Tamsk Review

 
The last game from the original Gipf project that I've been able to try is Tamsk. (The link is to Board Game Geek, since Tamsk is out of print and not on Amazon. Plus, Tamsk was originally part of the Gipf project, but was later replaced by Tzaar; hence it being out of print.)

In Tamsk, your goal is to get rid of as many rings as possible.  Players take turns moving timers along a hexagonal shaped board, and after each move, they drop a ring around their new location.  Timers can only move to locations that still have room for another ring on them, and depending on where the location lives on the board, each location can hold anywhere from one to four rings.  Players alternate turns until no more legal moves exist, at which point the player with the least number of rings is the winner.  To add more challenge to the game, you may also play where each turn you must flip the timer that is being moved - and if a timer ever runs out of sand, then it is no longer legally allowed to move.  Finally, if you want to add even more challenge, a 15-second timer is included which you can flip over on your opponent's turn.  If they do not complete their move before that timer expires, then they lose their turn, and you are allowed to place an extra ring.

Jockying for position

Though I have now reviewed many different abstract strategy games, I still haven't developed a good vocabulary for describing what I like and dislike about the games.  I often feel like my review consists of "I thought it was a good game," or "it was fun."  Basically, this is like reviewer caveman talk - "Josh like that round piece moves!"  Regardless, I will try to describe my thoughts about Tamsk.  The crux of the game is in positioning your timers to leave a maximum number of options, while limiting your opponent.  One of the interesting elements that Tamsk adds to the formula, however, is that the closer you move to the middle, the more times that a specific location can be used (the center spot can hold four rings, but the outer edge can only hold one).  This element forces players to decide whether they want to move towards the center of the board, where they will be able to move around, but will have a lot of moves blocked by other timers, or whether they should stay along the exterior of the board where each move might eliminate a location, but where there will be less conflict over each location.

The next pro that I found for Tamsk is that there are interesting choices that you have to make about when to un-block an opponent's timer.  Generally, you want to block your opponent's timers.  This prevents them from moving, and thus it allows you to take extra turns - thus playing more of your rings.  However, because the locations can be used more than once, if you are blocking an opponent with one of your timers, they will quite likely be allowed to take your vacated space as soon as you leave it.  Therefore, you have the upper hand since you have temporarily blocked your opponent, but if you don't take advantage of this by positioning your other timers while they are blocked, then this advantage might only be temporary.

Showing off a red timer that has died

However, though these elements are interesting, I had some definitely cons with Tamsk.  First, I hated playing it while actually flipping the timers.  Instead of trying to optimize your movements, this changes the game so that you are simply making a game of when you flip each timer.  The rules specify that as a "gentleman's agreement" you should move quickly.  However, if you start moving quickly (as you're "supposed" to), and don't alternate turns between your different timers, then you might wind up flipping  a timer that you have just flipped - causing it's time to be almost completely expired.  So, you aren't even necessarily always waiting on your opponent's timer to expire - you might be waiting on your own timer to run down so that it will have more sand in it on your opponent's turn.  Ultimately, I felt like this element of the game encouraged sitting around and waiting for timers to be close to expiring more than it encouraged playing the strategic part of the game. 

The second con that I had for Tamsk was that it simply felt too simplistic.  There didn't seem to be all that many strategic elements to it.  Like I said before, I don't have a good vocabulary for how to explain this better.  Essentially, it felt like in Tamsk, there are just not many choices - do I move towards the center, or along the edge?  Do I unblock my opponent yet?  That really seemed like about it.  Without the timer element (which I hated), you are left with a fairly basic and generic abstract game.

Overall, I give Tamsk a 6.5/10.  Part of my disappointment in the game may be that it took me a long time to track down a copy to play, but the game wasn't phenomenal, like I was hoping.  However, since I truly dislike the timer element to the game, I will probably move my copy along to someone new.

If you enjoy abstract strategy games, then you might want to check out the other games (that I've reviewed) from the Gipf project - Gipf, Dvonn, Punct, Yinsh, and Zertz.

