long island boardgaming organization - indepth · 2013. 6. 27. · editor’s note indepth 2005...

2005: Volume 3, Issue 6

INDEPINDEPTHTHGame Reviews & Reports

Game Review. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . PageEditor’s Note. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3Settlers of Catan. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3Oltremare . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4Samurai . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6Drunter und Druber . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7Member of the Month . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8Killer Bunnies. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9I’m the Boss . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10Das Motorsportspiel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12Puerto Rico Strategy Article . . . . . . . . . . . 14Die Magier von Pangea . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17Web of Power . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18Saboteur. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20Industria. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22Other Games / Photo Montage . . . . . . . . . 24Diamant . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26Top Players . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27LIBO Strat-O-Matic Football . . . . . . . . . . . 28LIBO Ratings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29Group Statistics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30

Table of ContentsTable of Contents

2 INDEPTH 2005 November

Copyright on all contributions rests withthe original authors and material from

these pages may not be reproduced with-out the author’s permission and without

acknowledging its prior publication here.

Editor’s NoteEditor’s Note

INDEPTH 2005 November 3

ike many boardgamers, I found starting a groupwas a fairly daunting task. I’ve been playinggames my whole life — starting in the early

1980s, with role-playing games; then discovering sportssimulation games, and finally, wargames and eventuallyEuros. Most of my adolescence, it’s fair to say, wasspent gaming. And, finding opponents was never diffi-cult, since free time was plentiful.

It wasn’t until I got older — began working anddating — that time became more precious. I initiallytried to do things the same way I always had: sched-uling people to come on a given day for some all-daygaming; but, invariably, someone (or two!) wouldcancel or come late, which would mess up the plans.

After blowing my stack for what I’d thought wasthe last time, two things happened — I went to anoth-er WBC and I joined a local gaming group. I foundwith the local group there was a lot of camaraderie,but it didn’t have the spirit of competition I wanted.With WBC, there was competition, but no real cama-raderie, since people only saw each other once a year.

On the phone with another founding member ofLIBO, I outlined my vision: A group that would meetmonthly for all-day sessions. Well, that wasn’t toodifferent from the way things had been. What could Ido to ensure I wouldn’t have the same problems?

We decided to keep statistics. Lots of statistics,which are used to award gaming excellence plaques atthe end of the year. Statistics are kept in every shapeand size: wins, winning percentage, winning percent-age vs. expected win percentage, dominating wins,total second place finishes, etc. There are attendancerequirements to be eligible for the plaques, whichmade members more interested in attending regularly.

After our first meeting, in September 2003, Ireceived an email from a prospective new member,expressing interest in joining. This was all new —before this, my ‘gaming group’ had always consistedof just close friends. We opened the door for this per-son to join, and it worked out wonderfully. In fact,since then, we’ve been solicited numerous times, andwe’ve invited several members to join.

For me, a successful game group has to be morethan just a group that games together. Another stapleof LIBO is FamilyDays, where spouses and childrencan join the group — we’ve visited zoos, aquariums,held mini-golf and Ping Pong tournaments. LIBO hasevolved into a social group with games the favoriteactivity. In fact, almost across the board, there’s not amember in LIBO I wouldn’t refer to as a ‘friend’(moreso than as “someone in my gaming group.”)

There’ve been constant improvements to thescope of LIBO, since its inception. Next year, thegroup will be inducting games into the LIBO Hall ofFame, and awarding its first Game of the Year award.Even MORE statistics will be tracked, as we catego-rize all games owned into mechanics and themes,enabling us to track gamers’ abilities by mechanic, orto organize scheduled GameDays by theme.

Ultimately, I’ve found the best way to keep agroup viable and lively, is to constantly introducenew, innovative concepts. At this point, LIBO is up to15 members and still growing. And I’m not evenCLOSE to being out of ideas!

L

nna Maria started out building and grabbedlongest road fairly quickly. It turned out to beher downfall, as everyone targeted her as the

leader throughout most of the game.A key robber placement by Andrew thwarted any

attempts by Brian, and slowed Jeremy down in hisbuildings. In the end, ore and wheat came through forJeremy (both had cities) and he converted four settle-ments into cities.—Jeremy Waite

SettlersSettlersA

Settlers of CatanPlayers Score RatingAndrew 6 5Anna Maria 9 5Brian 8 4Jeremy 10 N/A

Overall Rating: 4.7Our time: 1h-35mRules explanation time: 15m


OltremareOltremareeaturing a laughably tinyboard and harbor countersthat beg for the inclusion of

a magnifying glass with the game,Oltremare is a strange combinationof elements. Physically unassum-ing, even clumsy in its scale andimplementation of sleek post-mod-ern computer-generated graphics ina game with a historical context,Oltremare is nevertheless pos-sessed of a certain visual eleganceand plays with an equivalent grace.

As with countless other titles,the players here are cast in theroles of Venetian traders, plyingthe waters of the Mediterranean insearch of profit and glory. Theheart of the game is a stack ofcommodity cards which propel theaction by being acquired and trad-ed, or lost to pirates (and potential-ly re-acquired). The board, whichdepicts the eastern Mediterranean,is nearly an afterthought, dealingprimarily with the distribution ofharbor markers, which enhance a

player’s abilities todeal with pirates, toamass ducats or tomove to other, morelucrative ports.

