New Games For Old: Modern Alternatives To... Pictionary

Last week, we considered a number of board games which I would recommend for the enjoyment of art lovers. As a sister post, this week we shall turn our attention to the other side of that coin - games for art producers. This particular market has long been dominated by one ubiquitous family game- Pictionary. Consequently I shall be proposing three games which supersede that hoary chestnut, improving on its (fairly evident) shortcomings.

1. Pictomania

Easily the most obvious problem with Pictionary is that, at any given time, only a very small number of people are having fun. Unless an "All Play" is in effect, everyone else sits around getting bored - and getting more bored the longer the playing team continues to win. Pictomania solves this problem with a simple twist - everyone is drawing and guessing, all the time.
Cards are drawn each round with related words on them; players then receive a symbol and a number,

telling them what they must draw. When play begins, everyone starts drawing their target word; but they are also keeping an eye out for what the other players are drawing, guessing the meaning of their drawings at the same time. This allows players to play to their strengths - if, like me, you excel at guessing but can't draw a straight line, you can adjust your priorities appropriately. Pressure is on to do both, as fast as possible; you get more points for finishing earlier, and also more points for guessing earlier. Lose points for bad guessing, and also for those failing to guess your own drawing. Put it all together, and you have a frantic family game, which elegantly solves Pictionary's biggest flaw in a single stroke.

2. Telestrations/Cranium Scribblish/Eat Poop You Cat

cc: daveoratox

While Pictomania unquestionably improves on the basic mechanism of Pictionary, it doesn't really venture outside the basic concept. The public domain game generally known as Eat Poop You Cat (commercialised in such games as Telestrations and Cranium Scribblish) steps outside that framework to provide a different experience.
I'm sure most people are familiar with the basics - each player writes a sentence at the top of the page. These are then passed, and players must try to draw the sentence they have received. They fold the page to conceal the original sentence, and pass again - now players must try to guess what the original sentence was from the drawing. This sentence is then represented artistically by the next player, and so on.
The concept is simple to grasp, and almost guarantees a good time - being worse at drawing can actually work in a player's favour, as hilarity ensues as guesses become increasingly bizzare and inappropriate. For a straightforward fun time, more likely to produce laughs and anecdotes than either Pictionary or Pictomania, EPYC and its commercial derivations are fine choices.

3. Identik

Then again, maybe you would prefer something that adds at least a little bit of intellectual challenge

to your artistic escapades. Identik's clever twist on the formula is to reverse the role of the guesser. In Identik, aach round's Art Director is given a picture which only they are allowed to see. They must describe it in as much detail as they can, while the other players attempt to draw it. The onus is on the director to be specific, and explain things in a way the players can understand. After the drawing phase, ten hidden criteria are revealed, and drawings scored on whether they fulfill these criteria.
Identik doesn't have the frantic, all-drawing-all-guessing fun of Pictomania, but it does capture the essence of having everyone focused on the same activity at once. EPYC is probably going to produce more laughs, but Identik has an even stronger pressure to get into players' heads and explain things such that they will understand. Identik is definitely a strong all-rounder in the Pictionary-beater competition.

Board Games For... Art Lovers

With the festive season upon us, the stores are filled with hosts of well-meaning friends and parents, completing the annual ritual of purchasing gifts which are intended to be, in some way, personal to the recipient.
When selecting a board game as a gift, I humbly suggest you follow the same principle. Rather than pulling yet another painfully predictable copy of Monopoly or Scene It from the shelves, consider the individual's tastes and interests - I promise you, there are excellent games out there to suit every psyche. For this article, we shall consider games likely to be enjoyed by art lovers.

Dixit

Dixit is often proposed as a "gateway" game; that is, one which is well-suited to convincing

Picture by Olka Kobylecka

newcomers of the value of modern board games. The rules are simple, and the mechanism is immediately understandable. It is a game about the meaning and effect of art.
The game itself consists of little more than a means of keeping score, tokens representing votes (more on this in a moment), and a number of cards. These card are, in reality, the whole of the game.
Each is lavishly illustrated with some surreal, dreamlike-scene. The artworks are evocative and ambiguous - the latter being a key quality. Each round, one person chooses one of their cards, and then gives some sort of general clue to a meaning they find in it - it could be a short phrase, a single word, an interpretive dance, a noise, a meandering anecdote, whatever. Everyone else chooses a card from their own hand which they believe reflects that clue, and all are shuffled together. Then all players (except the one giving the clue) vote on which is the true artwork. The clue-giver only wins points if some, but not all, players choose their card - they must try to walk a line between precision and enigma.
Thus the game is all about interpreting art, while trying to get inside the heads of other players and guess the interpretations they would make. It's a wonderful ice-breaker for new acquaintances, as well as a game of deep psychology for those who know each other well. Simple, beautiful, and highly recommended for every audience.

Pastiche

From the interpretation of art to its creation, at a level of fine detail. Pastiche is a game of mixing the paints necessary to produce history's greatest art works. The game is played on three levels. The

Picture by Chris Miller

first act of each player's turn is to add a tile to a shared mixing board - the primary colours so combined where the new tile meets its fellows mix, providing the player with cards representing the secondary colours produced (or, sub-optimally, a single primary colour is obtained from the tile). Secondary colour cards can then be mixed to produce other colours. Beyond this, the players are also jockeying for control of masterpieces - when they have acquired the necessary colours to produce them, they can then turn in these masterpieces for points.
This game is great for those who love the technical side of art, and comes with lovely, giant tiles representing the artworks. Definitely a fun choice for practical artists. Nonetheless, when it comes to a games about art production, my favourite is still...

Fresco

This game considers the process of art creation from a step back. Players act as the master painter of a studio, delegating the actual work to their assistants. "Fresco" falls broadly within the "worker placement" genre; players have a number of workers, and must decide where to send them all before anyone's actions are processed. Sending assistants to the market allows you to buy the paints on sale there - and, crucially, prevent others buying them. Workers can also be sent to the cathedral to use those same paints in the painting of the eponymous fresco, converting paints to points. Other tasks include painting portraits (for money to buy more paints), mixing colours to get the ones you need, and finally, just sending assistants to the theatre for the night, cheering them up.
Morale is crucial - high morale provides you with an extra assistant, while low happiness causes one

Picture by Raiko Puust

of your assistants to go AWOL for a while.
However, the most important decision a player makes every turn is what time to get up in the morning. Get up early and you suffer morale loss, while having to pay premium prices at the market - but you get first pick. Get up late and everyone is happier, plus you can buy paints cheap - if there's anything worthwhile left, of course. In no time flat, players will be stabbing themselves in the foot by getting up early just to stop their opponents grabbing the good stuff.
Ultimately, Fresco is a satisfying and surprisingly accessible game - but more than that, the fact that it revolves around getting up in the morning makes it my personal choice for most appropriate game for art lovers.

Arkham Horror: Allow Me To Introduce The Neighbours

Picture by Stuart Dawson

If there is one word to describe the game Arkham Horror, it would be "overhelming". The base game comes with a positive avalanche of cards, tokens, chits, and rules. Game expansions are numerous and, in some cases, large. The game is so overwhelming, it has an expansion just to expand the other expansions. It even has a monster power called "overwhelming".
There is far too much to the game to squeeze into one article. For today, we shall consider a single domain - the Investigators which act as the players' avatars. We shall split them into four broad types: monster sweepers, explorers, spellcasters, and all-rounders. (We will restrict ourselves to the investigators in the base game for the moment, or this already-long article would be impossibly drawn-out.)

