Recommend
2 
 Thumb up
 Hide
23 Posts

Tannhäuser» Forums » General

Subject: This is a TWO-PLAYER game! rss

Your Tags: Add tags
Popular Tags: [View All]
Matt Shepherd
Canada
Kingston
Ontario
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Happy enough with it, don't get me wrong, but when the box (and BGG) says it's for 2-10 people, I made the assumption that it was, well, for 2-10 people. I hadn't read too much about it (I'm a bit weird that way, but I like "discovering" a game), so it was a MAJOR pain in the keister to get home, invite a couple of friends over, work our way through the rules (in French, but we're all pretty bilingual (Quebec) and about halfway through realize...

...it's a two-player game.

Frankly, it's irritating, and I'm thinking about returning the game. There are 4-6 people in our gaming group, and I already have Dungeon Twister to fill the offbeat 2-player themed-strategy gap.

Saying this is a 2-10 player game is like saying Chess is for 2-32 people. "You can move Queen's Bishop's Pawn!" Thanks, but no thanks.

Again: like the game.

Hate the deception.
4 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Mark Bigney
United States
Alexandria Bay
New York
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
It's a minis game, which implies strongly right off the bat that it's two player. And while I empathize, I think that "deception" is too strong a word. You can play with ten players, and in much the same way that you could play El Grande with two. I suppose this is just the pitfall of "discovering" a game; caveat emptor.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Paul DeStefano
United States
Long Island
New York
flag msg tools
designer
@TaintedDragonInn
badge
www.TaintedDragonInn.com
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Gyges wrote:
It's a minis game, which implies strongly right off the bat that it's two player.

I have to disagree. I would say almost every minis game I've seen, with very few exceptions, is multiplayable. In fact, I can't think of one right now that isn't...
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Mark Bigney
United States
Alexandria Bay
New York
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Two player in the sense that the OP was using it.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Matt Shepherd
Canada
Kingston
Ontario
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Gyges, I assume you've played the game because you wrote a very lavish and loving review of it, so I'm baffled at where you're coming from.

Oddly, the only other review is by somebody who admits he's never played with more than two people. Neither review really mentions playing with more than two people at all, actually.

Beyond two players, Tannhauser is about as satisfying as dividing a chess board down the middle and telling your partner that he can move the King side and you'll move the Queen side.

Gyges wrote:
It's a minis game, which implies strongly right off the bat that it's two player.

What? Maybe you didn't notice Descent, Doom, World of Warcraft, Marvel Heroes, and dozens of other theme-heavy "minis games" that are designed for more than two players and accurately reflect how many people can feasibly play and enjoy the game on the box.

In fact, except for BattleLore (which says 2-2 players on the box), I'm harder pressed to think of games in this price range for two players than for 2-4+. Heroscape pushes the envelope with 2-4, but they're very upfront about "side sharing".

This game is designed for, and is fundamentally playable by, two players. In form and function it is closest, among all things I've played recently, Dungeon Twister. Which by your logic is a "game for 2-16 players."

Gyges wrote:
I think that "deception" is too strong a word.


I'm struggling to find an appropriate word, then. "Using a description that grossly misinterprets the design of the game in an attempt to boost sales" is more accurate, perhaps, but a bit long.

2-10 players, on the box, means a game that is designed for, and playable/enjoyable by, 2-10 players. This is a game for two people with ten characters in it. I can't get any clearer than the Dungeon Twister example above; if this is a game for 2-10 players, then Dungeon Twister is a game for 2-16, and Checkers is a game for 2-24 players, and so on down the line.

Chilling vision of the future: the Take On You edition of Diplomacy, an action-packed adventure for 2-64 players, where every individual fleet and army token has its own player, and they all book convention centres to discuss strategy between moves.

Gyges wrote:
I suppose this is just the pitfall of "discovering" a game; caveat emptor.

Remind me never to buy a -- well, anything from you, okay?

Gyges wrote:
Two player in the sense that the OP was using it.

I've played theme-heavy American-style multiplayers like Descent, Marvel Heroes, WoW, Doom, good ol' Space Hulk, Arkham Horror, Lord of the Rings, Runebound, Fury of Dracula -- and I've played two-player games like Dungeon Twister, Battlelore, Blood Bowl, Blue Moon, etc.

I know the difference.

How would you play Tannhauser with ten people? Which lucky person gets to be Commando Delta, a character so disposable they don't even bother to name it?