The game’sengine, however,lies in its cards,which are collectedthrough movementaround the board aswell as a lively trad-ing phase. A well-balanced mechanicgoverns the choos-ing of cards to play,as each contestant attempts todevelop stacks of like commoditiesin a Cargo Stack to maximizeendgame scoring. The placing ofsequential like commodities causesone’s ducat count to rise exponen-tially, whereas placing, say, onewine after one corn, then proceed-ing to one silk and then anotherwine, will reset the scoring witheach new commodity - far better,

then, to place the wines side-by-side to receive the combinationbonus. Anything over the maxi-mum potential scoring level of agiven commodity is wasted; anyadditional moves are better spentestablishing a new commoditywith which to score.

Balancing the placement ofcommodities is the ever-presentthreat of pirates, who will stealcommodity cards and place themin a face-down Pirate Deck; eachcard present here represents a one-ducat penalty from a player’s finaltally; thus, the preservation ofone’s profits is manifest in both thegathering of valuable combinationsof commodities and the limiting ofthe negative impact of pirates. Yet,initial play seems to indicate thatpaying an inordinate amount ofattention to the height of one’sPirate Deck can be counter-pro-ductive, as the act of removingcards from this deck comes at ahigh price in ducats, effort that canbe spent elsewhere in the attempt

F OltremarePlayers Score RatingAndrew 56 4Bill 74 5Chris 48 5Darren 40 5



OltremareOltremareto advance one’s commodities tohigher payout levels.

The playing of individual com-modity cards leaves one “on top,”which becomes that player’s activecard. The icons on this card dictatethe hand size and the number ofcards that must be played by thatplayer in the following turn. Thus,the arrangement of cards in a play-er’s Cargo Stack not only requiresattention to the number and kindsof commodities being arranged inorder to increase profits (the play-ers are not allowed to look backover previously-played cards, andthus must keep track of what hascome before so as not to under- orover-populate commodities), butalso an awareness of the implica-tions for future moves.

Card-hand size and number ofcards to be played are always pre-sented in an inverse proportion, soan active card with a 6 card-handsize for the following turn willalways result in a 1 cards-playedobligation - perfect for those timeswhen a player is looking toincrease his commodities for tradeor to find the match for a groupbeing built in the Cargo Deck.However, having found the perfectcommodity to play (perhaps morethan one, with that many cardscoming in), the player will only beable to put down 1. And so, thegame’s elegant balance assertsitself once more.

Though moving about theboard and collecting harbor mark-ers from an ever-decreasing (andfinite) supply does have an impacton the game, allowing players to

increase theirincome orignore thedepravationsof pirates, thisseems a sec-ondary andnon-vital ele-ment whencompared withthe mechanicsof trade andcard play.

In the end,the generalconsensus atthe first play-ing ofOltremare wasthat the newversion withmore sizeable counters and a gen-erally more substantial presencefor the board and player markers,is much-anticipated.

As it stands in its current form,the game plays smoothly and pres-ents the player with a multitude ofrelated options, enhancing itsstrategic status yet not over-com-plicating the contest. The gamecertainly continues in the fine tra-dition of trading and cargo gamesthat has long been a staple ofboardgaming.

Bill, Andrew, Chris and Darrentackled Oltremare, and Bill hadthe early upper hand, jumping outto a commanding lead in ducatswith the Venetian Lion harbortoken. Playing maritime power(hand size) cards with 6 and 5 val-ues turn after turn, Bill raked inthe lucre while the others con-

cerned themselves with anti-piracymeasures (again, a dubious con-cern given the relatively lesserimpact of pirates on the finalscore, as compared with the costof removing cargo from theirbooty) and compasses to pursueother interests.

As an example, a late-gamepurchase of 4 cards from thepirates at a 10-ducat premiummoved Darren down a level in thestandings; if left alone, those cardswould have only cost 4 ducats inpenalties.

Andrew did not fall prey to theover-population of commodities,placing his cards in clever combi-nations to propel himself into sec-ond place, while Chris and Darrentook up the rear, abandoned byunfortunate combinations and toofew of the same.—Darren Velez


SamuraiSamuraiill, Chris and Michaelplayed Reiner Knizia’sSamurai game. Bill had

played the computer version manytimes before, and had played theboard game itself several times aswell. Chris and Michael had notplayed a full game of it, thoughMichael had toyed with the elec-tronic version.

Samurai consists of mapboards depicting the islands ofJapan, the number of players deter-mining the number of map boardsused. The boards feature a capital,two major cities, and a number ofsmaller population centers. Eachpopulation center contains a figuredepicting a Buddha shrine, ricepaddy or high helmet. The citiescan hold two different figures, andthe capital can hold all three.

Players set up the game byplacing these figures as they wish.Game play begins with the place-ment of tiles around these popula-tion centers. Once a center is sur-rounded, the player with the great-est value of adjacent, matchingtiles wins the figure.

Essentially, the game is won bythe player who achieves domi-nance (most figures of one type) inthe most types of figures (Buddha,high helmet, or rice paddy). If twoor more players are tied for domi-nance, the player who has capturedthe most figures (not counting hisdominant ones) is the winner.

Each player is given his/herown set of 20 tiles. There are highhelmet, Buddha, and rice paddytiles of varying strength (2, 3, or4). Critical Samurai tiles act as

wild cards, so thatplacing thesebetween two differ-ent types of centers(Buddha and ricepaddy centers, forexample) addsattack strengthagainst each. Thereare also “fast tiles”(Rhonin and shiptiles) which allowthe player to imme-diately play a second tile. Finally,there are a few key “switch” tilesthat allow a player to redeploy apreviously place tile, or even swaptwo of the originally placed figuresthemselves.