Monster sweepers

Monsters sweepers spend most of their time on the streets of Arkham, slaying monsters to keep the town navigable and hold down the terror track. High Will and Fight are crucial, being the basis for the Horror and Combat checks these characters will be making frequently. Speed is generally less important (as monster sweepers will mostly be moving between street areas), and luck/lore do not much come into play (Luck is most useful during card encounters, while Lore is primarily used by spellcasters). Let's look at each of the monster sweepers in turn:

The Bad: Michael McGlen

On the face of things, Michael seems like an excellent slayer - he starts with one of the best weapons in the game by default, his special power soaks up combat damage, and his Stamina is a massive 7. However, this last point is part of his downfall - with a Sanity of 3, he will go immediately insane on failing a Horror check against the game's tougher monsters, fleeing to the Asylum before even opening fire, thus undermining the entire point to his existence. This problem isn't helped by the fact that Michael has only an average Will. This weakness to Horror makes Michael my least-favoured monster sweeper.

The Fair:

Bob Jenkins

Bob's low Stealth, but high Fight/Will, make him well-suited to street fighting rather than movement and exploration. On the other hand, Bob's power to draw additional Common items is mostly activated by encounters, the usual department of explorer-types. On top of this, Common items are generally less powerful than Unique items, ranking his power below that of Monterey Jack. Ultimately, Bob's drawback is that his skills favour a monster sweeper role, while his special ability favours exploration - a split purpose which makes him sub-optimal in either role, but does give him some flexibility.

Ashcan Pete

Pete is a slightly better choice. His Fight and Will are both strong, and supported by a very high Sneak in a pinch. With Sanity/Stamina of 4/6, he can take big hits and stay in the fight. On top of this, his Scrounge ability (despite, as with Bob, being more suited to an explorer) maximises his odds of obtaining useful items, and Duke acts as a powerful bulwark in support of Horror rolls. Pete is just an all-round solid choice, and recommended as a strong arm in any investigator group.

The Good: Joe Diamond

Joe Diamond has probably the best special ability for combat of all investigators. Rolling two dice for each Clue token expended greatly increases his odds of passing any given check, including Horror and Combat. Since Clues can be expended after the initial roll, Joe can manage risk far more effectively than other characters. Normally, spending Clues for rerolls is a sub-optimal strategy, as they should be used for sealing gates - if you're on monster duty, however, this consideration does not apply.
Joe's flaw is that, like Michael, Joe suffers from poor Will. On the other hand, at least he has 4 Sanity so can afford to lose a Horror check, even against a tough monsters. In short, Joe is a decent fighter, with the best special ability for combat, and also has the flexibility to be a fair explorer.

Explorers

Picture by Frank Strauss

The next type of investigator are those I will call "explorers". These are the characters best suited to exploring otherworld areas and closing gates. To facilitate these tasks, they benefit from high Speed to help them acquire vital Clues for sealing, and good Stealth to move past monsters to reach Clue-bearing areas rather than having to stop and fight. High Luck is handy, as it is commonly used in otherworld encounters, and special abilities which complement Arkham and otherworld encounters are a must.

The Poor: Sister Mary

The good Sister is widely regarded as the weakest investigator in the base game, and with good reason. Other than Luck, her skills are all average-to-weak. Her starting items are nothing to write home about, and she has no cash to improve that situation. Starting with a Blessing isn't too great either - in the first few rounds, Blessings are generally less important, so by the time the Blessing would become seriously useful it may well have already expired.
But most of all, her special power is next to useless. If we value special abilities by frequency of use times impact when used, it's just terrible. Investigators frequently navigate the entire game without once becoming LITAS. Even if she were to be otherwise LITAS, saving a single round of play is of minimal impact. Multiply those two factors together and this power is comically pointless, making Sister Mary significantly weaker than any other character in the game.
That being said, there is one circumstance where Sister Mary can pay off; that is, when Yog-Sothoth is the Ancient One. Probably the most frequent circumstance leading to becoming LITAS is become incapacitated while in an other world; with Yog-Sothoth devouring those who do so, otherworld exploration becomes extremely fraught. Sister Mary can avoid this risk entirely, suddenly making her a very attractive option as an explorer. That said, Kate Winthrop's power is a good alternative anyway, as unexpected incapacitation is most frequently a consequence of monsters appearing.
In all other circumstances, avoid.

The Fair:

Monterey Jack

High Luck, useful starting items, and a handy special ability which improves Jack's ability to acquire Unique items - the most useful type of item, and one which often arises in encounters. Jack's main drawbacks are his low Will and Sanity, flaws which would be fatal in a monster sweeper but is forgivable in an explorer.

Kate Winthrop

Kate's special power can be a bit of a head-scratcher for new players. Given the number of potential locations for gates, the ability to stop gate opening at just one seems marginal at best. However, by the mid-game, the board will look very different - once a couple of seals are down, and a few gates are open, the number of potential gate sites is much more constrained. Placing Kate on a high-frequency location that doesn't have a seal or portal makes a big difference to the probabilities of gate opening. There is another side to her power as well - preventing monster appearances is very useful during encounters (particularly otherworld encounters, where a surprise Dhole can be catastrophic). Thus Kate's usefulness in managing risk is actually quite powerful.
Her Lore and Sneak are pretty strong too. Poor combat abilities aren't much of an issue when monsters can't spawn on her, and she should be avoiding rather than fighting monsters in the streets. Her only drawbacks are her merely average Speed and Luck.

Darrell Simmons

And then we move onto the true exploration specialists. Darrell is one such, as a consequence of his special ability - the ability to draw two Arkham encounter cards and choose one is very powerful, given that, as explorers rush around picking up clues, they tend to spend about half the game taking Arkham encounters. His Speed isn't bad either. The things that hold him back are his poor Sneak (though his combat abilities are good, explorers shouldn't waste their time having fights) and merely average Luck. Thus he is pipped to the post of "best explorer" by the estimable...

The Good: Gloria Goldberg

Gloria takes the tiara for finest explorer due to one factor: her phenomenal ability. Though otherworld encounters are probably drawn slightly less often that Arkham encounters, they have much more risk/reward attached to them. Being able to draw two and pick is a colossal advantage. On top of that, you can add Glora's good Luck and Will. Her biggest weakness is when facing monsters - not only are her combat abilities weak, she doesn't have the Sneak to get past either. She works best as a member of a team, with others clearing the streets while she uses her power to avoid monsters in other worlds by not picking that card.

Spellcasters

Spellcasters are those whose initial setup doesn't particularly push them into either a combat or exploration role. Instead, their starting spells are likely to define the role they take. Spellcasters require high Lore for their spell checks, and preferably have spell-related special abilities as well.
Regrettably, the base game contains a mostly weak selection of spellcasters - with one shining exception.

