It has come to my attention that occasionally my figures of speech get lost on people who don’t know me all that well. For instance, I sometimes use the phrases “XYZ says I have a really great personality” or “RST thinks I’m a really great friend.” The untrained Robspeaker might believe that XYZ and RST enjoy my personality and friendship.

In fact, both of these phrases indicate rejection, that XYZ and RST want nothing to do with me, in reference to the line that inevitably follows: “but I’m not interested in dating you.” This can be used semi-sincerely in the case actual of romantic rejection, or facetiously for a submission, application, request, etc. “GMT Games got back to me about my submission. Turns out they think I have a really great personality.” It can also apply to other people. “Did you hear back about your job application? Oh, they love hanging out with you and think of you as a really good friend. Sorry to hear that.”

(Should you actually need to communicate the literal meaning of one of these phrases, it needs to be recast or have context added. “XYZ and I get along well together.” “RST and I have been friends since that party back in ‘05.”)

Reader Nathan & the Cynic (that’s one reader) pointed out that when referring to games but especially when doing review-esque writing, I should include a link to BoardGameGeek for the game in question. Sheesh. You’d think getting me to complete unpleasant but important chores was part of his job or something. He’s right, of course. For some time I’ve been throwing around the idea of making an expanded version of that article for all of the games I can remember playing, and putting a sidebar link to it. I’ll try to make a Labor Day Weekend project out of it (it’s like labor!) and add links, of course, since that would be immensely helpful to those that are curious about the game.

How do you split a cookie between two people? One person cuts, the other one chooses. Great.

OK, Solomon, help me out with this one. I wish to assign starting positions on, essentially, a map board. Assume that the map board has no particular symmetry and, in particular, no rotational symmetry. Resources may be unevenly distributed. Furthermore, I would like to adhere as closely as possible to the following parameters:

• From 3-5 players will be choosing locations. Each player will choose basically one location.
• It’s OK if the locations are not quite equal, but no position should be hopelessly bad. In particular, it is not OK to have every player choose one location and then randomize who gets what location.
• Two players should not be able to collude to give one of them an excellent location.
  (Likewise, there should be no frustration that an inexperienced player has inadvertently handed out a gift.)
• It should not take too long–nothing very mathematical. The Settlers of Catan initial settlement placement is the outside limit for how long this should take.
• Since this will take place before a new player gets to see the game, it should be possible for experienced players to offer meaningful advice to a new player without having to worry about who among them will be helped or hindered by the placement.

If you can’t guess, I’m fishing for ideas to see if this basic layout can be made to work. I think it would be a lot more flavorful than a clever board with rotational symmetry for 3, 4, or 5 people; yet I still want the basic balance I’ve come to expect from Euros.

Over the last few months, I have developed a satisfied feeling. I feel like I have explored the breadth of hobby boardgaming. I don’t remember how many years ago I first looked at BoardGameGeek’s list of top-rated games, but I remember feeling overwhelmed. There were just so many of them, and Settlers of Catan, the game which had been so far above any board game before, rated only twenty-somethingth!

Now, I have played many dozens of board games including many of these widespread favorites, and I understand why people love them. I know many of the important ideas that cross across games and their history. I know some of the important designers and publishers and a little bit about the publishing industry.

To be sure, I have not explored the depth of the hobby, and this is also a good feeling, because I like learning, and I like playing new (or new-to-me) games. Being done would suck! Certainly there are a couple dozen great games and a hundred or so I’ll enjoy still out there. But I know where to look to find them, what to look for, and what I know to avoid because I won’t like it. And new stuff is still being published, which is great, of course! But I feel “caught up” in a way that I never could with, say, books or music–I feel like I have a grasp of the gaming zeitgeist, despite the fact that I wasn’t paying any attention between 1995 and 2004.

I picked up about 6 games at Origins, and readers qualistarian and Fu Leng picked up even more on their own. (And we got a few more that we couldn’t resist after, not to mention demoing them at the FLGS…) I’ve finally had the chance to play all or most of them–many weeks later–and I don’t want to bore everyone (including myself) with a full review of each. So, get ready to drink from the firehose:

Lost Cities: It’s required to say “I hate this game!” at least once per game, or you lose 10 points. Despite this, I love it. Verdict: 3+++

Hive: Incredible depth for such simple rules. There’s a lot going on and a lot to learn. The lack of luck makes it feel “heavier”; since nothing totally unexpected is going to happen, everything can be planned, and a failure to win is a failure of planning, right? Verdict: 2++

Coloretto: Fast. Lots of decisions. Easy rules. Deeper than it looks. Engaging. Highly recommended. Verdict: 4 (my only 4 other than Ra)

Twilight Struggle: Awesome and with surprisingly easy rules. Dripping in an exciting theme. Who would have thought that I could find the domino effect so engaging. Fly in the ointment? The three-hour playtime and the fact that it’s two-player only. Jury is still out.