Each player begins by selectingfive of his/her 20 tiles and placingthem behind a screen to form ahidden reserve. The remaining 15tiles become a draw stack. On aturn, a player must place the toptile from his/her deck or one of thefive tiles from the reserve.

This recent game saw animmediate contest for the all-important capital, with all playersplacing there initially. DespiteMichael’s deployment of his 3-point Samurai, Bill managed totake two of the three capital fig-ures, with Michael taking a third.

Chris meanwhile built hisstrength elsewhere, slowly sur-rounding city after city. As thegame went on, Michael developedstrength in high helmets, Bill inrice paddies, and Chris becamevery strong in Buddhas – so muchso that Bill warned the gamewould end prematurely if Chris’s

Buddha-collecting activitiesweren’t curtailed.

Michael decided to put off theharvest of some cities he had near-ly surrounded (since no one couldnow contest them) and made somemoves in this Chris’s direction,deploying his 4-point Buddha indirect opposition to one of Chris’splacements. Play became intenseand quiet.

Just as Michael decided itwould be time (on his next turn) toharvest a major city and a minorone, Chris shocked him with oneof those tricky figure-swap tiles,exchanging the high helmet thatMichael needed with a Buddha fig-ure, and placing his own tile thereto claim it. The silence was brokenby a Krakatoa-like eruption of pro-fanity from Michael, hurled inChris’s direction, as Michael real-ized his mistake in not grabbinghis gains earlier (including somecommentary about having run outof available orifices for Chris to‘employ’).

Bill seemed amused, no doubtbecause his sure and steady playwas inching him toward victory.

B SamuraiPlayers Score RatingMichael 3 5Bill 5 4Chris 1 3

Overall Rating: 4.0Our time: 35mRules explanation time: 25m

alls, Roads and Rivers galore. Two of thegangs were cut off shortly after the gamestarted, but the remaining wall and road

took out the majority of the board.With hidden houses, the strategy was somewhat

limited to protecting one’s own houses. Darren wasable to keep his three highest valued houses on theboard, and emerged victorious.

eremy also kept three houses on the board, butthey were his three lowest valued, unfortunately.

—Jeremy Waite


Drunter und DruberDrunter und DruberW

SamuraiSamuraiAfter a second eruption and somemore colorful profanity, play set-tled down to a brief, intense endgame.

When the final scores were tal-lied, it turned out that Michael andBill both had dominance (Michaelin high helmets, Bill in rice pad-

dies) but there was a tie inBuddhas, eliminating Chris. Billand Michael had closer scores, butBill had more non-dominant fig-ures, and was declared the winner.

This was a fast-moving gamewith subtlety and depth, and whileit is abstract, it almost has the feel

of a war game (it must be themap.) It has a strong capacity forspoiler play, and yet it played verywell as a three-player game.Highly recommended.

—Michael Albergo

Drunter und DruberPlayers Score RatingChris M 3 3John 5 4Darren 12 4Jeremy 6 4



Q. How long have you beengaming

I’ve been playing some formof board game for almost 25years.

Q. Brief history of your gamingexploits

When I was about 6 I primari-ly played Mousetrap, Monopoly,Battleship, Scrabble, ConnectFour, etc…

From ages 8-12, I played Risk,Monopoly, Scrabble, Upwords,etc…

At age13, I played Monopolywith a cousin from Nevada whoclaimed to be the best. Aftereveryone but the two of us waseliminated, I crushed him com-pletely. He was pissed.

It doesn’t matter, however,because Monopoly is totally dice-driven luck. I haven’t talked tohim since. It doesn’t matter,because I didn’t talk to him beforeeither.

By age 14, board games wereno longer part of my vocabulary.There was the occasional gamehere and there, but video gameswere in.

I had an RC car. I soldered theearphone jack on my walkman Idon’t know how many times. Ihelped my dad build decks andsheds.

I worked at Re-Style Kitchenson Friday nights, Saturdays, andvacation days from school includ-ing the entire summer. It sucked,but I had more money than any-one else in school.

A couple of years later I

bought a 1986 Honda 250R ATV.I practically lived on that thing. Iwish I still had it. I also rebuilt a1977 Blazer. I miss that too.

At age 27, the Chris Erabegan. Chris waited a few monthsafter I started dating Debbie tointroduce me to his game collec-tion. That way, Debbie couldn’tblame him if I broke up with herto escape the games.

I was intrigued though. I hadnever seen all these games in mylife. They are so much better thanthe mainstream stores have.

The last few years, LIBO hasbeen my gaming outlet.

Q. Favorite boardgame - alltime

Advanced Civilization

Q. Favorite boardgame - playedin LIBO

Advanced Civilization

Q. LEAST favorite boardgame -all time

Lord of the Rings

Q. Least favorite boardgame -played in LIBO

Lord of the Rings

Q. Game you’remost looking for-ward to playing(that you haven’tplayed already)

City ofSorcerers.

Q. Your favoritemoment (your HALL OF FAMEmoment) from a LIBO game.

The cousin incident above.There was another time when Iplayed RISK with friends quite abit. One of two friends wouldalways win.

We had started a game, and Iwas kicking ass. The one friendthat won the most decided that hedidn’t want to play anymore andflipped the whole board over. Idon’t think I ever played RISKwith them again.