The Poor: Dexter Drake

When discussions about the worst investigator in the game have exhausted the shortcomings of Sister Mary, they invariably move on to Dexter Drake. His ability to draw extra Spells isn't terrible, but given that Spells are generally drawn less often than Common or Unique items, it's pretty weak. His Lore, the key to spellcasting, is above average, but still not the best. He starts with a guaranteed combat spell - but his weak Will makes him a liability in combat. Above all, his Sanity is only 5 - he's going to run out of the ability to power those spells far too soon.
You may get some great spells on the draw, but otherwise, it's hard to find a use for Dexter.

The Fair:

Vincent Lee

Vincent is, on the face of it, nearly identical to Dexter. Same 5/5 Sanity/Stamina split, same lore, and

Picture by the author

so forth. He's a bit slower, and a bit luckier, and has a better Sneak to help avoid combat situations. While his special ability might, on the face of it, be less useful to a spellcaster than Dexter's, it will come into play more frequently and generally make itself more useful. Overall, Vincent isn't much better than Dexter, but comes in a nose ahead.
(As an aside, the most effective monster sweeper I ever had was a Vincent. He amassed over a dozen monster trophies before the game concluded. His secret? A "Feeding the Mind" spell, which he used to recuperate Sanity at the cost of Stamina, and then promptly healed back the lost Stamina. He became a constantly-regenerating juggernaut, able to take the punches and keep on coming back. On the other hand, in every other time I've played Vincent he's been a complete liability.)

Harvey Walters

Old Harv has got a lot of pluck for an older gentleman. With the highest Lore in the game, and a huge 7 Sanity, he is much better at actually casting Spells than Dexter or Vincent. His combat abilities are the weakest in the game, but he should be using spells to close the gap, and he has a strong Sneak if he can't. His special ability to reduce Sanity costs doesn't apply to Spells, but at least it reduces other costs, helping ringfence his Sanity for powering Spells. As a pure caster, Harvey is the best, and would be the best spellcasting character if it weren't for:

The Good: Carolyn Fern

Oh Carolyn, how do I love thee? Let me count the ways. Your Lore is strong, and your Luck its equal. Should it come to a fight, your combat abilities are superior to any other spellcaster. True, as a lady, you do not sneak, neither do you hurry; however, you should be able to acquire the Spells to overcome at least one of those shortcomings. Above all, you have by far the finest special ability for a spellcaster - you may heal the very Sanity you use to cast Spells. You may just cast, and cast again, a never-ending font of thaumaturgic splendour.
Carolyn is not merely a strong character, but, being a spellcaster, one of the most interesting to play. If only she were not a fictional personage, I would be contacting her father with regards to potential matrimonial union.

All-rounders

Finally, we have the elusive class of all-rounders, whose skills and special abilities do not strongly favour any of the roles above. All have 5/5 Sanity/Stamina, and average skills. They generally have flexibility, but by that token lack strength in any particular job.

The Bad: Amanda Sharpe

I'm sorry, Amanda, but you're just terrible. Your skills are all exactly average. Your high Focus should give you flexibility, but big skill shifts rarely arise in practice, and since you lack any extremes in your skills in the first place this Focus largely goes to waste. Furthermore, you have probably the weakest special ability of any investigator bar Sister Mary - Skill cards are rarely drawn, and in any case, your flat skill distribution means you don't really care that much which Skill card you get anyway.
Amanda isn't just weak; she's also boring. Avoid.

The Fair: Jenny Barnes

Picture by Tomas Naslund

From one of my least-favourite investigators to one of my most cherished. Already, compared to Amanda, she's better in a fight and luckier - thus she can take a few more chances in locations than Amanda can. Sure, she's a bit sluggish, but her starting cash and constant income means that faster movement is only a few visits to a shop away - visits that Jenny can keep on making. Her access to items can often overcome her lack of other special ability, and her acquisitions can make her a strong player in either slayer or explorer roles. Plus, she's a great team player, as she can pass off excess items to other players. Jenny's both strong and fun to play - easily my preferred all-rounder.

The Good/Worst: Mandy Thompson

Mandy is an absolute beast. Good Sneak and Will make her resilient, and she doesn't have any glaring weaknesses. She starts with 4 Clues, putting her into a great position for an early gate seal. But the thing putting her over the top is her incredible special ability. Arkham Horror is a game about risk management; being able to reroll any skill check is massive, and made positively overwhelming as only failures are rerolled. It's hard to fail anything with Mandy.
And that's a large part of my problem. Mandy just makes it too easy to win. She adds far too much power to the strategic side of the game. At the same time, she isn't a particularly interesting character in herself; in a game which is about theme and story rather than hard strategy, lack of character is unforgivable. Unless you're playing a single-investigator game (and hence need the power boost), I beg you, don't pick Mandy Thompson. She undermines the game itself. Just say no.

New Games For Old: Modern Alternatives to... Monopoly

As the holiday season approaches, an insidious specter haunts the land, striking fear into the minds and hearts of all men and women of good cheer. I refer, of course, to the annual tradition of inflicting the game of Monopoly upon the family unit. I despair that a technology nearly a century old should be forced upon the young, thus turning another generation off the hobby of boardgaming. I fully understand why this happens - each generation of parents had Monopoly inflicted on them, and so do the same to their children, who then punish their children in the same way and so on, the curse carried unto the hundredth generation.

There are those who claim that Monopoly is a "good" game, and demand to play it at family gatherings. These people are wrong. Let's briefly look at the structure of a Monopoly session to understand why. Any game of Monopoly plays out in three overlapping phases:

1. The phase where properties are acquired. This involves a dreadfully tedious process of rolling the dice, and then perhaps landing on a space you can buy. Precisely zero strategy is to be found in this phase, and player interaction is slim to none. Theoretically, this phase could cause interesting moments if the rule is activated whereby a person who lands on a property they don't want has to auction it off. In practice, this rarely occurs, since players should always buy properties (even if they have to mortgage owned properties to do so), even if they don't want them, for the leverage they bring in the trading phase. While I'm here, I might as well provide a variant to greatly improve on this phase:

Picture by Detlef Dolling

• Remove one of each colour group from the properties cards.
• Shuffle and deal out all remaining properties evenly among the players (adding any remainder to the "removed" group).
• Players pay for these properties, exactly as if they had landed on them and bought them. Give each player 500 pounds/dollars to represent the money they would have gained/lost while circumnavigating the board. Optionally allow players to refuse properties, adding them to the "removed" pile.
• Auction off properties from the "removed" pile. Properties attracting no bids are unsold, and may be bought later during the normal course of the game.
• Start rolling dice and progressing the game as normal.

Voila, a variant which achieves exactly the same thing in a fraction of the time (and, due to auctioning off one of each colour group, is considerably more strategic and interesting).

2. The trading phase. This is the part where players make deals among one another, attempting to complete a colour group and thus commence building. This phase isn't actually that bad, as it tends to go reasonably fast, and involves strategy and player interaction. Nonetheless, there are plenty of other games which do a better job of delivering the same thing.

3. The end phase, where players circle the board endlessly, their cash slowly bleeding away, until one winner is left. This interminable horror is the main reason why Monopoly is a bad game. Of course, most people just get bored and call the game in favour of the obvious future winner - though there are some sadistic individuals (usually young, with more years of precious life to spare) who demand the game be played to its tedious conclusion. These individuals should be sent to the workhouse at the earliest possible opportunity.