(EDIT: UBB code)
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Rich Moore
United States
Oxford
Ohio
flag msg tools
badge
Gotcha!
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Is there enough character development/choices to make it worth while for more than 2 to play? I'm thinking of games like descent or runebound where each person plays they're own character, but it works because there are lots of options for character development. Sure, if it's just like two Heroclix teams I can see how you'd only ever want to play with 2, but if there are actually some choices involved in character development I can see it being fine for more than 2 (although I admit I can't imagine it would be any fun with 10 people!)
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Mark Bigney
United States
Alexandria Bay
New York
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
MattShepherd wrote:

Gyges wrote:
I think that "deception" is too strong a word.


I'm struggling to find an appropriate word, then. "Using a description that grossly misinterprets the design of the game in an attempt to boost sales" is more accurate, perhaps, but a bit long.

2-10 players, on the box, means a game that is designed for, and playable/enjoyable by, 2-10 players. This is a game for two people with ten characters in it. I can't get any clearer than the Dungeon Twister example above; if this is a game for 2-10 players, then Dungeon Twister is a game for 2-16, and Checkers is a game for 2-24 players, and so on down the line.

Dungeon Twister wouldn't work very well as a team game, as the team members would need to agree on what action card to play, as well as which team member's characters would receive the benefit of those action points. Same for chess and checkers; only one piece may be moved per turn, and thus they are naturally unsuited to team play. I am not very familiar with team-based games in general, but this strikes me as a reasonable distinction.
And I stand by my analogy; playing Tannhauser with more than two similarities to playing El Grande with 2. Namely, sub-optimal and less than ideal, but playable. Stating on the box that you can play with such numbers is true. If your expectation is that boxes only list the ideal player range, then I think it's safe to say that your expectation is not met by the overwhelming majority of games. See http://www.boardgamegeek.com/geeklist/17016 for many excellent examples.

MattShepherd wrote:

Remind me never to buy a -- well, anything from you, okay?

In this case, you would have been well-served by dealing with me; had you asked, "how well does Tannhauser play with more than two people?" I would have replied truthfully, "not terribly well, but it works." My point was simply that checking up on games on the 'geek prior to purchase can avoid such unfortunate surprises; nothing more.
I'm sorry that my post seemed to provoke a strong reaction from you. I am trying to be polite.
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Ubergeek
United States
Washougal
Washington
flag msg tools
Be Happy in your Game!
badge
I spent 100 Geek Gold and all I got was this lousy overtext message!
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I've been interested in this game since I first came across the French announcement but surprisingly to me, I always assumed it was a 2-player game. However, I did go read the rules translation here and found this:

Quote:
1. How many players can play Tannhäuser?
Typically 2 players, but nothing is keeping you from playing with more!

Five Personnel Files per unit are available, so there can therefore be up to 10 players! Each player controls one character; the most difficult thing is to agree on a strategy during the game.

Granted, I don't know if the translation here is a verbatim one but it does appear so. The rules also indicate that each player moves a character in turn until all characters have moved. This is unlike chess where each player can only move one character but could move the same one every turn. In Tannhauser, if you have multiple players, each with their own character, they will all get a move during the turn. It seemed to me from reading the rules you could feasibly have two teams each with two or three players controlling one to two characters. Like it states in the rules, the difficulty is on agreeing to a strategy but ultimately you can work together for a team win.

I would say calling it a deception is a bit harsh and implies an intent to deceive. I have to agree that in reading the rules it appears the game is best suited for two players but it's not a misrepresentation to state that it could be conceivably played by up to 10; though it would probably bog down and take a while to get back around to your character.

Either way, thanks for bringing this point to light as it made me go and re-read the rules again. Looking forward to getting the FFG version of this one.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Matt Shepherd
Canada
Kingston
Ontario
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I was in a terrific grump last night and was definitely -- well, I still feel tricked, but I was ramping the hyperbole up to 10, let's put it that way.

I didn't want to start a two-issue post, but the game also came missing some figurines and Take On You doesn't provide any support other than saying "take it back to your LGS," which had further got my dander up.

The main intention for starting this thread, though, was to get something on the main page that says that this is at heart a two-player game that is "playable" by more than two people in -- well, again, in the same way that you can play Chess with 32 players.

Quote:
In this case, you would have been well-served by dealing with me; had you asked, "how well does Tannhauser play with more than two people?"

