter Facebook
Thu Aug 11, 2011 6:29 am
Post Rolls
  • [+] Dice rolls



Front Page | Welcome | Contact | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertise | Support BGG | Feeds RSS
Geekdo, BoardGameGeek, the Geekdo logo, and the BoardGameGeek logo are trademarks of BoardGameGeek, LLC.