Picture by Gerald McDaniel

Ultimately, then, Monopoly is a game with far too few strategic decisions, far too much aimless
roll-and-move, and just far too much time required. Happily, a great many games have since become available which achieve similar aims to this game (bar, arguably, its moral purpose in teaching the evils of rent-based economies) in much less time. Let's take a look at three of the most family-friendly and widely available.

1. Acquire

Sid Sackson's Acquire is one of the small group of games published before the 1990s which are still considered acceptable among modern boardgame connoisseurs. Acquire contains precisely none of the mechanics of the game Monopoly. What it does offer is a game which is actually about forming monopolies.

Picture by the author

Rather than aimlessly rolling dice, players place tiles from their rack, thus expanding corporations in which the players can invest. When they come into contact, a merger takes place, the larger company swallowing the smaller - thus producing something that feels a little like "a monopoly". These corporate mergers invite key decisions - whether to convert stock from the merged company into shares in the parent (which will probably then be frozen until the end of the game), liquidate stock for immediate cash, or keep the share certificates for when (and if) the company is reformed. This last move is risky, but key to winning - majority shareholders of merged companies enjoy big bonuses, so getting the most shares in startups is what separates winners from losers.
Overall, Acquire is a much more strategic game than Monopoly, with more of a feeling of corporate intrigue, while keeping a simple and easily learned ruleset. The only downsides are a somewhat dry theme which may be a hard sell to younger players.

2. For Sale

It may not be corporate espionage that attracts you to the theme of Monopoly - perhaps it's real estate
speculation that you find more compelling. In this case, For Sale is the game for you.

Picture by Gary James

It's split into two parts: in the first, a number of properties are auctioned off. Technically, only the most valuable is up for auction - the rest are taken, in order of value, as players drop out of the auction, in which case they pay only half of their bid. This creates a quandary for the player - not only do they have to judge how much they want the big-number property, but if they instead choose to bid up the other players, they will have to pay the piper eventually. Already players are trying to read each others' minds, switching instantly between bluffing and honest bidding.
The second phase is even nastier - this plays as a series of blind auctions. A number of cash amounts are laid out, and players secretly choose which property they will bid against these amounts. Then everyone reveals simultaneously. The property with the highest number takes the biggest cash prize, the next-best property takes the second-largest, and so forth. You may wish to deliberately lowball, taking a prize that's nearly as good and save your big cards for later - but your opponent may be thinking exactly the same thing...
For Sale combines the fun of quickfire speculation with a poker-like game of bluff and blind bidding, within the same real estate theme as Monopoly. Plus, it plays in under twenty minutes. Beats Monopoly in pretty much every way.

3. Bohnanza

Then again, maybe you don't care about property speculation either. Perhaps its the wheeling and dealing of the trading phase that appeals. In which case, there are so many better trading games in the world than Monopoly. The one I would recommend would be Bohnanza.

Picture by spearjr

Bohnanza has perhaps the least appealing theme in the canon of modern gaming - players are bean farmers, attempting to grow the largest possible crops of a given bean variety for harvesting. It would be hard to come up with a less attractive theme. But don't be put off - the game itself is pure gold.
The core of the game is the middle phase of each player's turn, where they turn over three new beans and then have to somehow dispose of them. Perhaps they already have those beans in their two fields, and just add them to their existing harvest. More likely, they don't want them at all, and would much rather trade them to the other players - and the game strongly encourages trading away unwanted cards, as if you don't trade them away, you must plant them, even if it ruins their current plan. You only have two fields, so if you have to plant, one of your existing crops will have to go - probably for much less value than you would like.
On top of this, players are constantly forced to plant cards from their own hands - if those cards don't fit with their plans, then they have some powerful motivation to trade out these cards too. All this positive motivation leads to a frenzy of trades; some players will enter bidding wars when they compete for the same card. Others play it cool, trying to act like they don't even want that bean, to try to make a favourable trade. "I'll take that green bean off your hands", you say, hoping to get something for nothing - "Two blue for a soy!" cries your sister, forcing you to either bid up and reveal your plans, or let her have it when you'd much rather be making money off it. Most players' turns will involve multiple trades - and a minute later, they whirlwind will start again with the next player.
Of all the games here, Bohnanza offers the most player interaction, and is one of the most active trading-based games available on the market. Absolutely, 100% recommended for families and pubs alike.

Zombies!!! Part The Second: Variants, Fixes, and Lord Dicely's Gambit

In the first part of this series, I provided an overview of the game Zombies!!! and its expansions. The second and concluding part considers fan-provided variants which attempt to improve the game, and includes my own humble submission in the annals of Zombies!!!-fixing house rules.

Zombies!!!, with it's low price point and ease of learning, has a wide consumer base. Add to that the tendency of the game's foibles to rise to the surface fairly quickly, and the inevitable result is a large body of variant rules intended to "fix" and improve the game. I believe those rules to be most useful which solve the game's issues, without significantly harming its accessibility. To summarise, here are the game's largest problems:

1. It's too slow (particularly with regards to movement)
2. There is too little strategy, with too few meaningful decisions
3. Linked to point 2, there is too much luck, with the difference of a small number of unlucky rolls meaning someone is going to have very little fun for a considerable period of time.

 Let's look at some popular variants which attempt to tackle these problems. (There are other variants, which perform "total makeovers" to convert the game to a fully co-operative boardgame, have players as zombies, or even play the game as an RPG; these are outside the scope of this article.)

1. Movement rules

Roll two dice for movement

This rule does indeed make movement faster, without adding complexity. The downside is that, while luck is somewhat mitigated through the magic of the binomial distribution of probability, there's still a serious risk of situations where, for instance, one player only gets to move 3, and the next gets to move 11 and leap onto the helipad. Furthermore, cards affecting movement become much less useful. Consequently, I can't recommend this variant as it improves on point 1 but arguably worsens points 2 and 3.

Health-based movement

The most popular variant of which is to add the player's current heart tokens to the roll of a die. This tends to increase movement, without giving rise to the wide distribution of the previous variant. (Other variants used fixed health-based movement, e.g. heart tokens plus two.) Furthermore, this variant adds to the theme and strategy of the game, as players are slowed by the wounds they receive, and must prioritise regaining health over "luxuries" such as bullets and location-based items. The only problem with this variant is that it tends to make the rich richer, and the poor poorer - those who have a couple of unlucky rolls, and hence are already behind, will fall further behind as they move more slowly. Of course, this adds to the theme even more. Consequently this is a decent, simple variation that works well for those who prioritise the zombie theme, but runs the risk of alienating those who simply want to have fun.

Use "best of two dice"

In this variant, players roll two dice, but only use the highest individual die. This effectively reduces luck and speeds the game (as higher rolls become more common than lower rolls), without adding much complexity. This is not at all a bad variant, and recommended if you don't like the downsides of health-based movement nor the (relative) complexity of my own variant, explained below.

Fast movement across empty squares

E.g. if a tile has no zombies on it, it can be crossed at a cost of one movement. This certainly enables faster movement, particularly in the end game, and allows respawning players to get back into the action more quickly. On the other hand, it can make sprinting to the helipad a bit too easy, adds slightly to complication as movement points mean different things in different circumstances, and can lead to players moving zombies onto empty tiles just to slow movement (which then further complicates movement as players alternate between empty and non-empty tiles). Then again, that last point could be argued to be a strategic improvement. This is by no means a bad variant, and is definitely worth considering.