Member of the MonthMember of the Month

JosephDozier

To see Joe’sINDEPTH

Stats and Ratings,turn to Page 29.

INTERESTED IN JOININGLIBO?

Email Michael, our membership director, ([email protected]) to get the ball rolling!


n the first round of card play-ing, Chris, Brian, Andrew andAnna Maria all played bun-

nies. Brian and Chris’ bunnies eachdied instantly however, sufferinggruesome deaths for bunnies soyoung. Brian then continued thereign of bunny-death by killingAndrew’s Gleeful bunny, whichhurt him very badly since Andrewhad set up his next two moves tocollect carrots which, bunny-less,were now lost to him.

After finally getting anotherbunny on the board, Andrew wasfinally able to start letting loosewith the arsenal of weapons he hadin his hand. He quickly played alevel 10 weapon, a Naval

Destroyer, killing 2 of Chris’ bun-nies and 1 of Bills’, leaving themboth with none, and Brian ,Andrew, and Anna Maria leadingthe pack. Then Andrew ended hisgood luck, playing the BunnyCasino, and rolling 3 of a kind,effectively killing his one FreeAgent bunny.

Brian had accumulated a largestash of money, from the start of

the game, in fact,and bought 1 Carrot,2 Cabbages and 2Waters, which heused later as peopletried to starve hisbunnies to death.Meanwhile AnnaMaria continuallyhad bunnies in play,at one point havingfour on the board atonce, making her ahuge target.

In a crushingmove, which basi-cally ended Andrew’s game, AnnaMaria played a card on him thatforced him to pay 2 dollars for

each carrot heowned (he owned 3at the time). Sincehe had no money tohis name, he lostall 3 carrots, basi-cally putting himback to the begin-ning of the game, aposition fromwhich he was neveragain able to recov-er.

Andrew playeda tactical nuke,basically blowingevery bunny on theboard to bits. Along stretch of thegame followed,where any bunny aplayer was able toplay, was quicklyand savagely killed.

Chris finally managed to grab thelast carrot.

Going into the end game, AnnaMaria had more carrots than all theother players combined, but aseach carrot was revealed to NOTbe the Magic Carrot, Anna Mariawas finding her supply of carrotsrunning dangerously low. In theend, with only 1 carrot left to her,and another to Bill, Anna Maria’slast carrot was revealed to be theMagic Carrot, giving her the game.The final score was Anna Maria 6,Bill 4, Chris 2, and both Brian andAndrew 0.—Andrew DiGregorio

Killer BunniesKiller BunniesI Killer Bunnies

Players Score RatingAndrew 0 2Bill 4 2Anna Maria 6 4Chris 2 3Brian 0 2



I’m the BossI’m the Boss’m the Boss is a game of cardplay and negotiated deals.Essentially, players move a

token around a board, with eachspace representing a potential busi-ness deal with different combina-tions of investor characters. In turn,each player can opt to lead the deal-making for a particular space (bethe Boss) or draw cards that can beplayed to shift the identities of theparticipants – or perhaps send someindividuals away on a vacation,excluding them altogether.

As each deal is concluded, par-ticipants collect the payoffs deter-mined by the Boss (who usuallykeeps the largest share for himself(or tries to, anyways)). With eachconcluded deal, the value of sharesfor the next deal increases. Themost money wins in the end.

The recent playing was a six-player game, wild and wooly. Chris,Brian, Andrew, Bill, Anna Mariaand Michael proved once again thatgreed and collaboration, combinedwith fast card play and an attitude,can make for a lot of fun.

Each player benefited fromearly deals, when the payoffs weresmall, paranoia was in check, andplayers generally asked, “Mother,may I?” before consummating adeal that left anyone out.

Bill, employing the languageskills one would expect of a Latinteacher, coaxed half the table into adeal that netted him, as the Boss, acool $10 million. The other half ofthe table was not pleased, and thecollegial atmosphere soon turnedrank. Fast and furious card playbecame the norm.

Unfortunately,the rules used omit-ted the rule (or atleast, the acceptedhouse rule) thathand sizes cannotexceed 12 cards.Consequently, thegame play consist-ed of one massivebloodbath, fol-lowed by severalturns of card gath-ering, followed byanother bloodbath.While this may notnecessarily be thespirit of the game, it certainly con-tributed to a raucous experience.

Lost in the enthusiastic hubbub,however, was the simple strategicplan that — had a single playerelected to sit out a complete blood-bath — the odds were he’d be ableto secure a payout entirely for him-self. This was not a game for thestrategic thinkers, however. Rather,it was a game where Chris sentAndrew’s character on vacation notonce, not twice, but three times in arow in the same hand.

To long-time players of thisgame, this blip in the rules, allow-ing players to have seemingly end-less hand sizes, would probablyhave contributed to a frustratingevening. To the members of LIBO,it was anything but.

Brian: I need DeborahDoherty, George Goldman, andStephanie Sacks, and WillWadsworth to make this deal work.That’s me, Chris, and Bill.

Michael: You’re going to giveBill more money after he justscored $10 million? I can give youStephanie Sacks.

Brian: Yeah, but Bill can giveme both Sacks and Wadsworth.

Bill: And I won’t even chargeyou extra for it.

Andrew: [Looks at his bigstack of cards and says nothing.]

Chris: That deal sounds fine.Brian: Okay, it’s four people

at $6 million per share, that’s $24million. Let’s say $12 million forme, $6 million for Chris, and $6million for Bill. Agreed?

