¡dn ʇǝƃ ʇ,uɐɔ ı puɐ uǝllɐɟ ǝʌ,ı
Life lesson: Hamsters are NOT diswasher safe.
There are 10 types of people-- those who understand binary, and those who don't.
My two main gaming buddies and I were getting together last night and I asked them for input on which games to bring. As a visual aide, I gave them both the link to my BGG Profile page that shows the images of all of the game boxes that I own.
Duane notes that there are several shown that he’s never played, one being "Who Stole Ed’s Pants?"
Scott doesn’t remember that one ever showing up either, even though I was pretty sure that we had tried it before and disliked it. Turns out that it was a game with my wife and daughter that left the bad taste in my mouth.
It doesn’t take up much room at all in a bag, so I added it to San Juan and Fist of Dragonstones, and went down to the pub.
So. Who Stole Ed’s Pants?
The rules are concise and often ambiguous, I find. At least the scoring mats have a rule summary on them, which helped to clarify things, somewhat.
You can read in the game review and other session reports for this game all about the rules and cards, and how they get played. This is session report is "just the facts":
We separated the cards into individual stacks before realizing that some stacks get mixed and others don’t. Eventually we have three stacks and an opening hand each.
Our line of "Witness Credibility" was laid out: Law Officers are first, followed in order by Outlaws, Circus Performers, Folks on the Street, Household Staff, and Merchants (the lowest credibility).
We are all immediately confused.
The numbers on the witness cards in front of you for "Who" "When" and "Where" are making us think that they have something to do with the credibility when all they mainly mean is whether or not you can plant evidence on another player.
So if you have a low number card but in a highly credible group, then you can plant evidence on a high numbered card if they are in a lower credible group.
To further muddy the issue, you can’t improve the low numbered cards that you have in front of you unless it is with a high number of a lower ranked group, while any other player can improve your cards for you, but then why would they do that?
Unsure of ourselves, Duane (who had the snazziest pants and gets to go first because of it- the only thing in the game that I approve of thus far!) tries to replace his "Folks on the street, #3 card" in the "When" position with an "Outlaw, #2 card". This is illegal since Outlaws are more credible than Folks, and he would be improving his own cards (God forbid!).
He then tries to place "When" evidence from his hand onto Scott, but this is also illegal since Scott has a more credible witness, even if it is only a #1.
Finally, he places the "When" evidence on me, since I have two circus performers for "Who" and "Where" but a lowly Household staff, #5, in the "When" position.
If it’s even possible to keep track of things at this point, his Folks #3 is more credible than my Household #5.
Which made little sense to us, but we persevere.
I don’t like the cards that I’m dealt, so I change the "Who" evidence to something else, which affects no one at this time.
Scott "improves my hand" by replacing my Household staff, #5 card with a Circus Performer, #4 card. I now have the #6, #4, and #1 Circus Performers in the Who When Where positions (respectively), and they are the second most credible group. What is he up to?
After far more confusion for Duane and I on our turns -- I still don’t like my cards or the options available to be drawn, Scott plays his #5 Circus Performer card to the board and bumps them down in ranking three places (which turns out to be four ranks), from #2 all the way to #6 (the worst).
Now I can’t improve my own hand (illegal), no one is going to do it for me (thanks for the initial help, Scott!), and there are only two cards left in Circus Performers, the #2 and the #3 that are not played yet, and they could be in either of Scott’s or Duane’s hands at this very moment.
I can’t plant any evidence (Circus Performers are not in the top four ranked groups) on anyone, so I spend the rest of the game complaining loudly, threatening to quit, and drawing witness cards every turn in the very slim hope of drawing both circus performers in order to raise them in the ranks enough to plant evidence again.
With me out of the way, Scott and Duane plant evidence and change facts, but the first round FINALLY comes to an end and I have one stone incriminating me, as does Duane, while Scott is off Scott-free.
So, who stole Ed’s pants?
We’ll never know because I refused to play the second round, even though I was tied for "second place" only a single point behind Scott.
In conclusion, I hated my experience the second time even more than the first play with the wife and daughter, but both Scott and Duane thought I was being too harsh a critic and that, although flawed, it had some merit.
In the light of day, after having 12 hours to cool down, I’ll admit that I could have done things slightly differently to improve my chances, but there is WAY too much luck involved in this game for me.
I’d rather get beat at San Juan, any time, which is exactly what happened immediately after I packed everything up. But I actually enjoyed that loss.
I think of Who Stole Ed's Pants? as "Die Macher in little more than an hour."
Only the number matters when changing a witness card, not the group it belongs to. Duanes first move was correct.To change your own witnesses the number on the card must be LOWER or equal to your current witness, but can come from any group. To change another players, it must be HIGHER or equal to their witness, but can come from any group. The group is not important when changing witnesses, just the number.
It's a pretty important rule, and can make a huge impact on the game if you get it wrong (as proved by the review).
- Last edited Tue Sep 21, 2010 4:27 am (Total Number of Edits: 1)
- Posted Tue Sep 21, 2010 4:25 am