That was badly phrased on my end. I didn't mean to imply you were less than honest or deceptive yourself, but man, that "caveat emptor" thing really bugged me -- it implied the fault was mine for not having opened the box and play-tested the game in the store, or reading the manual exhaustively (they do say "for two players but playable by up to 10," but that's on, like, page 14) online.

You can't always count on a store clerk to have an intimate knowledge of every game on the shelves. In my case, the clerk hadn't ever played the game and it was relatively new to the store, and -- as said upthread -- I try not to read up TOO much on new games to avoid being "spoiled," and the reviews here didn't mention anything about playing with more than two players at all.

So I feel I exercised due diligence in reading up on the game, the LGS guy didn't know enough to warn me, and the box said 2-10.

More on the "range is never optimal" thing:

In my experience, when a game lists a range, the overwhelming pattern is for optimal play to occur at the mid-level. Given that Marvel Heroes is 2-4 and plays best with 3, and Descent is 2-5 and plays best with 3 or 4, and Arkham Horror is 2-7 but plays best with 3 or 4 (all the preceding IMO, of course), when a box says 2-10 I have a reasonable expectation that it will be perfect for around 4-5 players.

I heartily wish Asmodée had said this was a two-player game "playable by up to ten people" rather than "a game for 2-10 players."

Anyway: anyone now looking up Tannhauser on the Geek, as I did, and browsing the forums for strong pro/con opinions -- as I did -- will now know -- as I didn't -- that this is a two-player game that can shunt more players in by, well, diminishing the per-player experience.

More on why Tannhauser doesn't work as a 2+ player game (for me):

With games like Descent, Arkham Horror, Marvel Heroes, etc., every player added brings new game elements to the table. Descent and AH bring one character per player, adding a wider range of powers, more net options and more overall decisions to the table. Marvel Heroes does the same, but every player adds an entire team of heroes.

In Tannhauser, every player beyond two dilutes a finite set of options, sub-dividing them into smaller and smaller parcels of play experience until one poor schlub winds up wandering around with a no-name trooper.

A game designed for 2-X players is like making a sandwich, where every player brings a new set of ingredients to the game. Sometimes it turns out to be a less than ideal sandwich, but at least there are more things in the mix for every player added.

Tannhauser, on the other hand, is like being given a ham and cheese on white out of the box and told that you can keep cutting it into smaller chunks. I've got nothing against ham and cheese on white, but given the additive experience of, well, every other 2+ player game I can speak of, it was a real letdown.

Apologies again for the level of ire. I was tired and sorely disappointed by a game that I'd been looking forward to for months, and was missing parts when I opened it, I was pretty keyed up about this.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Mark Bigney
United States
Alexandria Bay
New York
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
We appear to have reached a degree of consensus, which is always a good thing. For the marginal issues I think we can agree to disagree. I can't blame you for getting a bit irked, as dropping $40+ on something that turns out to be radically different from expectations can get anyone's dander up.

I join you 100% in being indignant at Take On You's response to your missing figure. That is totally unacceptable. I had a damaged figure in my box, and fortunately my FLGS had a demo copy opened from which they were willing to give me a replacement--but I should think that the original developers should step up to the plate. My suggestion is that you contact Asmodee France (NOT Asmodee US), as they seemed willing to help me.

This is anecdotal, but two defective/missing figures from a small sample set unnerves me.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
G Purcell
United States
Bettendorf
Iowa
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Thanks for posting this! My interest in this game just dropped to zero. I loved the mechanics, but a 2-player game just won't come off the shelf in my gaming group. I assumed that 2-10 players meant 2-10 players, each controlling a team of characters. (i.e. equal game experience, per player, whether there's 2 or 10 of you). I'm not a fan when a game is designed for 2, but is "playable" by more. "Playable" usually means a less well-designed playing experience.

Again, the game still looks cool. But it doesn't fit for me. Thanks for saving me from a dissappointing purchase!
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Christian Marcussen
Denmark
Odense C
flag msg tools
designer
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Out of curiosity - I have not tried Tannhäuser - but what's wrong spreading out the amount of units you control?

In other words - how is it different from a game like Doom where each player controls his own marine? This is an honest question, not an arguement of a specific view.

I'm also interested because I'm thinking about some tactical games where you play many characters when playing two players, but less, down to one character when playing with more players. I wouldnt like to be called deceptive when claiming it's a 2-5 player game
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
G Purcell
United States
Bettendorf
Iowa
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
marqzen wrote:
Out of curiosity - I have not tried Tannhäuser - but what's wrong spreading out the amount of units you control?