Michael: [To Anna Maria] Ican’t believe we’re going to be leftout of this one, too.

Anna Maria: I can.Andrew: [Still looking at his

cards. Little beads of sweat appearon his forehead.] I really can’t getinvolved.

Bill: Let’s say $8 million foreach of us.

Brian: I thought you said youweren’t going to charge me more?

I I’m The BossPlayers Score RatingMichael 40 3Andrew 17 3Bill 16 2Anna Maria 28 N/AChris 17 3Brian 17 4


Bill: I’m just trying to be equi-table. Chris needs the money.

Chris: $8 million is fine.Brian: How about $11 million

for me, $7 million for Chris, and$6 million for you.

Bill: That’s still not equitable.Chris: $7 million. Okay, lets – Bill: How about $10 mil for

you, and $7 mil for each of us?Brian: Alright, 10-7-7.

Agreed. [Reaches for the cash]Michael: Wait! [Plays a card.]

Deborah Doherty is going toHonolulu for two weeks. But notto worry [plays another card]because her cousin Denise Dohertyis here. Count me in.

Brian: [Rolls his eyes.] Cananyone stop that? [Silence.] No?Alright, the split is $9 million forme, $5 million for Chris, $5 mil-lion for Bill, and $4 million for@$%&ing Michael.

Michael: But why should youget $9 million when you’re notcontributing any investors?

Brian: Because I’m the@$%&ing Boss, that’s why.

Anna Maria: Forgot aboutthat, didn’t you?

Chris: Alright, $5 million it is.Can we please just –

Bill: Alright, I didn’t want tohave to do this, but you’re all leav-ing me no choice. [Plays a card.]I’m the Boss. Brian’s out.

Brian: @$%&!Bill: The new deal is 12 for

me, 6 for Chris, 6 for Michael.Chris: Would you consider 10

for you, 8 for me and 6 forMichael? You DID say I neededthe money.

Bill: [nodding sagely] I woulddo that.

Andrew: [Looking at hiscards, hands trembling.] Um, Imay have to do something here…

Bill: Are we agreed? Listen,folks, it doesn’t have to be thisway. This can go smoothly.

Michael: I’m okay with $6million.

Brian: Aren’t you concernedBill’s making another big deal?

Michael: Everyone’s makingdeals but me. At least I’m gettingsomething out of this one. Andbesides, he does have two of thefour people needed.

Chris: $6 million, $5 million,$8 million, whatever! Just makethe deal!

Brian: [To Michael] Firstyou’re worried he’s $10 millionahead, then you’re helping him getanother $12 million? Is it me, or isthat @$%&ed up?

Chris: I’m counting down, andthen the deal is binding.Five…four…three…

Bill: It’s you, Brian.Chris: two…one…Andrew: Stop! I have to do it!

[Plays a card.] I’m the Boss!Bill: [Plays a card.] No, you’re

not.Andrew: [Another card.] Yes, I

am.Bill: [Another card.] No,

you’re not.Andrew: [Another card,

played with flare.] Did I mentionthat I’m the Boss?

Bill: [Looks crestfallen.] Crap.Oh, I almost forgot [plays a card]No, you’re not!

Andrew: @$%$!Brian: That’s what I’m talking

about!Andrew: [To Bill] Alright,

you’re the Boss.Chris: Okay, so 10 for Bill, 8

for me, 6 for Michael?Bill: [nodding sagely] I would

do that…Michael: [Plays cards.]Bill: [never breaking his for-

ward gaze] ..But I can’t.Michael: No, he’s not – I am. I

just needed Andrew to exhaustBill’s Stop cards. And [Playscards] Stephanie Sacks is out, hersister Sylvia is in, and I get a big-ger share.

Anna Maria: Well, as long asyou’re doing that [plays cards]Wadsworth takes a holiday and hisUncle Wendal, takes charge. Bill’sout of the picture. It’s Michael,me, and Chris.

Michael: Now that’s the rightcombination! Okay, I get 12 andAM and Chris get 6 each.

Chris: Finally! Okay every-one? I’m counting down, five,four, three, two –

Andrew: I can’t miss this one,not after blowing all those cards.[Plays card] Goldman is out, hisnephew, Gilbert is in, so I’m in forChris. Same percentages?

Michael: I’m good with that.Anna Maria: Me, too.Andrew: It’s a deal, then.Chris: Holy @$%&ing $#*%!

How did I @$%&ing know it wasgoing to turn out this way?

Anna Maria: You must bepsychic. Either that or you read therules.—Michael Albergo


I’m the BossI’m the Boss


Das MotorsportspielDas Motorsportspielas Motorsportspiel is aunique and fast movinggame about —appropriate-

ly enough — car racing. It playsfast and is relatively easy, though itdoes have very tense situations.

The mechanics are simple. Theplayers roll up to three dice, twowhite and one red, which controltheir car handling. The players usethe die rolls to move their carsthrough straight lanes and turns ofvarying difficulty. Higher numberson the die rolls represent accelera-tion, while lower numbers repre-sent braking, Players are allowedto turn the dice to the opposite fac-ing side (i.e., a 5 can be turned to a2, and vice versa) to get either ahigh result or a low result.

They also position their dice inspecific order, which can affect howthey handle their cars. This comesinto play when cars move intoturns. Turns are rated from 2-4, thelower numbers being more difficultto maneuver through. Players need

to match the turnrating with their dierolls, when maneu-vering through turns,or face the risk ofreceiving drivingerrors or removalfrom the race.

