Recommend
2 
 Thumb up
 Hide
5 Posts

Harbour» Forums » General

Subject: Thoughts after 4p game rss

Your Tags: Add tags
Popular Tags: [View All]
JonGetsGames
United States
CA
flag msg tools
designer
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
This isn't a review, though I will state that all 4 players enjoyed the game and wanted to play again. That bieng said, here is the list of thoughts we had throughout the game:

1. When someone leaves the Clocktower (on the following turn, per the designer) they evaluate their next location twice. Do they have to pay a goods penalty twice if this building is owed by someone else? Also if the person moving is the Diplomat (this is what happened) does someone already at that location get the diplomat bonus good twice?

2. The fish market seemed to be worth too many VPs to us. A solid resource generator AND the highest VPs of any building in the game?

3. When the Tax office is used, we assumed it is evaluated in clockwise order, but clarifying that in the rules is probably a good idea.

4. The game ended in an odd fashion, when we realized that one players only path to NOT winning was if the Wizards Imaginarium came back out into play.

Player 1 had 34 points between 3 buildings (guy who makes $3 for 2 good trade)
Player 2 had 21 points between 2 buildings (Diplomat, gets to use occupied locations)
Player 3 had 21 points between 3 buildings (Mason, made rock from rock trades)
Player 4 had 21 points between 3 buildings (Alchemist, trades 3 good into 2?)

Player 1 had the Fish Market, and therefore there were zero buildings left in the game which would allow Player 3 or 4 to pass up Player 1 even if Player 1 never built a 4th building. Player 1 got to this VP count with 3 buildings by using the Wizards Imaginarium card and upgrading into the Fish market which has oddly high VPs on it. So Player 3 ended the game, built a building, and Player 1 won without building a fourth building.

It was just odd to be in a situation where you may as well end the game because the victory is inevitable for one player so why drag it on?

This makes the low VP buildings seem like a very bad idea. I went for quick cheap buildings, having 12 VPs total in my first 2 buildings and it left me completely uncompetitive at the end of the game.

5. Discussion of the 4 rolls picked:

Player 1 said he used the +$1 on 2 good trades almost never in the game, he felt it didn't really feel it helped him all that much even though he did win the game.

Player 2 made rampant use of his ability to use occupied buildings. He also had the most Top hats (we played with the variant of needing more hats the the owner in order to bypass the penalty) for a while and so did lots for free. His powers seemed overpowered early, but didn't necessarily feel so late game once we had a better idea of what was going on.

Player 3 probably made at least 8 rock throughout the game, this definitely aided her in coming in second place. Didn't seem overpowered though.

Player 4 (me) was the alchemist and its likely we played this incorrectly. A strict reading of the grammar on the card says I had to pay 1 resource to have the ability to trade 2 of a resource into 2 of another resource. This meant I was trading 3 goods for 2, and it was simply bad. I did it a couple times in order to squeeze out a building, but that only ever got me to mid range buildings and I think definitely helps explain my poor showing. Is this supposedly be be a straight up 2 for 2 trade? If so then I could see this character bieng stronger, but the wording definitely needs to be looked at.


I look forward to testing it again!
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Adrian Brooks
United Kingdom
Rugby
Warwickshire
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
HappyHexagon wrote:

It was just odd to be in a situation where you may as well end the game because the victory is inevitable for one player so why drag it on?

This makes the low VP buildings seem like a very bad idea. I went for quick cheap buildings, having 12 VPs total in my first 2 buildings and it left me completely uncompetitive at the end of the game.


With the Library you can get to 5 buildings, so there's that as well.

But, in general, I'd agree with you.

I've tried to rush to four buildings a few times, and it generally doesn't work. The one time I made it, I made it to four building while the other two players only had two, and I'd also got the role with two extra VPs. Both others bought in the last round, but I won by a single VP. No reason to assume expert play be me or anyone else in any of those, of course.

The real danger, as you say, is that there's little opportunity to change plans. You can have lost before you've bought your third building. Perhaps that's just the way it is .
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Robert Nolan
United States
Fort Scott
Kansas
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
Definitely. In our three player game the first place player was a given. None of the available buildings would allow the remaining two players a chance to win. We didn't even play the game out to the end because of that.

 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
nick schaumberg
United States
Seymour
Wisconsin
flag msg tools
mbmbmb
Varagon wrote:
Definitely. In our three player game the first place player was a given. None of the available buildings would allow the remaining two players a chance to win. We didn't even play the game out to the end because of that.



I can see this as being a down fall to the game. You get so far behind and don't finish out the game/turn. It has happened a few times, that my last turn didn't matter.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Adrian Brooks
United Kingdom
Rugby
Warwickshire
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
pez4u2eat wrote:
It has happened a few times, that my last turn didn't matter.


I don't think that's much of a flaw. On average you're not likely to be able to buy in your last turn. Even if you have got some goods, it's good play by whoever buys the last building to manipulate the market such that you won't be able to do anything significant.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] 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.