In other words - how is it different from a game like Doom where each player controls his own marine? This is an honest question, not an arguement of a specific view.

For me, the way the units are spread out isn't the problem. I enjoy games like Descent and Doom. My view is that those games work because they were designed with the "1 unit=1 player" system in mind.

In my case, I want the user experience to be the same if you have 2 players, 3 players, 10 players, etc. Like Descent - where the difficulty scales with number of players, the essential experience is the same no matter how many players there are. With this game, it seems that number is 2. You can have more players, but the game changes at that point. My fear is that the game wasn't *really* designed for that, and you are now sharing resources or are forced to make less tactical decisions, since you're really sharing a "player side" with another person.

It would be like playing Doom, but having one player manage 3 marines. It could work, but the game wasn't designed for it, therefore something could "break". In that case, I could see the marines having an easier time with it, because one player is coordinating their attacks. In Tannhauser, I could see a "shared player" team having potentially game breaking difficulties against a one player team. (for example, how would a 3 player game play out? 2 players on one side, versus one player on the other)

Sorry so long winded - basically, it's not horrible, but if the game wasn't specificially designed for player equality, I'd rather spend my cash on a game that is (since that's what I'm looking for). But that's just me.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Matt Shepherd
Canada
Kingston
Ontario
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Logrey basically nailed my concern: Descent, Doom, Arkham Horror etc. are additive -- every player "adds" assets and choice to the game. The difficulty of the game scales to match the number of players.

Tannhauser doesn't flex or scale at all. A ten-player game is identical to a two-player game, except that the decision-making is split among ten people. The example of playing chess with 32 people, each one controlling one piece, is obviously a bit extreme but illustrates the concept.

In essence, there's no significant difference between playing Tannhouser with four people (two per side) and playing, say, BattleLore with four people, two people conferring on both sides of the table. Squads are unified, characters within each of the two teams share victory points, and decision-making is made on a team level. So while you could have a bunch of players "controlling" different characters, the net effect is the same as playing a regular two-player game with other people in the room giving you advice.

Whether you "play" all five characters on a Tannhauser "side" or multiple people play them, you're just subdividing exactly the same army as you'd have in the two-player game between more and more people. Diluting the game with more players instead of adding to the game experience.

I'm a bit worried I haven't been clear enough that I like Tannhauser. I had a blast playing it. I was just on the phone with a friend trying to figure out what evenings he's free to play Tannhauser, because my usual game time -- Sunday afternoon -- is dedicated to a group of 4-6 people, and Tannhauser just doesn't work like that.

The game is a great game. It's innovative and interesting and fun. I just wish I'd known it was a "two-player game that up to ten people can play," like it says in the rules, before I'd bought it.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Tom Shydler
United States
Las Vegas
Nevada
flag msg tools
mbmbmb
Although I understand your irritation (I was under the impression- for no good reason perhaps- that the game was multiplayer), I am delighted that it is primarily a two-player game! I have been looking forward to it and have been a bit concerned about how I could make it work for two players.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
William Hoyt
United States
East Liverpool
Ohio
flag msg tools
ボルトン
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Quote:
from Tannhauser product page]

PLAYERS
2-10 players command two teams of five characters, both Heroes and Troops. Since there are up to ten characters on the battlefield at any given time, up to ten players can take part!

The story mode is definitely a 2 player game. Or Teams as stated in the description, but I know what you mean. All that anticipation of actually playing a game like this that would allow 10 REAL interactive characters.

But isn't there a Deathmatch mode that could be played everyone against everyone? And a Capture the Flag where it could be a 5 on 5 game?

I would think in the anything but Story mode, then this could handle that many players and they would all have the same amount of playtime and interaction.

Now how well these modes play, and how well they handle a lot of opponents(downtime?) I what I am waiting to see.

~Floyd
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Vangelis Bagiartakis
Greece
Athens
flag msg tools
designer
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Quote:

It would be like playing Doom, but having one player manage 3 marines. It could work, but the game wasn't designed for it, therefore something could "break". In that case, I could see the marines having an easier time with it, because one player is coordinating their attacks.