Lastly, the gameis played with atimer, which addstension to the game.A set time limit isused, in which play-ers must roll dice,order the dice anddetermine dice facing and movetheir car. Otherwise, they canreceive white flags which are tim-ing errors.

The game was played by John,Brian, Chris M, Anna Maria andJeremy. We settled on a 20-secondtime limit, though this being ourfirst game we were not sticklers onthe timing, and no player receivedany white flags for taking longer

than 20 seconds. Additionally, inthe rules once players decide onthe order and facing of their dicethey are supposed to place them onthe Move Indicators on the board,which we didn’t do. As this wasour first game, we didn’t make itoverly stressful. The cars startpositions are also supposed to bebased on timed trials from a testlap, which we similarly didn’t do.

Brian had car number 3(White), John had car number 25(also white, which caused someminor problems on the first lap,but more on that later), AnnaMaria had car 9, naturally in red,Chris had car 7(Blue) and Jeremy,car 21 After perusing the rules fora bit we started the race. John hadstarting position.

Everyone rolled their dice andmoved their cars into the first turn,when Brian noticed that we hadsetup the cars incorrectly. As weall were floundering a bit on thedie rolls, we decided to restart therace, with the correct start spacing

D Das MotorsportspielPlayers Score RatingChris M 6 3Anna Maria 3 2John 4 3Brian 10 2Jeremy 1 3



Das MotorsportspielDas MotorsportspielWe then started the race again.

The first two turns were uneventfuland everyone went through themwith no errors. The third turn how-ever, had a turn rating of 2, and aseveryone rolled their dice they wereall positioned neck and neck on theturn. Anna Maria had a minor colli-sion with the back of Chris’ car, andreceived her first yellow flag.Jeremy had some unlucky die rollsand went rushing past the turn,earning himself a major car infrac-tion and a red flag. His car wasmomentarily moved off the roadand he lost his next turn.

Anna Maria then got anotheryellow flag by making a minordriving error by exceeding the cor-ner speed limit. This was convert-ed to a red flag. Brian meanwhilemade a perfect maneuver throughthe turn and was in the lead. Chrisand John were close behind.

Brian held his lead through thenext few turns, with John andChris trailing slightly. Brian wasable to get a substantial leadthrough the first 4-rated turn andwas leading the pack by two turns.

Due to the poor color choicechosen for the cars, and due to thefact that both Brian’s and John’scars were white, Brian mistakenlymoved John’s car instead of hisown. No penalty was issued, how-ever, as he had made the originalturn without receiving any timingerrors. After moving the correctcar, Brian was even further ahead.

The race proceeded withoutincident and players were able tomake their turns without furthererrors as we rounded into the sec-

ond lap,with Brianin the lead,followed byJohn andthen ChrisM. Jeremydecided topull into thepit stopbefore thebeginning oflap 2 toremove hisred flag.Anna Mariazoomed pastthe pit stop, and continued onto lap2. In a race of only two laps itsprobably not necessary to make apit stop, as there aren’t that manydriving errors issued over only twolaps, but Jeremy was able to getthrough the pit stop in two dierolls, and it didn’t cut that muchoff of his time.

The race continued through thevarious turns with Brian in thelead, though the other cars weregetting closer. Midway through thesecond lap, John overshot a turnwith a turn rating of 3 and receiveda yellow flag. Anna Maria whowas close behind was able to pullahead of John momentarily, butJohn was then able to retake thelead ahead of her by one space.

Rounding the final turn, Brianwas able to finish the race in firstplace which he had maintained fornearly the entire race. The otherracers were all close behind, how-ever. On their next die rolls, ChrisM., followed by John, followed by

Anna Maria then zoomed past thefinish line completing the race.Jeremy finished in fifth.

The game is tactical more thanstrategic and probably plays muchbetter with more laps and a stricteradherence to timing rules.Additionally, no one really hadmuch of a problem with complet-ing their moves within the timealloted, though again, the groupwas very relaxed with the timerand dice placement. As such per-haps it might be better to set thetime limit at 15- 18 seconds for amore stressful race.

Some players complained thegame was too easy, in that some ofthe turns are impossible to makeerrors on due to the ability to onlyuse the red die with values from 1-3 going through the turns. Forfuture games, some of the moreadvanced rules regarding car han-dling may need to be installed, orhouse rules may need to bedevised to make the game a bitmore advanced.—John Reiners


Puerto Rico StrategyPuerto Rico Strategyim Campbell’s “The LargeWarehouse of Puerto RicoKnowledge” is the most read

and admired strategy article on theBoardgame Geek website and hasbeen viewed almost 15,000 timesas of October 2005.

The strategic discussion in thisarticle and the ensuing thread hasgenerated a host of opinions fromserious devotees of the game whohave played literally hundreds oftimes against top competition onBrettSpielWelt, a German gamingwebsite that offers online play.

Anyone looking to seriouslyimprove their Puerto Rico game bycarefully studying strategies thathave been extensively testedagainst the best players in theworld should be sure to consultthat article.

As the members of LIBO arecommitted to playing a large vari-ety of games in the group’s collec-tion of over a thousand titles, weseldom have an opportunity to playany game, even the most respected

and beloved, more than a dozentimes.