2. Game-shortening rules

Lower zombie target by number of players

One problem with the base game is that the alternative goal - acquire 25 zombie trophies - does not vary with the number of players. With high player numbers, this goal rapidly becomes nigh-on impossible. Having a lower target makes this a viable goal, and at the same time shortens the game at higher player numbers. Formulas differ - some set a goal of 25 minus the number of players, others might divide an overall number (such as 60) between the number of players and use the resulting goal (for example, for two players, the goal would be 30 each; for four players, 15 each). This latter option produces a game which is pretty much the same total duration irrespective of player number. Probably the best matrix is found in the Quick(er) Play variant. A zombie-target variant is highly recommended for more than two or three players - it makes the game shorter, makes the alternative goal more viable (hence adding to the strategy), and all without making the game any more complicated.

Blitz start

Simply give the players more bullets and/or health at the beginning of the game (and, usually, on respawning after death). This variant helps in combat, but doesn't make movement any faster. As players will generally die less often, and hence have to respawn and start again less often, it also will slightly reduce game length. Overall, I have no problem with these sorts of variants, but frankly feel they don't really add that much.

Faster zombies

For example, double the number of spaces moved by each zombie. This can result in players reaching the zombie trophy goal more quickly, so speeding the end of game, and also can add to the amount of action occurring. Strategically, it's pretty much a wash - it's easier for players to block one another, but also less easy to plan future moves. The downsides to this variant are (1) it detracts from the "shuffling zombies" theme and (2) the "move zombies" phase (arguably the least-interesting phase) takes slightly longer, mitigating any speed gain. Consequently I cannot personally be bothered with this variant, but your preferences may differ.

"Explorer" variants - only place tiles for players at the map edge

These variants cut down the time taken per turn by only placing new tiles in certain circumstances. For example, players only add a tile if they are at an exposed edge, or on a tile which contains an exposed edge. These make each turn faster, and also provide players with a decision whether to "explore" or not. The downside is that more turns have to be taken to "fill out" the map and reach the helipad tile. Furthermore, as players do not "see ahead" on the map, longer-term strategies (e.g. working towards a building which would activate a powerful item) are less relevant. Furthermore, the advantage to the person pulling the helipad tile (or winning the auction for it, if the auction rule below is used) is often insurmountable. Consequently, despite the thematic appeal of this rule, I cannot recommend it, but those who want a theme-heavy game and aren't worried about the extra time might enjoy this option.

Fixed zombie movement

Instead of moving a number of zombies determined by rolling a die, just move a fixed number of zombies (e.g. 3). People rarely care that much about the zombie movement phase, and this skips a few precious seconds every round. The only downside is that it replaces the simple symmetry of every other phase of the game (i.e. roll a die then apply the result). The variant doesn't make much difference, but doesn't cost much either. For me, this just about edges into "recommended".

3. Adding strategy/reducing luck

The Helipad Auction

According to this variant, when the helipad is drawn, rather than it being placed as normal, the players hold an auction for the right to place. Players bid with their zombie trophies, with only the highest bidder paying, and then placing the helipad where they, rather then the current player, wish. This variant reduces the luck associated with drawing the helipad (which otherwise is a strong predictor of who will win the game, though it's not a certainty). It also adds strategy, as players may focus on which goal they wish to pursue. The main criticism of this variant is that it is a wholly new mechanic, adding to the complexity of the game. Since it only comes out once per game, however, I'm willing to allow it.

Ranged Weapons

Numerous variants involve the capability to attack zombies at range, usually by using a bullet token, with the range typically being anything on the same tile, or maybe the next. This adds to the decisions a player may make, in particular allowing a variant on "push-your-luck" by allowing a player to make attacks without risking health, but paying bullets for the privilege. A nice and thematic option for those who want it, but adds complication, and isn't that useful in practice (as you will usually want to move onto the zombie's space sooner or later). I would place this variant with those that add theme, but otherwise don't improve enough to be worthwhile.

Cutting the cards

One central tenet of modern game design is that losing a turn is an anachronism. Any turn when a player does not play is no fun for them, and doesn't add much to the fun of the others. Consequently, any cards which cause another player to miss a turn should be considered for exclusion. Again, the fine Quick(er) Play variant has more to say on this topic, with a full breakdown of cards that author recommends be removed. I wouldn't necessarily mess with the game that much, but I most certainly endorse the removal of turn-missing cards.

4. My humble offering: Lord Dicely's Gambit

My attempt to make as many improvements as possible with as few additional rules is as follows:

Instead of rolling for movement, choose the number of spaces you would like to move (from zero to six). Then take a combat die according to the movement chosen:
5-6 movement: 4-sided die
3-4 movement: 6-sided (i.e. standard) die
1-2 movement: 8-sided die
0 movement: 10-sided die
Treat your movement points exactly the same as if you had just rolled them on a die - any cards or other effects that might adjust your movement adjust this number. The player may choose not to use their full entitlement in exactly the same way they would have if they had rolled that number for movement. The combat die remains the same once selected for the player's turn, irrespective of any changes to movement allowance. If the player must reroll their movement, they use a standard six-sided die and use that new movement (this does not affect their combat die). When in combat, a roll of 4 or more wins, irrespective of which die is used.
(If playing with Guts rules, lose one Guts token if you roll a 1 in combat, and gain one if you roll the maximum possible on the combat die). 
I recommend that the game phase order be changed so that the phase before movement where a player must fight a zombie on their square be removed, and the player simply fight that zombie at the beginning of their movement, after selecting movement and combat die. Alternatively, the player must use the combat die they used on the previous turn to fight a zombie on their square at the beginning of their current turn - this option adds to the bookkeeping, however.
 

This variant is clearly more complex than most individual variants above, and requires a range of dice rather than just a standard d6. However, in my opinion, it is worth the complexity as it achieves several improvements in one fell swoop. For one thing, players have the option to reliably move quickly (particularly in "safe" areas), solving slow movement issues while removing luck as regards movement. Luck still plays a factor in combat (the game wouldn't be much fun if it didn't), but the player may now make actual strategic, risk-management decisions at the beginning of their turn. Poor combat rolls can be mitigated by taking a few turns of low movement and relatively safe combat. The use of fixed bonuses (from bullets, items, and other cards) creates an interesting probabilistic interaction with varying dice, as a +1 has more relative effect on a d4 than a d8. Thus, overall, this variant adds strategy, hastens movement, and reduces luck, all without too badly compromising the simple fun of the game.

This variant is intended to solve as many problems as possible at once (justifying its relative complexity), and hence is not intended to be played with the movement and combat variants above. That said, I would strongly recommend "cutting the cards" and varying the trophy goal. If you do wish to add any of the other variants, you might want to try auctioning the helipad and/or fixed zombie movement.

Standard-die only variant: If you only have a six-sided die, then choose movement and then use the six-sided die for combat (as in standard Zombies!!!), deducting 1 to all combat rolls if you selected 5 or 6 movement, adding 1 if you selected 1 or 2 movement, and adding 2 if you selected zero movement. This option isn't as much fun, and the probability interactions aren't as interesting, but it removes the need for multiple dice.