I have to disagree with the above statement. Me and some of my friends play DOOM very frequently and we enjoy it very much. Each player having his own marine is very important but not because of what you say. The statement that when there is only one player it is easier because he is coordinating the attacks couldn't be farther from the truth. Whenever we play we ALL decide together what our actions are going to be during the round. We don't go and do whatever pops in our minds. We discuss it first. If there are different opinions (rarely since the correct course of action is usually evident after having played so many games) we do what the majority says (2 out of 3 marines). So, as far as coordination is concerned there is not much difference with having one person play all the marines. However what changes is the fact that there are now more opinions to be heard. When one may think something and consider it the best action for the round, another player's suggestion may turn out to be even better, something he wouldn't have thought on his own. Moreover when you play with your friends against a common "enemy" it is a much more enjoyable experience than playing a two person game (of course, that's my opinion).

Now, as far as Tannhause is concerned I agree that it was designed mostly as a 2-player game. However, coming from DOOM, I can't say that it would be such a stress to play it with more. A 3v3 for instance sounds like a lot of fun.

My two cents...
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Lars Wagner Hansen
Denmark
Sorø
flag msg tools
designer
Any time, any place!
badge
Fingers off, that's my car!
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
MattShepherd wrote:

Chilling vision of the future: the Take On You edition of Diplomacy, an action-packed adventure for 2-64 players, where every individual fleet and army token has its own player, and they all book convention centres to discuss strategy between moves.

That has already been done, but although only for 34 players, since there are only 34 supply centers. It's called the Chaos variant (or Chaos II), and is mostly played over the internet.

You don't have to talk to each and every body the first turn, since playing Tunis does mean that you can wait a bit befor getting into the alliance with Norway.

Lars
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Matthijs v S
Netherlands
Enschede
Unspecified
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
it seems the game is playable with 2or10 , not 2-10.

Try playing Doom with 3 people, one person is the overlord, one controls 1 marine, the other controls 2 marines... isn't nice.

Now try to devide 10 characters by 3, or by 7... doesn't work, not even for capture the flag. CtF never works with an uneven number.


The same goes for War of the Ring btw. While you can play it with 3 or 4 people, it's a 2 player game. 4 is less than perfect, 3 is horrible.


btw, try playing diplomacy with 3 people
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Nick Pluto
Greece
Athens
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Although I can understand OP's frustration, I also have come to grips with accepting that a minis game can be played by more than 2 people if they share sides.

If Tanhauser is not suitable for more than 2 people, than Fury of dracula shouldn't be either. One player should play the Dracula and the other player should play the Hunters. Why split hunters between players (according to OP's logic). And the Chess or Checkers example that then they should be played with 24 players (or more) is a bit far fetched.

Wings of war shouldn't be played by more than 2 people by sharing planes either. In the end I think it comes down to personal taste. On the other hand, this 'sharing sides' should have been mentioned by companies when their games are really designed to be played by 2 sides (is 2 people, or groups of people). Personally I have no problem with it.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Mill Master
United States
Unspecified
flag msg tools
mbmbmb
I have to say that I haven't bought any new FFGs stuff outside of the Arkham and Decent lines for a long time now.
This was the first game to come along in awhile that I seriously considered buying. Everything about it fit into my personal tastes and the tastes of my group.

That is until I found out that this game is essentially a 2 player game. I'll say right now that I will not buy this game because it was not developed to allow more than 2 sides.

Ive read all the arguments about how many games (even ones my group likes) can essentially be broken down and played by either 2 or 20 players. My problem with this game is that at its core it is designed as a 2 player game with each player controlling a team of figures.

Games like this don't give players a sense of individuality because they are locked into a team and I always feel like if my actions don't suit someone else on the team that tension builds in a way that it shouldn't.
Much better to have alliances that can be broken if tension erupts.

I was very hyped about this game, and now im sad to say after reading the rules, am giving it a resounding no....

 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Take joy from your wins; take lessons from your losses.
United States
Davidsonville
Maryland
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmb
    So do all the scenarios require all 10 characters on the board? I would have imagined story mode would set different goals, and each could require different amounts of characters on the board.

    It certainly does appear to be two sides, but lots of games utilize teams for a cooperative win.

             Sag.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Indiana Jones
Canada
Vancouver
British Columbia
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
MattShepherd wrote:
This is a TWO-PLAYER game!
Glad you brought this issue up.

I found this thread very useful, as I've been contemplating on getting this game on the strength that it would be perfect for our 5-player group.

I have enough good 2-player games.

I'm not in the market for more at the moment.

So reading this thread saved me some trouble.

Thanks, Matt.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls