Modern Art Review

Occasionally a game surprises you. The game that has done this to me most recently is Modern Art (sorry, no Amazon link - I think this version might be out of print).

Modern Art is an auction game where you are trying to make money by buying and selling pieces of modern art.  To start the game, you will have a hand full of modern art pieces by different artists.  On each of your turns, you will select one of these pieces to be auctioned off.  Depending on the card, there are different kinds of auctions.  When auctioning a piece from your hand, you are welcome to participate, but if you buy your own piece, then you pay the money to the bank - if someone else buys your piece, they pay you.  However, at some point the market will become saturated.  Once a fifth piece by the same artist is played, the round immediately ends.  Then, based on the number of pieces sold by each artist, you determine how much each of these pieces is worth (you want your artist to have sold the most pieces).  Plus, each artist's value is cumulative from one round to another, as long as they are in the top three (of five) artists.  At the end of each round, you must sell all of the pieces you have bought.  Next, each person gets new cards and a new round is started.  You play through five rounds, and whoever has the most money at the end is the winner.

"Karl Gitter - his stuff is hot this year!"

The first pro that I have for Modern Art is that it is fun.  This is the part that surprised me.  I picked up a copy of the game because I saw it cheap at a convention, and I knew it was ranked well on Board Game Geek.  However, reading through the rules, I thought, "ok, well, it seems like the game will work," but I missed where it would be very enjoyable.  Once we started playing it, and we were trying to convince each other of the value of the paintings we were selling ("Karl Gitter is hot this year - you definitely want this..."), I found where the enjoyment was hiding.  We had a blast playing the game.  Since most of the auctioning is done aloud, whoever is selling the piece will regularly be doing his best salesman pitch to try to convince the other players why they should pay tons of money for the piece - after all, you keep the money from the pieces you sell.

Which leads to my second pro - I like that you keep the money from the pieces that you sell to other players.  It is definitely important to make money by selling pieces of art at the end of the round.  However, you can make significantly more money by selling works to the other players.  After all, if a piece is going to be worth at least $90,000, why shouldn't they buy it from you for $80,000?  They'll make $10,000 that they couldn't make otherwise!  (Of course, you will be making $80,000!!!)  This mechanic forces you to drive up the prices as much as you can while selling - but, if you drive them up a bit too high, you might wind up buying the piece from yourself and having to pay the bank.  Suddenly, you are only making the $10,000 instead of the $80,000.  The fact that you are making the money from the other players, I think, also leads to one of the main strategies of the game - you have to determine which artist you can make incredibly valuable at the end of the game.  Since you are dealt a lot of extra art in the first round, you can do some planning about which pieces to sell now to build up value for an artist, so that you can sell more of them (for a lot more money!) at the end of the game.

Third, I like that there are different kinds of auctions.  Specifically, there are open auctions (everyone yells out prices), silent auctions (everyone shows their bid at the same time), fixed price (the seller says what it will cost, and each person has the option to buy it or pass until it is sold - with the seller being forced to buy it if nobody else does), once around auctions (each person gets one chance to make a bid), and double auctions (it gets sold with another piece by the same artist).  This keeps the game from feeling monotonous.  Honestly, the game would be essentially the same if it was played entirely with open auctions.  But, though it would have the same strategies and such, it would be much more dull, as you would be doing the same thing over and over.  With the different auction formats, the game stays fresh (and you have to figure out what your salesman speech should be with each of the different auction formats to make sure that you milk your opponents for as much as you can).

"Yoko has been doing really well"

Now, with all that I love about Modern Art, there are a couple of minor cons.  First, there is (in my opinion - and I get to write the blog, so I get to share my opinion) a definite ideal number of players.  The game can be played with 3-5 players, but I really think that it works better with more players (so, 5 is ideal).  After all, since the entire game is built around auctioning things off amongst yourselves, if you are able to sell your art in a bidding war between 4 people, it will be much more exciting than a bidding war between 2.

Next, the double auction card is incredibly powerful, and so there is a bit of luck involved in what you draw in the game.  Since the double auction lets you sell of two pieces at the same time, you are increasing the likelihood of that artist being one of the artists that is worth money at the end of the round (and also increasing the chances that their work is worth more money at the end of the round).  You are also, simply, selling off twice as many works of art, so it should (theoretically) be worth twice as much!  Now, I still think that strategy is heavily involved, even with these cards (do you want to use them early on in the game, or save them until the last round and hope that the artist has been valuable to that point), but the double auctions definitely seem outright better than the other auctions (of course if you only get double auctions, then you won't have the second work that you need, and so you'll have to share money with someone else who can provide that piece).