Printable play-mat of this variant, including game turn summary, below:

Zombies!!! Part The First: Lord Dicely Reminisces

To whom it may concern,

You are cordially invited to join me in a brief retrospective of the widely-sold, and reasonably-frequently played, Zombies!!! series. For those not in the know, Todd Breitenstein, dark overlord of Zombies!!! publisher Twilight Creations, passed from this vale in March of this year. Now that some months have passed since that tragedy, it seems appropriate to launch a retrospective of the game series, its place in the hobby, and its meaning to me personally.

Chapter 1: Zombies!!!

Many years ago, a friend of mine (who shall remain nameless) attempted to convince me of the value

Photograph by Martin Donat

of the boardgaming hobby by introducing me to the bestselling Settlers of Catan. He succeeded in convincing me that boardgames had nothing to offer.

Years later, he tried again. This time, things went rather better. The game in question was Touch of Evil, though that fact is of no consequence here. His suggestion, that I try close cousin Arkham Horror, had merit, and I took myself off to one of the few vendors of boardgames with which I was then familiar. I there found Arkham Horror, at a price I could not possibly justify. However, sitting next to it on the table, was a much more affordable horror-themed game - Zombies!!!. I made my decision by price alone. And, quite honestly, who wouldn't have fun with zombies?
Zombies!!! is often referred to among the gaming community as a "beer-and-pretzels" game - that is to say, it is not a game which provokes deep strategical thinking, but one which functions better as a casual pastime in the background of an evening of drinking and raucous banter. Does it succeed? Let's look closer.

How The Game Works

I will not repeat the rulebook here, but in brief, each player's turn consists of the following steps:

1. Take a city tile from the pile, and add it to the city. This game does not have a fixed board, but rather it is built in a turnwise fashion by placing these tiles - at the time, this mechanic was new and fascinating to me. Some tiles merely have connecting roads; some have buildings, containing helpful tokens.
2. Roll a die and move up to the number of squares indicated. Here we find Zombies!!!' greatest crime against the boardgame community - that of "roll-and-move".
3. As you move, fight zombies encountered. This involves more dice rolling - a roll of 4-6 wins, and adds the zombie to your trophy collection, and a lower roll loses. You may expend "bullet" tokens to push the value into that winning zone, or take the hit, lose a "heart" token, and lay on.
4. Play cards from your hand of three, on your turn or on that of another. Cards have a variety of effects, some helping, some hindering, and some activated by entering certain buildings which appear on the tiles which make up the city.
5. Move zombies, ideally to help oneself and hinder others.

Repeat until a player has amassed a certain number of zombie trophies (by default 25) or until they reach the centre of the Helipad, a city tile which appears near the end of the deck.

The Case For

• The game offers value for money. The box retails for half the cost of most modern boardgames. You will receive 100 zombies in two sculpts - they may not be quite the level of high-priced competitors such as Zombicide, but they're actually quite good, and great value at that price. Plus further miniatures for the players, a huge number of tokens, some dice, a deck of action cards, and the city tiles. That's a lot of game for a low price.
• The game does, indeed, function as a "beer-and-pretzels" game. The theme is easy to sell to non-boardgamers. It can be explained and played in moments. As the "board" is laid out turn-by-turn, initial setup is very quick. The caprice of the dice, particularly in combat, makes this a fine game to drink over and laugh at the misfortunes of others.
• Unlike certain other cheap and widely-available games with which non-gamers may be familiar, this game does actually have some minor strategic decisions. City tile placement can involve weighing up helping oneself as opposed to hindering others; when to play, and when to discard, cards provoke some decision making (though such decisions are often obvious); and choosing one's route, whether to maximise zombie targets, acquire resources, or activate cards, involves some light push-your-luck planning. 

Thus, for some groups of older non-gamers, the theme and easy access can make this an effective "gateway" game. Certainly, other gateway options are vastly superior games qua games (e.g. Ticket To Ride, Carcassonne, Bohnanza), but the fun theme, low price, and quick start-up make Zombies!!! a legitimate introductory option, and an appropriate social activity to accompany cocktails in the drawing room.

The Case Against

• "Roll-and-move" plus dice-based combat seriously limits the strategic depth of this game. More problematically, they can result in some players not having fun - it's not particularly enjoyable to wait for one's turn to come around, as other players have slain zombies left and right, only to roll a 1 for movement and a 1 in combat against the only zombie you'll see this round (if you even have that much of an opportunity).
• The tile-laying becomes redundant in the later game, as parts of the city must be placed and filled with zombies that will realistically never be visited by the players.
• The game takes too long. Both the points above contribute to this problem. Furthermore, once players start dying and restarting with half their trophies, they are likely to face long walks to reach the action again.
• None of the decisions faced are really very strategic. Most of the time, the player's options will be obvious, and the outcome of their turn determined entirely by the roll of dice.

These issues are difficult to deny. The lack of strategy can be forgiven, particularly for a game aimed so squarely at being a casual group experience rather than a battle of wits. The length and slow pace (particularly in later rounds) is more of a problem for a "gateway" game, however. Many variants have been proposed to tackle these issues; in the second and concluding part of this series, I will present my own.

Chapter 2: Expansions to the main game only

Picture by Francisco Rueda Garcia

Zombies!!! has a prodigious library of expansions. Confusingly, they are different types, which are not clear from their titles. Some expansions are of the more standard type, merely adding components to the base game. Others are separate games entirely. Finally, there are those which may be played either on their own or with the main game. I do not own, and have not played, every expansion - however, I do have experience with at least one example of each type.
This chapter considers the first type - those which add to the main game. At the time of writing, these include Zombies!!! 3.5, 6 and 10 (otherwise known as Zombies!!! X). The first primarily functions to add a large number of cards to the game; though this may seem rather basic and perfunctory, it is probably the most vital expansion in the entire series. The new cards are generally superior to those in the base game, and as the cards are the major source of strategy in the game, this expansion in practice adds a great deal. Zombies!!! 3.5 also adds rules for players to pre-build separate decks with which to compete; I do not know any other gamers with with Zombies!!! and Zombies!!! 3.5, so I cannot comment on this variant.
Slightly more involved is Zombies!!! 6. This adds tiles, cards and tokens relevant to two new gameplay mechanisms - subway stations, which can be travelled between in a single round, and zombie-free underground travel via the sewer system.
The first mechanism is potentially very useful, as it can make the turgid late game much faster. However, this will only work if the subway stations are placed usefully. I suggest shuffling one into the first few city tiles, to make sure that respawning players can get some value out of the fast movement.
I have yet to see the second mechanism used. This is because sewer travel takes away health every round. Paying one health just to avoid zombies for a round is rarely an attractive proposition - if you are low on health, it is not an option, and if you have health to spare it generally makes more sense to engage in combat. Potentially this mechanism could be used to bypass zombies to reach a resource-rich building when one is running low, (but still has enough to spare for the journey), but this is so circumstantial it rarely arises.
Overall, I would recommend both these expansions if you enjoy Zombies!!! and want to improve on it. Both expansions take steps to mitigate the problems with the core game. Just don't expect to use the sewers much without some sort of rules variation.
Of the another expansion of this type - Zombies!!! X - I have not played it, and cannot comment. From what I can divine, it does not directly address issues such as play time, but it does include an Addictions mechanism which alters players' abilities and may enhance meaningful decision-making, as well as adding further building tiles.