Gipf Review

 Ironically, one of the last games that I got to try in the Gipf Project was actually the original - Gipf.

In Gipf, which is played on a hexagonal board, each player starts with 3 "Gipf" pieces on the board (these are the same as normal pieces, but are two pieces stacked on top of each other). The object of the game is to remove all of your opponent's Gipf pieces, or to prevent him from being able to make a valid play (by capturing too many of his pieces). The hexagonal board is divided into triangles, and the playing pieces rest on the intersection of these triangles. Each intersection along the edge of the board also has a line out from it with a dot. Players take turns placing a piece on any of the dots along the outer edge of the board and then pushing the new piece into the playing area (and pushing any pieces in front of it one space further into play - but it is not legal to push a piece off the edge of the board). Whenever one player has four of his pieces in a row, those pieces are immediately removed from the board - along with all of the other pieces that are connected to them on that row. The player who owns the four in a row gets to re-use his pieces, and his opponent's pieces are captured. The one exception to this is that it is legal (and advisable) to leave Gipf pieces on the board. Play continues like this until either one player has no more Gipf pieces on the board or until one player has run out of pieces and cannot move any more into the playing area.

The first thing that I like about Gipf is that it is not your normal in-a-row game. There are a lot of spatial reasoning games that are all about getting a set of pieces in a row. Many of them are even very fun games that I enjoy playing. However, I like that Gipf freshens this up by using the in-a-row system to add depth to its gameplay. Gipf is not about getting pieces in a row. It is about capturing pieces. Because of this, and the fact that when you do achieve an in-a-row you get to remove the pieces, the game is more of a game of spatial reasoning tug-of-war than an "oh, I missed that and instantly lost" kind of game.

The next thing that I like about Gipf is the pushing mechanic. Every place on the board has at least two directions that it can be pushed from. This means that there is not a place that is "safe". Any move that I make can be countered by my opponent, which is amazing. In addition, the fact that pieces are removed causes there to be gaps in between pieces, which adds to the strategy of the game. You may be setting up your opponent to lose his Gipf piece. However, he can push it one space and get it outside of the line that you were setting up for him. What's more, if he is able to complete your line, then suddenly you don't even have any pieces near his Gipf. Unfortunately, there are two edges of this strategy - sometimes your Gipf piece is in danger, and it is in the middle of the board with no other pieces adjacent to it.  And, thus, you cannot move it in a single turn - thereby having no way to protect it.

The next thing I like about Gipf is something that I believe Go claims about itself. "Minutes to learn, a lifetime to master." (After Googling, I was wrong, and this is actually Othello).  I don't know that Gipf takes a lifetime to master, but it is definitely very easy to teach and yet has quite a bit of depth to strategy.  Games that are easy to teach allow you to have more opponents.  More opponents mean someone that has never played might beat the snot out of you at the game simply because they take a strategy that you hadn't thought of.

In a very short time, Gipf has quickly become one of my favorite abstract strategy games. I think that it is as good as Yinsh and Dvonn, which are my two other favorite games in the Gipf project. However, I am still unsure of whether I think people would get together specifically to play Gipf, or if I think they would get together to hang out and then play Gipf while they are there. I decided that they would for Yinsh and that they would not for Dvonn, hence Yinsh was given a 9.0 and Dvonn an 8.5, even though I like them both the same. I'm not sure how I decided this - I think it was pretty arbitrary. So, without further ado....

Overall, I give Gipf a 9.0. I think that people might get together to play it. I have also convinced myself that they probably would for Dvonn, and that I should have given it a 9.0 also. Oh well. If you enjoy spatial reasoning games, I think it is definitely worth your time to check out all three of these games from the Gipf project.

If Gipf sounds interesting, you should also check out Abalone, Ingenious, and Jin Li.