Overall, I give Modern Art a 9.0/10.  I love the game - I was very pleasantly surprised with it.  I think that it is one of the more fun games that I have played in recent memory!

If you like financial games, you might also want to check out Power Grid, Acquire, and Chicago Express. Or, for a second opinion on this game, check out this review of Modern Art at Play Board Games.

Jaipur Review

"I know that gold would be helpful, but think of all the things I can do with FOUR camels!!" If you find yourself saying this a lot, then Jaipur might just be the perfect game for you!

Jaipur is a two-player trading (with the bank) game. On your turn you can either do two things - take cards or sell cards. When taking cards, you can either take a single card (if you're not at your hand limit), you can trade any number of cards from your hand (and camel herd) for any number of cards in the available pool, or you can take all of the camels (though there might be a smell involved) and place them in your herd. When selling cards, you can sell any number of matching goods (you have to sell at least two when selling the three best goods). When selling, you collect a victory point chip per good traded - and the chips decrease in value as players collect them. However, if you trade 3-5 matching goods at a time, then you get a bonus scoring chip (worth a lot of points). Once three goods piles run out, each player counts how many points they have. Best two out of three determines the best camel trader on the planet! (Which, I think, may be similar to best port-a-potty cleaner when it comes to smell, but fortunately I wouldn't know first-hand.)

You definitely want to collect chips first

The thing that makes Jaipur amazing is that it gives you tough decisions. The most obvious tough decision is when to sell your goods. Selling early can make each of your goods worth more victory points - yet, if you can collect enough to gain a 5-good bonus, then this can be worth 10 points! To add to the challenge, your opponent may also be trying to collect the same goods, and you are incentivized to trade before he does (you'll take the valuable chips). Since it is a strictly two player game, any points you keep from your opponent are just as good as points scored - so if you see that he's collecting leather, and you can swoop in and take the top two leather chips, then instead of getting chips worth 4 and 3 victory points, his highest valued chip will be worth 2!

The next tough decision that Jaipur gives you is which goods to collect. Do you always collect the most valuable goods? If so, then it will be much harder to actually gain very many of them since there is a smaller number of them available in the deck (I think), and your opponent will also be trying to take them. Yet, if you choose not to collect the more valuable goods, then you are leaving your opponent uninhibited when collecting the most valuable goods! Plus, what happens when you have two copies of three different goods in your hand (the hand limit is seven), and there are two copies of the goods you need in front of you? You have to decide which ones to take, and what to put back, which then may give your opponent a collection of matching goods!

Aren't the camels pretty?

Finally, I really like the camels in Jaipur. I think that it is brilliant that you have a "camel herd" that doesn't count towards your hand limit. In all honesty, whoever is best at managing the camels is probably the player that will win. After all, whenever you trade in a large number of goods, it leaves your hand depleted. Remember, the only way to get more than one good at a time is to trade for them. So, if you have a large herd, then you can quickly replenish your hand by trading camels. But, if you sell a large number of goods and have no camels, then you will have to replenish your hand with a single card each round (until you decide to take all of the camels to build a herd). Really, the camels make the game unique and amazing - I cannot say enough good things about them... and they're pretty... for camels.

I didn't really find any "cons" with Jaipur. However, it does have a very limited gaming appeal. By this, I don't mean that only certain people would like Jaipur - I really think that most anybody could enjoy it. However, it is only two player, and takes about 15-30 minutes. So, because of it's length, you probably wouldn't get together just to play Jaipur, and you also probably wouldn't play it 5 times in a row. Plus, with only two players, it's not especially amazing as a filler, because I normally have more than two people waiting around on game nights. However, with all that said, when you do need a short game for two players, it is amazing. And, obviously, the most common situation that requires two-player games is playing games with your spouse. I think that Jaipur works wonderfully for this, and in fact, I have played it with my own wife.