Chapter 3: Expansions which may be integrated with the core set, but also played on their own

 These expansions form the principal type of Zombies!!! expansion. As expansions to the core set, they can be separated into two subtypes - those which add additional goals, and hence expand the players' options (expansions 2, 3, 4, 5 and 9), and those which represent new start areas for the players, which must be navigated before starting the core game (expansions 7 and 8). Although I have not played every one of these expansions, I can state that I have played both types.
As expansions to the main game, those which add additional goals work more seamlessly, and have a

Photograph by the author

positive effect on the gameplay experience by providing legitimate exploration options. The downside is that they can significantly increase the total playtime of an already-long game. They work well for higher player numbers, but with only two players create too much of a sprawling map.
Those which add start areas are rather odd as expansions. In practice, rather than creating one larger game, it feels more like the players are playing two separate games of Zombies!!!, one after the other. This can test the patience of those who are not committed fans.
However, both subtypes work much better as standalone games. With more constrained geography and thematically-focused cards, they actually play much better (and more quickly) than the core game - at least for small player counts. Zombies!!! 8 standalone has become our favourite two-player Zombies!!! experience.
In conclusion, these expansions are good as quicker standalone adventures, and can be used to make a more "epic" game in the (admittedly rare) circumstance where committed players wish to play a big, sprawling game. However, you probably won't want all of them - adding more than one of the "alternative goal" subtypes as an expansion will create far too large a game, and the "alternative start" versions don't integrate that well. One of each subtype will give you plenty of gameplay options, but there isn't enough difference between them to justify acquiring every one except for committed players.

Chapter 4: Stand-alone Zombies!!! adventures

And then there are those which are not intended to integrate with the core game, but are standalone
adventures. These might borrow components from the base box (Zombies!!! 12: Zombie Zoo), or be playable without the core set (Zombies!!! 11). It is difficult to recommend these, for one simple reason - I already have the game Zombies!!!. Why would I want separate games which are also Zombies!!!? With the huge number of excellent games in the world, that would seem rather redundant, particularly given that the expansions of Chapter 3 may also be played standalone. Nonetheless, I have purchased and played Zombies!!! 12 - I am afraid to say I was tempted by the promise of six types of zombie animal. The playing experience was much like playing one of the previously-discussed expansions as a standalone - the zombie animals were amusing, but the gameplay experience was Zombies!!! - no more, no less.

Conclusions

Photograph by spearjr

In conclusion, then, Zombies!!! is not a game of grand strategy, but that does not mean it doesn't have a place. Specifically, late in the evening, when the wine and song are already flowing - and in particular, when those singing and drinking are not (yet) boardgame players. The game as designed is simple to learn, and equally simple to modify (and a certain amount of modification is recommended). Of the many expansions available, those which add mechanics are recommended to fans, though consider the impact on complexity they will have for a game whose beauty is in its simplicity. Those which can be played together with the core game or alone are probably the next-most useful, while it is difficult to recommend those which are purely standalone. Ultimately, though, this game provides so many options, all at a reasonable price point, that really I would advise choosing any part whose theme appeals, and not worry overly regarding the specific mechanics involved.

His Lordship Reviews: K2

In 1923, George Herbert Leigh Mallory was asked "why do you want to climb Mount Everest?". He simply retorted "because it's there".

In 1924, he was dead on the mountainside. If my mother had been in charge, his life expectancy would have been considerably shorter.

Photograph by Kogo

K2 is the second deadliest mountain in the world. Around 25% of those who attempt it will not survive to tell the tale. By comparison, my mother has got 75% of her climbers killed while attempting to scale K2. The board game, that is.

K2 the board game is the board game of climbing K2. Designed by an actual mountain climber. Here's how it works. Players have a team of two climbers, one with wavy sides, one with smooth curves. I call them "Bendy" and "Straighty". The aim of the game is to get both as far up the side of K2 as possible. Specifically, to get them further up than one's opponents. 

How would one achieve this? By an elegant combination of planning, audacity, and luck. Each player has their own, personal deck of cards. Each deck is the same, so everybody has the same opportunities, but not necessarily at the same time - every round, the player has a hand of six cards, of which they will play three. Each point on the board has two pieces of information attached - the cost to climb there, and the cost to "acclimitisation" (which might be referred to as "health" in lesser games) for every round they stay there.

Photograph by Mikko Saari

As a piece of game design, this works as a wonderful example of the meeting point of open and closed information. Everybody knows where everybody else is on the board. Everybody knows what they require to go forward, and how it will affect their fortitude. Health (and in some circumstances, movement) is also affected by the weather - however, you always have at least three days of forecast ahead of them, so everybody knows how the weather will affect them.

The problem, from a strategic perspective, is in the closed part of the information: what does one they have in their hand, and what is held by one's opponent. Am I planning to make a big move next turn? Will my opponent block your advance if I do? Even worse, am I trying to get down the mountain? If so, they may be moving to block your return. Perhaps I've calculated my movement and health budget perfectly for the cards I have in hand. I know I can make it up this round, and I'm pretty sure (given what's left in my deck) I can make it down next round.

Then some dreadful bounder moves in behind you. You've reached the top, and there they are, sitting right behind you. Some other fool is behind them. There's no way you can leap over both of them. They can't shift you. And every round, your bodily integrity is assailed by exposure. You pitch your tent for its modest protection and comfort. It's not enough. Bendy is dead, shivering and alone, an arm's breadth from his fellow climbers, his supposed compatriots, the true authors of his downfall.

Photograph by Marcin Niebudek

That would be one example. Another is the heartbreak when you get both your climbers ahead of everyone else, you control the mountain, and you realise that, with your present hand and the upcoming storm, there is no way in all the hells you can reach the top and live. Or even better, the pure elation of reaching the top and jumping off it in the same round, brilliantly leaving your opponent's homicidal blocking strategy empty and pointless. And that's just the easy game mode - if you want, you can play with winter weather, or attempt to scale the "difficult" face.

I have not tried these things. The game is more than heard enough on the easy setting. Maybe one day, when I've fully fortified myself with port (which is obviously the best time to go mountain climbing). However you choose to play it though, I confidently forecast you will not be disappointed. The game marries a compelling theme, satsifying mechanics, and brutal tension in a delightfully complete package.As the lazy days of summer give way to the chill winds of fall, you could do much worse than engage with the cold, hard brilliance of K2.

Mage Knight: Some Advice To My Fellow Beginners

Sir or Madam, I challenge you: can you look me in the eye and honestly state that there exists any game of the last few years to have received the universal acclaim of Mage Knight? It's ruleset may be dense, but the layers upon layers of strategy woven perfectly into the theme make it one of the most gloriously satisfying gaming experiences one can obtain, together or alone.

There is no denying, however, that it has a precipitously steep learning curve. I myself am no expert.

Picture by Gareth Lloyd

However, I have learned much in my dozen or so games (all successful, I am pleased to report, with the exception of one I quit two turns in after the most absurd starting hands imaginable). Since the discussion chambers of the automatic telegraph service are constantly filled with requests for tips for beginners, I will herewith provide my own humble suggestions.

