Moshe Callen
Israel
Jerusalem
I like to exchange ideas but I have no interest in a pissing contest.
If you want me to review your game, just GM me and send me a copy. Abstracts, wargames and euros equally welcome. No party or dexterity games please.
-
1. Introduction
I just received the version of this game called Blokus Duo on Thursday and have played a number of games since with my wife. She has played the original Blokus a number of times, although not expert at it, whereas I have not played that game at all. References to the original game are therefore limited to game theoretical considerations independent of actual gameplay and should not be construed as criticisms of the original game
Although I have encountered copies of the original Blokus a number of times for sale in stores, I decided not to get one because while I love two-player perfect information abstracts (termed simply abstracts hereafter purely for convenience), I am not especially fond of multiplayer abstracts in general. (I own for example both Chinese Checkers and 4 Player Chess.) My objection to such games is that whereas with a two-player game, players directly alternate taking turns with equal numbers of actions, so that one is able effectively to deal with changes made to the situation on the board by the action(s) of one's opponent, for multiplayer abstracts with some number n players, one's ability to respond effectively to changes in the board's situation in reduced by a factor 1/n. Therefore I personally don't care as much for that type of game. (The friends who gave me this game, I believe, know this about me and so gave me a specifically two-player version of the game.) My point is not to denigrate the original game but to say that players cannot have the same level of control as in a two-player game; thus, while the four-player game is also a perfect information game, the net effect is somewhat comparable to a game with some small degree of random elements. So when I saw this game, my eyes lit up because here is a Blokus which is still Blokus but also the kind of game I most like-- a perfect information two player abstract.
One thing should be said however. I was a bit surprised when I saw that this game was also sold as Travel Blokus. Unless the components are different in the version explicitly labeled as a travel game-- which does not seem to be the case from what I see here on the BGG page-- the game would only travel well if the mode of transport is unusually stable, such as a train.
2. Rules and components
The board consists of a 14x14 grid of spaces with two spaces relatively near the center but not exactly at it marked as starting points. A good contrast to the original game's 20x20 board can be seen below.
The red and yellow pieces in the picture mark the starting spaces. One may notice that the effective amount of board space available to a given player is comparable in the original full four-player game and in this game. Specifically, 20x20 spaces/4 players=100 spaces/player for the original game with the maximum number of players and 14x14 spaces/2 players=98 spaces/player for this game. What that means is that the ability to block another player in this game is comparable to the ability to block another player in the full four-player original game. Nevertheless an individual player has more relative control of the board in this game than the original providing for greater strategic depth.
The pieces are high quality durable plastic which is semi-transparent in purple and orange, although the rules term the latter yellow. Each player has one piece of each possible grouping of 1,2,3,4 or 5 orthogonally connected squares, allowing for the fact that pieces can clearly be both rotated and flipped. (I believe this is the same set of pieces for each player as in the original game.) Familiarity with those possibilities does provide a distinct advantage in the game as it allows a player to more effectively choose which piece to play when. Obviously the larger a piece is the harder it will become to play as the game progresses. The game is more about blocking than about geometry, giving the title of the game an obviously intentional double entendre.
No restriction exists on how one's pieces may touch an opponent's pieces, but one's own pieces can and must be touching only at corners. The first piece played must have any one of its squares on a starting space and the other player's first piece played must then have a space on the other starting space. The starting player is chosen arbitrarily, with turns alternating playing a single piece. The game ends when neither player can play any more pieces, due to lack of either available legal positions on the board in which the remaining pieces can be played or of pieces to play. Then the winner is the player whose set of remaining pieces have the least number of total squares in them. While draws are theoretically possible, they seem highly improbable.
The scoring bonuses for using all one's pieces, namely 15 points ordinarily and 20 points if the single square piece is used last, seem only relevant if one plays a series of games with cumulative scoring, in which case each square in one's set of remaining pieces loses one a point.
3. Gameplay
One of the great things about a game based on geometry is that this type of game lends itself to simple but elegant rules with great strategic depth while at the same time players can relatively easily mentally picture the possibilities the board offers. Admittedly the high number of types of pieces in this game diminishes that effect, because one may become easily overwhelmed by the number of options. Yet experience will quickly familiarize one with the set of possibilities, especially since all possible combinations of orthogonally connected (natural) number n≤5 squares exist as pieces once and only once.
Those not mathematically inclined should not let my description of the game in mathematical terms turn them off the game. Another way of thinking about the game is as an area-control game like Go. The mechanism of having one's own pieces touch by corners only allows one to play pieces where corners are available. So the most basic technique in the game is to play pieces such that one blocks as many of an opponent's corners as possible. At the same time one needs to make one's own corners impossible to completely block and to wherever possible surround or at least get to the other side of an opponent's pieces. In other words, one needs to block one's opponent without letting oneself be blocked. The ability to implement these tactics is precisely where relative control of the board comes in. The more control one has over the position of pieces on the board, the more effectively one can use strategy and tactics, i.e., long term and short term planning in play.
