Meanwhile, it was me, Sam, Adam and genial host Joe. We began with a quick game of 7 Wonders. This classic remains a firm favourite despite being, as I noted, even less sociable than chess. Most of the thinking and waiting was done in silence, and apart from the flurry of activity when we all made our moves, that's how it stayed.
In the end, Adam took the honours with an impressive five-of-a-kind in the sciences. Sam and I, who ignored the sciences completely, came joint last. A moral there, I think.
Adam 55
Joe 46
Sam 42
Andrew 42
After this, it was still early-ish and in a rush of optimism, Joe and I voted for Castles of Burgundy. Adam was given a crash course on the rules. Then we rushed in. Or we "pondered thoughtfully and at length" in. Castles of Burgundy is a very thinky game, and I was a bit sad that we'd gone from the mostly silent 7 Wonders to the equally quiet Castles of Burgundy.
It turned out to be a masterclass from Adam. More impressively, he and I rolled the same value dice for three rounds in a row, with me going before him each time. He complained that I was spoiling his plans, and if that's the case then I hate to think what his score might have been if everything had gone as he'd wanted.
Joe impressed me (but no one else) with a move which effectively gave him six dice rolls in a row instead of the usual two. I impressed no one by pepping up my low-alcohol ale with some whiskey from a plastic bottle.
Sam fretted about coming last, although for most of the game, either Adam or Joe were trailing. I was keeping up with the front runners, but I was aware that my point-gaining was very short term. And so it was in the final count, I lost ground in the bonus round. Otherwise, it was all vintage Adam: only a few hexagons short of a complete board.
Adam 240
Sam 179
Joe 173
Andrew 170
On the Form Table, Adam, Sam and Joe have formed a break away group at the top. I languish, having scored three last places in a row.
| Points | ||||||
| Adam | 1 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 1 | 8 |
| Sam | 2 | 3 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 10 |
| Joe | 3 | 2 | 3 | 1 | 3 | 12 |
| Steve | 2 | 1 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 18 |
| Anja | 1 | 3 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 19 |
| Andrew | 4 | 3 | 3 | 5 | 5 | 20 |
| Hannah | 4 | 2 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 21 |
Amazing news and congrats to all involved. (I'm talking about the baby) Can't wait to meet little Luther and see if I can see the gleam of meeple varnish in his eyes.
ReplyDeleteNice to play seven wonders again. Castles too, though I did foresee it would be long (2 and a half hours!) As for being last Andrew I was more resigned than fretting - I was quite a way behind all three of you for the middle third of the game and impressed with myself that I managed to pull it back!
Not as impressed as I was with Adam though. It was like some sort of crash course in Feldism. Thanks all, and a glass raised to the new member of the clan.
Yes Seven Wonders was great - I did a quick trawl through the archive which I think bore out my assertion that I've never won. It's not that surprising if you remember Hammy pointing out at Stabcon that I would have a higher score had I discarded on all 18 turns! So second place felt like a victory of sorts.
ReplyDeleteLovely to play Castles again, and great to experience a four-player game, though it must have been twice the length of a two-player, with very little gained in terms of interaction. There is some interaction, but it is only in the form of nabbing tiles that other people want - even when you can't use them Saaaam!
That was completely the right move for you, of course, and it probably made the difference between second and third place. I would have done exactly that in your position. I would have felt aggrieved if, at the final tally, Sam was third and I was close enough to Adam to mean that that bonus would have pushed me into first, but we all know that wasn't going to happen - that was an incredible score from Adam.
I remember looking over during, I think, round three, and noticing he didn't have any yellow helper tiles - I thought that would scupper him for sure - he did have a few by the end. I think he concentrated on filling his board, which meant he scored well on the region and colour bonuses, and he also (compared to me) timed selling goods tiles to ensure maximum points for minimum expended actions. The creeping custard is back with a vengeance!
Thanks chaps for a lovely evening of gaming, and huge congratulations to Anja, Steve and Luther Franz!
I liked Castles, but I think it should be called "Battlements of Burgundy" to keep the alliteration of the German version. There was a bit much down-time, I bet it's better as a two or three player game.
ReplyDeleteI did get a bit lucky with the selling goods tiles and apart from the filling areas bonii I'm not sure where my points came from. I think we need to play again to find out...
There's almost no down time in the one-player version, Adam!
ReplyDeleteAnd I have to say that playing it solo is quite a different game than with live people who have more idea of what to take than a lone die. I messed up on my bonuses. I got a bonus for shipping goods right at the start, but then I barely shipped any goods!
However, this evening of resounding wins for Adam means that any chance of playing Agricola in the near future has vanished. I suggest an entire evening of High Society and Biblios.
I thought I did okay at biblios? Don't the stats back me up? Now settlers of catan I'm terrible at...
ReplyDeleteYou're right. I did some mucking about with the spreadsheet, and you've got the second best points ratio on Biblios (after Sam, of course).
ReplyDeleteHmmm... single-game leaderboards... I think I have an idea for a blog post...
I'm still eagerly anticipating the 2-player leaderboard Andrew!
ReplyDeleteWe'd need to play a few more first.
ReplyDelete