Punct Review

So, as many of you who have been following the blog for a while know, I have fallen in love with the GIPF Project. Some of the games in the series include Yinsh and Dvonn, which have really ignited my passion for spatial reasoning games. Because of my love for this project, I've been trying to play through all of the games in the series… which leads us to Punct.

In Punct, each player has a series of pieces three pips long; they are either triangles, straight lines, or bent lines. Each of these pieces has one of the three pips filled in. Each turn, the players decide whether they want to place a new piece (anywhere except in the middle of the board), or whether they want to move one of their previously placed pieces. If they choose to move a piece, they can move it in a straight line from where the filled in pip is located. Once they have decided on the new placement of the pip, they can also rotate the piece in any direction they choose. In doing this, they are even able to land on (and cover) their own or their opponent's pieces. Players alternate actions back and forth until one player has connected their pieces in a contiguous pattern from one side of the hex board to the opposite side - at which point this player is the winner. If either player places their last piece before anyone has connected one side to the other, the game is also over - and the player with the most spaces controlled by his color in the middle region of the board is the winner.

Now for the pros. The first thing that I liked about Punct was how you could be sneaky in the game. Since you are not only allowed to move pieces, but you are also allowed to rotate them after they move, a skilled player is able to mask some of his intended movements (as well as block your opponent's potential counter-movements). By placing a bent piece at a different angle than you intend it to wind up, or by placing a straight piece perpendicular to your ultimate destination, you can make it much more challenging for your opponent to decipher your strategy.

The next thing that I liked about Punct was that you had a lot of different pieces available to you. Since there were three different shapes, and the colored pip could be in any of the three pips on that piece, there is some strategy involved in determining which piece to play. This really factors in with the bent pieces much more than the other two (a triangle can be spun so that no matter where the pip is, it can wind up where you want it, and the straight pieces really just have two variations), but it still adds some additional flavor to this game.

However, though I liked some of the strategy of Punct, the game overall didn't quite "click" for me like the other games in the series have. I have spent a decent amount of time mulling this over in my mind, trying to determine what was different, and here's what I came up with - the game doesn't work towards a conclusion. In all of the other games that I have played in the series, each play takes you noticeably closer to the conclusion of the game - whether it is because there are less pieces available, or because more pieces are aligned. In Punct, many moves do not feel this way. Players can quickly wind up stalemating each other by moving certain pieces around the board - instead of really feeling like you're improving your position, you feel more like you are just stalling, which is unfortunate.

The next thing that I didn't like about Punct was that the strategy didn't seem quite as deep. I'm sure that it is, and that I'm really missing something here, but I just felt like the strategy was to get control of most of the center and then build out a straight line as quickly as you can. Once you get close, however, your opponent will start countering your moves by covering your pieces. And then you will counter them by trying to re-cover those pieces. And then you wind up in the stalling situation that I was discussing in the previous paragraph.

My final con for Punct is quite nit-picky. The pieces didn't quite "lock" into the gameboard as well as I would have hoped. Because of this, you had to be careful not to bump the table while you were playing. The pieces did have small protrusions on the bottom of each piece that was intended to fit into the gameboard, but it wasn't quite as snug as I would have liked.

Overall, I give Punct a 6.5/10. Whereas I love the Gipf project, I felt like this title wasn't quite to the level of excellence as all of the other games I have played in it. With that said, I still look forward to playing through the rest of the games in the project, including the Gipf Kits that allow the games to be combined!

If you like games like Punct, you might check out my top ten abstract games, Pentago, and Hey, That's My Fish!

Zertz Review

One of the latest games that I stumbled upon a demo copy of (thanks to Great Hall Games in Austin, TX) was Zertz.

Zertz is one of the games of the "GIPF project" (which also consists of Dvonn, Yinsh, Punct and a few others). To start the game of Zertz, the players create a playing board consisting of round discs arranged in a hexagonal pattern. From here, each of the players takes turns by either placing a marble from a shared pool (and removing a disc along the outer edge of the board) or by jumping marbles (like in checkers). If a player is able to remove a section of the board when he removes his disc, then he is able to capture all of the marbles that were in the removed section. If he is able to jump one or more marbles, then he captures each of the marbles that were jumped. Once one of the players has either 2 marbles of each color, 3 white marbles, 4 gray marbles, or 5 black marbles, they win the game.