In the two- (or three-)player version of the original game, more available space relative to the number of players exists in which to play pieces and hence blocking becomes harder. So even though the original game is a perfect information game with the same relative control of the board's situation as this game in principle, in practice the degree of relative control is greater in this game because one has more powerful tools to work with. Specifically, while the pieces are the same in both games, the size of the pieces relative to the size of the board is not. Thus, pieces in this game are more powerful than in the original game; they can simply block more of the board. Again, this fact implies that strategy and tactics are more effective in this game than the original game.
What all of this means is that if like me one prefers games with a high degree of strategy and tactics in play, indeed the more of such the better, then this game is the one to get of the Blokus games. Wile I've not played the original game, my argument for this conclusion rests on purely mathematical considerations.
-
Mark Harvey
United States
San Diego
California
-
Quote: One thing should be said however. I was a bit surprised when I saw that this game was also sold as Travel Blokus. Unless the components are different in the version explicitly labeled as a travel game-- which does not seem to be the case from what I see here on the BGG page-- the game would only travel well if the mode of transport is unusually stable, such as a train.
I have the Blokus To Go set, and the pieces have square holes in the center that snap and lock onto the board, securing them completely in place.
-
Russ Williams
Poland
Wrocław
Dolny ÅšlÄ…sk
-
Yeah, Blokus Duo is great, one of my favorites and often played! Easy to teach as well, even to non-gamers.
I agree that of course multi-player games introduce more chaos, and the objectively strongest player can get demolished by collusion (intentional or accidental) among other players, for instance. So multi-player games are inherently "lighter" and less serious in that sense.
Since you've not played original Blokus, I'll mention a couple things:
1. Original Blokus can be played 2-player as well - the idea is each player controls 2 colors. Some people prefer that to Blokus Duo. I prefer Blokus Duo. (I often feel like multiplayer games where the 2-player version is "each player takes 2 sides" is a bit of an unsatisfying kludge, and if the "normal version" has each player taking one color, then I prefer the 2-player version also have each player taking one color.)
2. It's not immediately obvious, but an important difference between the two Blokus versions is that with 4 colors, there are a lot more places you can put your pieces during play, since 3/4 of the pieces on the board are not your color: therefore you can touch their sides. But in Blokus Duo, only 1/2 the pieces on the board are not your color and touchable by your pieces. As a result, it is harder in practice to get all your pieces places in Blokus Duo, even though (as you observed) both games give about the same amount of board space per player (98 or 100 squares). I find it quite rare that all of a player's pieces are played in Blokus Duo, but it happens reasonably often in Blokus.
-
-
whac3 wrote: A good contrast to the original game's 20x20 board can be seen below.
We have the original Blokus, but pretty much only play with it set up like shown in the photo. Sometimes we start in the corners as in the original game, not in the marked locations, and that's interesting too. We tried the two player 'you take two colours' rules and didn't enjoy it at all - somehow it's hard to 'grok' the game position when you are in control of two colours.
The small board version also means you 'make contact with the enemy' more quickly, which makes the game feel snappier.
-
Moshe Callen
Israel
Jerusalem
I like to exchange ideas but I have no interest in a pissing contest.
If you want me to review your game, just GM me and send me a copy. Abstracts, wargames and euros equally welcome. No party or dexterity games please.
-
David;
Starting in the middle of the board as opposed to the corners is a big point for the exact reasons you just posted. I'd not realized that this was different since I got the impression of the rules in this game that it mimicked the original rules.
-
George Leach
United Kingdom
Salford
Greater Manchester
-
The best version to get must surely be the original Blokus as with that set you can play both Blokus and Duo, as demonstrated in the linked picture. I notice people don't mention Trigon very often and Reiner's new game Callisto does look like the best of these series of games for it's flexibility and potential additional strategy.
-
Moshe Callen
Israel
Jerusalem
I like to exchange ideas but I have no interest in a pissing contest.
If you want me to review your game, just GM me and send me a copy. Abstracts, wargames and euros equally welcome. No party or dexterity games please.
-
Jugular wrote: The best version to get must surely be the original Blokus as with that set you can play both Blokus and Duo, as demonstrated in the linked picture. I notice people don't mention Trigon very often and Reiner's new game Callisto does look like the best of these series of games for it's flexibility and potential additional strategy.
In principle, one could play this game with the original, but since it involves changing the rules and a make-shift to reduce the board size, even assuming one knows to do so, in practice few would. Even those who would are unlikely to do so often.
-
George Leach
United Kingdom
Salford
Greater Manchester
-
Sorry, I assumed the rules were the same. What are the differences?
Don't underestimate people's resourcefulness. I certainly play many games with the same components and have no qualms doing this with Blokus. I don't expect I'm the only one. 
-
Moshe Callen
Israel
Jerusalem
I like to exchange ideas but I have no interest in a pissing contest.
If you want me to review your game, just GM me and send me a copy. Abstracts, wargames and euros equally welcome. No party or dexterity games please.
-
Jugular wrote: Sorry, I assumed the rules were the same. What are the differences? Don't underestimate people's resourcefulness. I certainly play many games with the same components and have no qualms doing this with Blokus. I don't expect I'm the only one.
In the original, one starts in the corners and so a significant time-delay exists until contact with other players' pieces. This is in addition to the differences noted in the review itself.
-
|
|