Santiago: Solid game with a fascinating bribery/persuasion mechanic. There’s no other game except Settlers I can think of where you’re engaged in such tense, albeit nonviolent, negotiations with the other players. Verdict: 3+

Princes of Florence: We put off playing this game for a long time; it looks painfully dry and slow-moving. Looks are deceiving. The theme works well and the game is fast-paced and exciting for everyone. There are definitely multiple paths to victory and no other game so well emphasizes the idea that “there just isn’t enough time to do everything you want.” Verdict: 3++

Colosseum: I played this before I played Princes of Florence and thought it was OK–probably a 2+. Halfway through my first Princes game I said “I am never playing Colosseum again.” I have no idea how this got printed in a world that includes Princes of Florence, because Colosseum feels like a pale imitation. Verdict: 1++

Ingenious: Light, but with lots of opportunity for strategy, and fast-playing. Also very pleasing to look at and play with the pieces. The box is certainly much heavier than the game. Verdict: 3++

Lord of the Rings: The Confrontation: It only looks like Stratego. There are a lot of fascinating little nuances and although I’m usually really horrible at bluffing games, I seem to do OK. The theme, complete with unbalanced forces, works very well. Verdict: 3+++

Thebes: The internationalization and minor rewrite of Jenseits von Theben. I have never before seen the theme (archaeology) of a Euro work so well with the game. First, you run around Europe learning about ancient civilizations, then you try to make it to said civilizations before your rivals do and get all the best artifacts for themselves. There’s a tense, exciting balance between learning enough to make good use of your digging time, and getting there before all the good stuff is gone. There’s a lot of luck, probably comparable to the amount in Settlers, which is OK with me but I can see people being frustrated. Verdict: 3+

Caylus Magna Carta: Variously nicknamed “Caylus Lite”, “Caylus Jr.”, “Baby Caylus”, or “My First Caylus” even though 1) it’s certainly not a “light” or children’s game and 2) we’ve never played the original. Despite this, it’s definitely a lot of fun, with lots of decisions to make. Verdict: 3

Shogun: It’s a wargame! No, wait! It’s a Euro! The mechanics look cool but the playtime looks daunting. I’ve only played half a game so far. Verdict: Jury is still out. My guess is that it will end up with a high 2 but I might be surprised.

No Thanks!: Fun. Light. Hard to say no. My particular favorite part is how far you push your luck passing around a huge card that’s a big hit for everyone else but safe for you. I prefer Coloretto but might suggest this to keep people from getting sick of it! Verdict: 3

Zooloretto: Definitely looks and plays like a bulked-up Coloretto. Unfortunately, one of the neatest parts of the game–the tension of making stacks that are good for only you–is much diluted, since additional extra animals of a kind don’t hurt, and having too many animals of the kind you are collecting can hurt you. Not a bad game, but nowhere near the front of my list. Verdict: 2+

For those who may care:

1. I am abandoning my policy of no non-boardgaming content. Following the example of the great Raymond Chen, I’ll maintain a ratio of at least 50% ontopic and probably better.
2. Rule 0 may see some PG-13 material. It will remain safe for work.

I posted a short, negative review of Himalaya over at BoardGameGeek. It’s here. I really dislike this game. The programmed movement is frustrating, the way scoring opportunities arrive is unpredictable, and the scoring/winner determination is too boring and baroque to be worth messing with.

I may be posting future negative reviews over at BGG–they don’t get enough of them there–and continuing to post positive or more broadly thought-provoking reviews here.

So, apologies to reader qualistarian, who I know had high hopes for the game; my rating is 1+.

I love this new rating system because it frees me from having to decide how good a game is, which is a subjective judgment anyway, and lets me focus on how much it makes me want to play it, which much more concrete and useful at the same time. For instance, I can rate Ra 4 and Go only 2+ without having to worry about slighting such a deep, subtle, elegant, and history-steeped game. If these ratings were “poor”/”awful” to “great” and I had to rate Ra an A+ and Go a C, I wouldn’t feel right doing that.

In related news, after my second play, Coliseum gets a 2+. Frustrations: It’s not very apparent how how well you do in the early rounds helps your final score; you can’t do very well unless you sit down near the beginning and think about your complete 5-turn plan; and relatedly, there’s a lot of potential for analysis paralysis, not only regarding your score but also other players’ scores and when it’s safe and unsafe to trade with them.

Three gunfighters, named A, B, and C, are having a rather contrived gunfight. Here are the rules:

• The fighters shoot in turn: first A, then B, then C, then (if more than one is still alive) back to A, and so on.
• On a turn, a fighter gets to shoot only once, at one opponent.
• A hits the target 1/3 of the time. B hits 2/3 of the time. C always hits.
• Fighters are allowed to shoot at the ground or otherwise intentionally not hit any target.
• If all fighters intentionally miss in a row, the last one to do so is eliminated. *

What is A’s best strategy?

Extra credit: Generalize for different accuracies.

*This rule is not usually given as a part of this riddle, but it is necessary to avoid degeneracy while working out the solution, and (as you will see if you try to generalize) is particularly important if all of the fighters have accuracy over 50%. I chose it arbitrarily; it could be replaced with any rule that keeps everyone from intentionally missing forever.

I was led to believe that freezing grapes would result in a fun and cool snack for August.

I was deceived.

If the thought of eating wet, cold cardboard with a slight grape-y flavor appeals to you, by all means, freeze yourself some grapes. Otherwise, stick with the basic plan: freeze water, refrigerate grapes.