The Unified Theory of Nothing

I sat down to write up our second visit to Alchemists, and found myself joined by two miniature co-authors. So here's a three-person report on our Sunday games session:

Sam: On Sunday Andrew joined Stanley and I for a bash at Alchemists. We (me and Stan) had already played a 6-round game of A Feast for Odin by the time he got here, so we were really in the zone.

You have to be in the zone to play Alchemists. Although there's a very strict logic at play here, working everything out isn't easy.  For someone like me, who goes blank at long division, trying to break down the very components of life itself is a challenge.

Stan: I won A Feast for Odin, by the way.

Sam: Yes. Anyway...

Stan: By quite a few points.

earlier

Sam: Yes. So with Alchemists - as I tried to write in the previous post - you're making and selling potions for gold to buy artefacts to get points, but that's kind of the day to day business. What you're really trying to do is work out what the (al)chemical components are to your ingredients. Do that, and you can publish theories about your work and improve your rep.

Stan: A Feast for Odin is much better. 

Sam: Alchemists is fascinating. I don't know if I think it's the 52nd best game in the world, or even the 52nd best game I've played, but it is definitely very different.

Stan: Yeah, but A Feast for Odin has a good tang to it and it's like a thousand times harder to do, so I'm much better at playing games than you are!

Sam: What Stan is trying to say is that I trounced them both at Alchemists. And what I think is fair to add is that we all went seriously wrong in our deductions. Both Stan and I spotted Andrew's first theory was incorrect, and we raced to debunk him. But Stan also tried to debunk my theories three times and failed - even though my theories were actually, it turned out, utterly wrong. I meanwhile managed to eliminate every single alchemical as a possible match for not one, but two ingredients. As an alchemist I was essentially moronic. I had no idea how to utilise the knowledge of neutral matches, and I still don't.

Joe: I wasn't even there, but I just like saying stuff. 

Sam: The best part of Alchemists is the final reveal, where you uncover the actual alchemical for each ingredient, and reveal everyone's theory. Of the eight, we had two right - an exceedingly poor return for supposed experts!  I pictured us all shuffling out of the conference with our heads bowed, trying to spin it that we had made great progress...

Joe: I hate alchemists!

Sam: Thank you, Joe.

Stan: All you have to understand that A Feast for Odin is a very technical and strategic game and should be given more importance to than a rubbish game like Alchemists.

Sam: Despite the late drama where I lost about 12 points, I still hung on to the lead. I should add in fairness to Stan that he forgot to exhibit potions in the final round. And in fairness to Andrew that he wasn't aware of the terribly punitive effects of having your theories debunked, as his were.  I had neglected to explain it, as in mine and Stanley's two-player we'd never dared cause that kind of consternation in the alchemic community.

Stan: You could also add that I won A Feast For Odin?

Sam: I think they got it.