Nevertheless, four members,Michael Albergo (MA), ChrisPalermo (CP), Joe Dozier (JD) andBill Herbst (BH), recently offeredto be interviewed for this articleand share their strategic insightsinto the world’s most popularEurogame.

INDEPTH: Do you try to getmost of your victory points fromshipping or buildings?

MA: It depends on the gameand my position vis-a-vis myopponents. I try to get most of myVPs from shipping, but it is nearlyimpossible to win without cashingin big on one of the big buildings.

CP: I typically try to get mostof my victory points from ship-ping. I don’t think a game hasoccurred where I didn’t have themost or second most VPs just fromshipping.

I nor-mallystartthinkingaboutbuildingsabouthalfwaythroughthe game(when Iremem-ber, “Ohyeah,they getyou VPs

too!”) and then I scurry to at leastkeep up with everyone else.

JD: You must collect fromboth, or you are dead meat. Sinceeveryone gets some buildingpoints, I think shipping points aremore important.

BH: I tend to play Puerto Ricoas I do poker and I try to allow thetile draw to dictate my actionsmuch like the cards drawn in ahold’em game. I usually buy thehacienda early and that adds a cer-tain amount of chaos that otherstypically do not have to consider.

If I draw a large number ofcorn tiles, I might pursue a ship-ping strategy and try to build awarehouse or wharf, but I usuallyfind myself with a diversity of tilesand I try to buy the factory to gainmoney and buy buildings.

INDEPTH: What’s your favoritecombination of buildings?

MA: I like small market, largemarket, office (I can trade any-thing, anytime, and make money).

CP: I prefer to hold my money,and then secure the buildings later– so, for me, an IDEAL combowould be:

Construction HutOfficeLarge Market (or small market)Large Warehouse (or small

warehouse)HarborWharf (but not essential)University – but only if I can

J


Puerto Rico StrategyPuerto Rico Strategypurchase it in the FIRST half ofthe game (very difficult)

Customs HouseAny production buildings I

need. Since I tend to be shippingmore than selling, the constructionhut is important, so I can securequarries to lower the building cost,as well.

JD: I try to build the hospiceand possibly construction hut forbeginning, large market or wharffrom middle to end. I’ll build theharbor or factory if I can (most ofthe time).

BH: Despite the advice of thebest Puerto Rico players, I love thehacienda. Building the haciendameans that I usually will develop avariety of crops and build the fac-tory and a number of productionbuildings.

I will almost always buy theResidence in combination with thehacienda and the Fortress if I havethe rare opportunity to buy twolarge purple buildings.

INDEPTH: Do you favor hightrading price items like coffeeand tobacco or items that othersaren’t growing?

MA: I prefer items that othersaren’t growing. In such cases, withjust a small market and large mar-ket, I can sell the lower goods atthe trading house — without need-ing an office — and still makemoney. If no one is much into cornor indigo, it’s even better, becauseI can mass produce it, ship large

quantities, and get lots of VPs.Even better, I don’t have to wastemy money building productionbuildings.

CP: It depends on when I havethe option to get into them! Moreoften than not, however, yes, I pre-fer to invest in coffee and tobacco;primarily because, at the time, IAM the only one invested in them!

JD: It depends on what kind ofcrops I am being offered. If I amgetting low end stuff, I try to shipmore. If I am getting high enditems, I sell for cash and buy theVP buildings for end game and tryto push the game along.

BH: If I’m pursuing a factorystrategy, I often try to develop avariety of crops and so I’d pick atype that I don’t currently produce.Otherwise, I try to pick a crop thatothers are not producing.

INDEPTH: What’s the leastvaluable role or building to yourstyle of play?

MA: Hard to say because itchanges from game to game. Iprobably take the Settler least,because I seldom pursue the mass-quarry strategy.

CP: Either the hacienda or thefactory. I don’t play to invest inmultiple different goods; mainlybecause, in that case, the largewarehouse can’t help you, if youdon’t ship everything.

Because of that, I’m not inter-

ested in taking another plantation(sight unseen!) to fill up my island;and I also have little use for thefactory, since, at MOST, I’ll pro-duce three different kinds of goods(and even that tends to be rare).

JD: Hacienda is the least valu-able building. There is no bad rolefor the most part. The desired roledoes change throughout the gamethough.

BH: I have never taken theuniversity, hospice or constructionhut. I tend to have to avoid pickingthe captain later in the game asothers will often have purchasedwharves and have larger shippingcapacities.

INDEPTH: What cheap purplebuilding do you HAVE to build?

MA: You pretty much have tobuild either a small warehouse or alarge warehouse, or you’re goingto have rotten goods left and right.Most people would probably sayyou have to build a constructionhut, but I’m not sure I’d agree. Ofcourse, this may explain why I sel-dom win.

Puerto Rico

Rio Grande Games

Joe Dozier 0.14

Deb Dozier 0.08

CK 0.06

A.M. Palermo 0.03

Chris Palermo 0.02

Bill Herbst 0.01

Brian Stone -0.06

Mike Albergo -0.07

John Reiners -0.10

Jeremy Waite -0.13

Andrew DiGregorio -0.22

Chris Matusiak

Darren Velez

LIBO players’ ranking in Puerto Rico


Puerto Rico StrategyPuerto Rico StrategyCP: By cheap, I’ll consider

any buildings costing 5 or fewer. Ifso, the office — mainly because,as mentioned, I like to invest in thevaluable goods, and, ultimately,it’s rare that I’m the only one!Having the office allows me tocontinue to reap the benefits of thevaluable good, even when some-one else also owns the good! Ofcourse, this rarely happens

JD: I’d probably have to saythe hospice.

