Monday 30 July 2012

London 2012 (it was nearer 20:30, actually)

It's a little known fact that when Mitt Romney dismissed a certain venue's preparations for hosting games, he was in fact referring to my new flat, which is still largely unfurnished and devoid of cutlery or crockery, leaving its hosting abilities in doubt.

However, I do have two chairs and a stout table and so I was able to accommodate Sam in a test run of my facilities. Fridge? Check. Roof? Check. That's all we need, isn't it?

We played Biblios at first, hoping to unlock its enigmatic strategy. We played two games. Sam won the first and I won the second, and neither result threw any more light on what we were supposed to be doing.

Then for our main game, we rolled a die to chose between Lords of Waterdeep and London. It chose London, and so this old favourite (then fallen out of favour and so about time for a revival) returned to the tabletop.

No chest of drawers, but I do have a Dreamcast. Oh yeah!

It had been a long time since we'd played London. So long that rules were frequently checked, forgotten and then rechecked. We were both quietly proud of our lack of poverty as we played, but I thought I was in the lead halfway through, with money in the bank and boroughs on the map. Sam suddenly placed three big-scoring cards, and then activated them for a final burst of victory points. He admits it was a bit of luck, since all of those cards arrived in his hand at the same time, but points are points. And what do points make? Winners.

Sam 99
Andrew 85

A pleasant return to game which is much improved by not knowing the winning strategy, and a successful trial of my hosting abilites, and once I get some more furniture in a couple of weeks, it may become a suitable venue for GNN's refined tastes.

6 comments:

  1. I just couldn't get on with London as a two player. It's just too easy, and after half way poverty actually becomes a thing of a the past. There are a bunch of variations that could make it a two player, but it seems like a lot of faffing around.

    So I traded it for Mr Jack.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I've been tempted to trade London away but it's nice to break it out once in a while. I know what you mean about it being easy Chris; both Andrew and I ended with zero poverty. But I suppose you still have to beat your opponent. My reservation about London is it feels fairly pre-ordained as to how you proceed (as I think I have said before in these pages) but it does have the potential to surprise, as last night showed. I stumbled on three train cards that got me £30, enough to pay off my loans in one fell swoop.

    The other thing that went in my favour was the victory cards on our buildings (bottom left of pictures) that neither of us had been paying much attention to.

    Biblios is a real puzzler; like a slightly trickier (but shorter!) Poison.

    ReplyDelete
  3. (by that I mean it's hard to know what the best strategy is...)

    ReplyDelete
  4. I don't know why, I've never taken to London. Henry introduced it to me, and I played Sam's copy at least once, and played with Henry, Rachel and Charlotte at Easter this year. It just doesn't appeal to me. Managing your hand size whilst managing your money whilst managing your poverty whilst managing your victory points, it's just too damn fiddly. Fiddly as opposed to complex.

    Brass is complex, but it isn't fiddly. It's less oblique than London - my goals in Brass feel clear, whereas in London I can't wrap my head around what I should be doing . . .

    ReplyDelete
  5. . . . but I do accept it may be me, not the game. It's a Wallace after all.

    ReplyDelete
  6. It's not a game that seems to inspire love and enthusiasm with GNN, is it? A shame because the board and cards look great.

    ReplyDelete