The first pro of Zertz, like all of the games that I have encountered in the Gipf project, is the interesting spatial reasoning strategy that goes into the game. Whereas most board games that I play consist of attempting to defeat the other player by gathering resources, defeating troops, earning money, etc, the Gipf project focuses on completely abstract spatial reasoning. Zertz is no exception. The placement of marbles and which discs to remove are both vital to the strategy of the game. Another element of strategy that we encountered was in whether or not to jump marbles at any given time - you may be able to jump a single marble and collect it, but you would leave your opponent in a position to jump several others on his next turn.

Another pro of the game is related to removing the pieces of the board. First off, this is a mechanic that I have never seen before (and it was well executed, so kudos). This dynamic nature of the board causes the game to not be played the same way twice. Yes, the early pieces to be removed will be along the outer edge, but as the game progresses, you may find large parts of the board cut off from each other, and you may also find that the marble you were about to jump can no longer be captured in that way because there is no longer a disc behind it.

Unfortunately with the dynamic board comes the first con - the board is a pain to set up. This con will lessen over time, as I found that the board wasn't nearly as hard to setup the second time as it was the first time, but the first time I was pretty annoyed at this element. (Here's a hint, set it up one row at a time instead of trying to build the hexagonal grid and then fill in the middle.)

The other major con was that the strategy did not seem to be quite as in depth as in other games in the Gipf project. Specifically, when it came to preventing your opponent from jumping pieces, it seems like the key is simply to not place two marbles next to each other. Also, capturing pieces by removing discs from the board become essentially a non-factor because it was easy enough to see that a player had all but two discs removed. From there, it became a stalemate because whoever removed one of the discs would allow the other player to capture the marble(s) by removing the second disc.

Overall, I give Zertz a 7.5/10. I enjoyed the game, and I would be happy to add it to my collection for the right price. If you enjoy spatial reasoning games, I would encourage you to check out the project as a whole, but also to try this one. If you don't like spatial reasoning games, then stay away, because this isn't the game for you.  As one final note, if you enjoy the game but want to play it on a larger board (this is what my wife would recommend), you can find the means to do so using the GIPF Project: Expansion Set 2, which includes pieces for both Zertz and Dvonn.

If you enjoy abstract strategy, then you should check out My top ten abstract strategy games, Gipf, and Punct.

Dvonn Review

The latest game in the GIPF project that I was able to check out was Dvonn.

In Dvonn, each of the players takes a stack of discs and is attempting to control the most discs at the end of the game. To start, three red "Dvonn" discs are placed on the board. After this, players take turns placing discs one at a time until all of the discs have been placed and all of the spots on the board are covered (when placing discs, they must each be connected in some way to the "dvonn" disc - either directly or through other discs). Once all of the discs have been placed, the players begin to "jump" their discs into stacks. The distance that each stack must jump is dependent on the size of the stack - if it is a single disc, it jumps exactly one space; if it is a stack of 6 discs, it must jump exactly 6 spaces. The two special rules here are that the stacks cannot jump to an empty space and any pieces that become disconnected from a "dvonn" disc are immediately discarded. Once no legal moves are left, each of the players takes the stacks that they control (the ones with their color of disc on top) and stacks them on top of each other (this is to make counting the discs faster). Whoever controls the highest stack wins.

Pros and cons of all of the games from the GIPF project are very difficult for me to write (and thus wind up sounding very similar). This is because I am not accustomed to spatial reasoning games, and so they challenge my traditional way of thinking about games. With that said, this is the first pro for both Dvonn and the project as a whole. The strategy of these games always makes me think using areas of my brain that have become rusty. They challenge me to not think financially and militaristically (like most games) but to think spatially.