1. Try to do something every turn

 Though this may seem outrageously patronising, I am making a point about how one should think about the options available to oneself. Even in the first turn, with a paltry five-card hand and no mana crystals, there exist a very large number of permutations of actions; it is a fool's errand to calculate the most effective way to use the cards together, then try to find a place to deliver this "killer combo" (just as it is pointless to build a seven-letter word in one's Scrabble rack when there is nowhere to place it). Instead, look to the board, and consider:

1. What enemies are there that I might be able to reach? Is there the possibility of acquiring a Spell (from a mage tower) or an Artifact? If not, how about a keep? 
2. If I have Influence rather than Attack cards, can I reach somewhere to recruit; if so, do I have space for a unit/a wounded unit to replace/a better unit available?
3. If I can't realistically gain anything through combat or interaction, can I reach a glade/mine or explore a new tile?

First look at each potential target in order of priority (which may vary by current needs), then check your hand to see whether it is achievable (bearing in mind that some enemies may have random aspects). In short, just as with almost anything involving a hand of cards (or, again, Scrabble), consider the game state first, and how to exploit it in the current turn, rather than focusing on just getting "biggest play" from your current hand or waiting for the "perfect hand" that never comes. Advance planning is all well and good if you are very familiar with your deck, but is more the province of expert players; at first, focus on getting what you can get right now.

2. Don't be afraid to take Wounds

This is probably the single most frequently made suggestion from experts to beginners, and it works in support of the above. Beginners (myself included) tend to play safe in the early turns, trying to pick off rampaging monsters and being very wary of tougher, fortified enemies in keeps and mage towers. When considering which actions are achievable this round, your immediate question should be "can I produce enough movement and attack power to defeat the enemy?" If the answer to that question is "yes", you should probably take them on unless the cost is extremely high. Even at the beginning of the game, a Wound or two is not such a big problem - you will have ample opportunity to Heal. Even three wounds is worth considering in early rounds if you'll get a good Spell or Artifact out of it (and particularly if it is near end of round, so the Wounds won't stay in your hand long). It is entirely possible to storm a mage tower in the first turn or two, even without improving your deck in any way beforehand. Blocking is nice if you can pull it off, but if you wait for that perfect hand containing all the attack, block and movement you need, it will most likely never happen; better to take a Wound or two, enjoy the spoils of the battle, and heal up later. Linked to this point is the suggestion that you should...

Picture by Marco Martellucci

3. Use your Units as damage sinks

Probably the biggest mistake I made as a beginner was unwillingness to sacrifice my Units. Units are unquestionably one of the best assets you can acquire in the game; they effectively exist as cards outside of your hand, each providing multiple options. Even a level 1 unit is the equivalent of an unimproved basic action, and will have greater flexibility to boot. Since Units are so useful, it is easy to attach too much value to them. Remember, that Influence you used to buy them in the first place is going to come back into your hand later to buy new Units with, and the Unit offer may well be better when it does. If a Unit is already exhausted for the round, do not hesitate to drop a Wound on it. This is particularly relevant to cheap units available at Villages that provide Movement - use the Movement to get to a mage tower or keep, provide the attack power yourself, ignore block, and drop wounds on your exhausted Unit(s). It's much better to stop that Wound from clogging your hand. You can heal the Unit later if you really desire; and you can replace it later anyway (and most of the time, you probably should). By the same token, don't be afraid to use a weak hand to visit a village and buy a unit you don't really want, if that is the best option available to you right now (following point 1); that poor unit can soak up damage even if it's not good for much else.

4. Mana is key

This was probably my other biggest flaw when starting this game. As a beginner, I tended to consider powering cards with mana as a "nice bonus"; in fact, it is the key to success with the game. A quick check of the various play-by-forum records on boardgamegeek.com will show just how much expert players utilise mana. Even in the first round, one should attempt to use at least one mana every turn. Those cards and (particularly) skills which provide mana tokens and crystals may seem boring by comparison with alternatives, but they are absolutely essential to success; if one is going to storm a City, one will need several mana-powered cards (crucially, including Spells) to have any realistic chance of success. Mana management is an essential skill to master. Take mana-granting skills that complement the cards in your deck; select cards to add to your deck which complement the mana sources you have available.
For example, when selecting a Spell from the offer, consider the crystals and skills (and possibly Source dice) you have available right now. Since any given card will only be played a small number of times over the course of a game, if you know you can power a Spell you are about to acquire in the following turn (and benefit from its effects), it may be better take take that Spell rather than a (possibly more exciting) Spell that you may not be able to fully exploit next turn.

Picture by Jaroslaw Czaja

Other points

The above four points are definitely my "take-home" messages; they are some of the most common tips given by experts, they are the mistakes I made the most as a beginner, and they are the suggestions that will probably improve your game the most. Following are a number of suggestions which, while of lesser magnitude, could improve your game.

• Try to use most of your hand each turn: even playing solo against a dummy player, that player will be averaging more than three cards per turn. That means you need to be averaging around four of your starting hand of five to keep pace (as you will most likely increase deck size faster than the dummy player). Point 1 above remains the priority - if the best target right now only needs one or two cards, then do that rather than emptying your hand for the sake of it - but in general, "churn" your hand, playing cards sideways if helpful this turn, rather than clinging onto a lot of cards and hoping for the perfect combo in a later turn (unless you really know your deck well and are pretty sure what's going to arrive next turn).
  
• Don't over-value Advanced Actions: a big error I made as a beginner was hogging Monasteries and buying up Advanced Actions, with the logic that they were better than the basic actions, and hence I could only be improving my deck. In fact, I was just fattening it, and I ended up having trouble keeping pace. While it's not wrong to pick up a bonus Advanced Action if a monastery provides something you really want, it's better to have a slimmer deck filled with Spells and Artifacts. 
• Don't under-value Keeps: they seem weak at first, particularly compared to mage towers which provide a Spell for one's deck rather than a mere temporary hand-size boost. However, a canny player can get a fair bit of use out of a Keep. For one, the extra card in the following round softens the impact of any Wound taken in the attack. For another, you can often utilise the bonus for two turns running, by using one turn to move one step outside the keep and attacking a local rampaging monster, and benefiting from the bonus in the following turn. Finally, remember the effect of Keeps is cumulative; a two-card bonus from a second Keep is huge, particularly as a prelude to a City assault. Keeps are still, on average, less useful than mage towers, but they are nonetheless a good option and should not be overlooked.
• Ranged attack isn't as useful as it looks: because more often than not, the enemies you are attacking will be fortified, either by their site or their own abilities. Reading the manuals makes it look amazing - you can kill an enemy without worrying about blocking or taking Wounds - but in practice, it's rarely an option, particularly in the early game. Even when not fortified, most enemies have more than 3 armour, so a single mana-powered Swiftness won't be enough, and it's highly unlikely you'll have both Swiftness cards and the ability to power them in the same turn at the beginning of the game. Since ranged can't be improved with normal attack (though normal attack can be improved with ranged attack), you need a lot of ranged (and/or siege) attack to kill anything worth fighting. I did once play an extremely successful game with a ranged-based deck, but I had acquired two separate powers which nullified fortification early in the game. In summary, unless you can remove fortification (or improve ranged attack to siege) AND have a lot of ranged/siege in your deck, don't expect to get much value out of ranged attack. Attempting to hold on to a ranged attack card and hope to combo it later is one of the easiest traps to fall into; better to use it as part of a normal attack unless you are sure you will be able to exploit it soon.