Overall, I give Jaipur an 8.5/10. Again, if I don't see myself getting together just to play a game, then I don't like to give it a 9 or higher, but that is really the only criteria that keeps this score so low. However, it is in the upper echelon of filler games, in my opinion. I believe that everybody (not just gamers) should try Jaipur, and I plan to keep it in my collection for a long, long time.

If you have a love affair with camels, you might also want to check out Through the Desert. Otherwise, some other nice little two-player games are Babel and Atlanteon. Or, if you want some more thoughts on Jaipur, check out I Slay the Dragon's Jaipur Review, or this other review of Jaipur by Games With Two.

Perudo (Liar's Dice) Review

One of my favorite party games that I'm glad to get to tell you about is Perudo (also know as "Liar's Dice").

In Perudo, each player starts with five dice and a cup (to keep their dice secret). Each round starts with all of the players rolling their dice. Whoever lost a die most recently (first round, just pick someone randomly) starts the round. They must bid how many dice they think have been rolled among all of the available dice. For example, they may bid "five 4's", which means that they think that there are at least five dice showing the number four among all of the players' dice. To add to the fun, one's (or ace's) are wild and count as any number. Now the next player must either increase the number on the die (and keep the number of dice at least the same), or they can increase the number of dice (so, in our previous example, both "five 5's" and "six 2's" are legal bids, but "four 6's" is not); or they can "call" the player before them, if they do not think that their bid is correct. Once someone is "called", all players reveal their dice. If the necessary dice were rolled, then whoever called them loses a die; otherwise, the person who made the bid loses a die. There are some other special rules when a single player gets down to one die, and for how to bid on ace's, but this is the bulk of the gameplay. Play continues like this until only one player has any dice left.

A beautiful Toys R Us version

The first thing that I love about Perudo is the secret element of the dice. Since any given player never has more than five dice, the players have to completely guess what dice are present. Yes, you can use statistics to guess how many of each die there should be, but statistics always lie to you in Perudo. Because of this, it's great fun to start the game by bidding that there are 10 or more of some number, when you really have no idea. But, with six players (30 dice), 10 is probably a safe bet!

The next thing that I like about Perudo is the mind games that you can play with people in the game. In a big game, your objective is simple - bid so high that the bid will not get back around to you, but just low enough that people will not call you! If I bid on something and five other people bid after me before I am forced to bid again, then this works out really well (after all, you can't lose a die unless you either call somebody or are called). However, the game can be just as fun when you have eliminated everybody but yourself and one opponent. It's a fun bluffing exercise to try to outwit your opponent when you know what dice you have rolled, he knows what he has, and you must still force his hand - and the less dice you each have, the better it gets. If we each have one die left, should I start by bidding "one 2", when I have a five, thinking that he won't call me? If I do, and he changes it to "one 3", should I call him thinking that he is using my same strategy?

The final aspect of Perudo that I like is the social nature of the game. Yes, Perudo requires strategy, but it's not such an all-brain encompassing strategy that you only focus on it, leaving no room for talking. Perudo has quite a lot of banter, laughing, and "ahhhhh!!!" moments (as your opponent outwitted you - or really did roll all five of his dice on the same number). The game is flat out fun to play (pro number four), and at the same time allows players to enjoy each other's company. (Plus, it can be scaled up to as many players as you want if you have extra dice lying around. Though I'd guess at some upper limit it stops being fun.)

Final pro - it can also be played by anyone! Perudo is very non-traditional gamer friendly.

With this, you can lie to anyone!

With all the positive aspects of Perudo, there are really only two things to mention that can be considered negative. First of all, Perudo is a filler game. I don't really envision people getting together specifically to play it. However, since it could also be thought of as a party game, it is a game that I can see people being able to play often (like.... you know.... at parties) - especially non-traditional gamers.

The other "con" (well, more "thing you should realize") is that there is player elimination in Perudo. Once you run out of dice, you are out of the game. However, since this game will probably be played at parties, this simply provides time to mingle, get a snack, go to the bathroom, or just chat with your other friends that were eliminated.

Overall, I give Perudo an 8.5/10. I love Perudo and think that everyone should play it. However, my (current) personal rule is that I reserve 9+ for games that I think people would get together specifically to play, which I don't think is the case for Perudo.

If you're looking for fun dice games, you might also want to look into Cookie Fu, Martian Dice, and Rory's Story Cubes.

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.