The next pro about Dvonn is the number of strategic elements in the game. Whereas I felt that Zertz occasionally struggled with depth of strategies, I feel like Dvonn exceeded my expectations. Players must strategize where to place their discs initially, which stacks to jump, when to jump them, how to stay connected to the dvonn discs, when to remove connections from the dvonn disc, etc. This depth allows players of Dvonn to keep coming back and to continue being challenged.

The first con that I have found with Dvonn was related to some of the levels of strategy that I just mentioned. Some aspects of the game that I'm convinced are very strategic I have a difficult time determining what that strategy should be. Specifically, when placing initial discs, I have no idea what good "strategic" placement of discs entails. All of the games that I have played consisted of both players placing these semi-randomly and very quickly in order to get to the "meatier" part of the game (the part where thought we could have a decent strategy). Whereas this depth level of the game is good, it is still somewhat frustrating to have this part be so abstract that I have no idea if I did it well or not.

Overall, I give Dvonn an 8.5/10. I still think that I like Yinsh just a touch better, but in a very close race. I would highly recommend Dvonn to anybody that likes abstract spatial reasoning games, and I would warn off everybody that does not.

Yinsh Review

One of the newest board games that I have been able to play has been Yinsh, so I figure its time for a review

In Yinsh, each of the players starts with 5 rings of their color, and the object is to have 5 dots in a row of their color. The first person to do this 3 times is the winner. In order to get dots, you are able to place a dot inside any of your rings. Once you have placed the dot, you must then "jump" your ring to another location along any of the lines that it intersects. There are some rules about jumping, but you essentially are able to jump over already placed dots while doing this, but all the dots that are jumped are flipped over to the other side - both yours and your opponents. This continues until someone gets 5 dots in a row. At that point, the 5 dots are removed from the board, and the player who successfully got the 5 in a row must remove one of his rings and place it on the scoring track. This then leaves that player at a disadvantage as the game continues because he will have less movement options and defensive abilities (a player cannot jump over a ring, so you can put them in the way of your opponent in order to prevent him from jumping your dots).

Yinsh really forces players to think differently. There is no luck involved in the game - the entire outcome rests on the plays of each player, similarly to Chess, Othello, Hive and several other games. Along with this, the strategy in Yinsh is far different from most traditional board games, which I count as a definite advantage for the game.  You must think through spatial strategies as opposed to normal point gathering (or war) strategies.

Another very nice thing about Yinsh is that it is an awesome balance between easy to learn and difficult to master. After playing a few games, I knew how all of the mechanics worked, but I still did not feel like I was very good at the game - and yet, I still enjoyed playing it.  I know that it is often common to like or dislike a game based on how well you do in your first few plays, but I do not think that people will form their opinion this way in Yinsh.

A third nice feature of Yinsh is that nobody really "dominates" the game. Even if I were to play it against someone that was much better than myself, I do not think that I would ever get the hopeless feeling that comes with watching your opponent have an insurmountable advantage in a game (like in Monopoly when your opponent has everything and you have a single railroad). In Yinsh, because of how quickly the dots can flip and the fact that winning gives you a disadvantage, there is always the feeling of hope, even if your opponent is winning 2 rings to none.

The only thing I can think of to say in the way of "con's" for Yinsh is that some people may not like the spatial reasoning of the game. If you do not like games like this where you must determine the best placement of pieces and flipping pieces, etc, then you will not enjoy this game.

Overall, I give Yinsh a 9.0/10. It is a nice, simple game that I can see myself playing often and enjoying, and I would recommend that everyone try it out for themselves.  I try to reserve 9.0 and above for games that I can see people getting together with the sole intention of playing that game (which is why as an example, Tsuro did not get as high of a score even though it is a great game), and the more I think about Yinsh the more I see it being able to fall into that category.

If you want another opinion on Yinsh, check out this Yinsh Review from the Board Game Family. Or, if you want to read about similar games, you might check out Gipf, Pentago, and Ingenious.