BH: I personally almostalways build the hacienda, and Ioften try to buy a small warehouseif I find myself producing a largenumber of the same crop.

INDEPTH: Do you find thatPuerto Rico is more of a tacticalbattle or a strategic battle?

MA: I tend to think it’s moreof a strategic battle. It’s easy to letyour opponents, if they’re sharp,get an advantage over you throughpoor tactical play; however, it’s fareasier to set yourself on a path to amediocre finish but not setting andsticking to a good strategy.

It can be hard to develop andstay with a strategy in a gamewhere your opponents are the ran-domizing factor; but this is what Isee the good players doing.

CP: It’s more tactical thanstrategic, to me — although I cansee how the game could becometoo scripted, the opportunity forsomeone to inadvertently screw up

(or worse yet, inadvertently screwYOU up) requires the gamer bemore tactical. The odds of beingable to perform every task wanted,and purchase every buildingdesired, all with little to no resist-ance, and requiring no re-evalua-tion of strategy, are long, indeed.

JD: It is more strategic. Tacticsalways come into play thoughbecause you are faced with a deci-sion according to your currentresources.

BH: As I’ve said, I play PuertoRico in a very reactive manner andcan seldom develop long termstrategies because of the uncertain-ty of the tile draw and the actionsof my opponents. As such, I findthe game to be tactical but I realizethat it also allows for (and proba-bly more consistently rewards) thepursuit of long term strategies.

INDEPTH: It’s early in thegame and you have an option topick up your first corn or coffeetile. All else being equal, whichone do you take?

MA: I pick up the first corntile, because it doesn’t require meto build any production buildingsand I can ship it instantly for VPs.Moreover, if I eventually buildsmall and large markets, I willmake money on it anyway. Largeamounts of cheap goods — partic-ularly if there are few competitors,should beat expensive goods inmost cases, I think.

CP: This can’t be answeredthat easily. There are many factors:

Do I already have Corn? Do Ihave the most corn? If so, then Itake coffee.

Does someone else have themost corn? Then I’ll probably takethe corn (assuming I’ve invested incorn already).

Will the person(s) choosingafter me benefit substantially fromeither of these choices? I’ll alwaysplay defensively in that case.

Does anyone ELSE have cof-fee yet?

If I don’t have ANY corn,though, I’ll opt for the coffee,more often than not.

JD: If I have little or no dou-bloons, then it would be corn. If Ihave enough, or close to enoughdoubloons, than I would take thecoffee.

BH: I would always take thecorn in this instance. I think thereason the players whose turns arelast are given corn as their startingtile is because the designer realizedhow much more powerful corn isthan the other crops in the earlystages of the game when it can beproduced without a productionbuilding and shipped off in theearly captain phases while eachplayer hasn’t had the time todevelop the capacity to fill individ-ual ships.

As I seldom pursue a shippingstrategy, I like to get a few earlyshipping points from cheap cropsjust to keep the VP gap narrow.

Die Magier von PangeaDie Magier von Pangeahis is a game of literallyshifting fortunes, as playersattempt to not only move

their minions, but also the landitself in pursuit of mystical amuletsand the goods with which to pur-chase them.

The key to success is the suc-cessful planning of a movementstrategy that will maximize theone-space movement allowed toeach minion while skillfully mov-ing the tectonic plates of Pangea tobring elements closer or movethem away from opponents.

In a recent game, John and,particularly, Chris M., leapt out toearly leads as they made the mostof the game’s mechanics. Chris M.realized that a purchase of severalamulets made on the same turnwould benefit from the drasticallylowered price, as they would allcost the amount in the player’sstore (which begins at 0). Thus, forthe cost of 1 good apiece (there areno free amulets, and thus each isgiven an initial token price of 1),Chris was able to secure no fewerthan 3 amulets on the FIRSTTURN while the others worked tosnag one at a time.

Such a move targeted Chris M.for some serious leader-bashing, asthe other three players pinned,exiled and generally made life mis-erable for his minions. John bene-fited somewhat from the focus onChris, picking up amulets of hisown.

In so doing, however, hebrought retributive attention uponhimself, and suffered greatly fromsimilar treatment at the hands of

the others (particu-larly Jeremy andDarren).

The middle-game consisted ofturn after turn ofChris and John get-ting minions back totheir respective cas-tles, thus increasingtheir magical poten-cy and abilities tosummon more min-ions, move moreland tiles and so forth. Darren’stypical miscalculations and half-attention resulted in a series ofamulet “acquisitions” for tokens healready owned (which is no acqui-sition at all), no mean feat givenhis paltry amulet total of 2.

Jeremy quietly amassed a dou-ble-digit supply of goods ANDthree amulets to contend for thelead, and as the endgameapproached, he grabbed a fourthamulet topotentiallyapproachvictory.The criti-cal chal-lenge wasgetting hisfourthamuletback to hiscastle withland tilesspread inwhat was— for him— anunfortu-

nate pattern. The game drew to aclose with Jeremy holding the win-ning combination (4 amulets and16 goods), but unable to deliverthe final amulet. John finishedwith a good supply of amulets, buta highly-depleted goods supply,not having harvested as vigorouslyas the others. In the end, it was thewire-to-wire leader, Chris M., whoeked out the victory with 3 amuletsand 22 goods.

—Darren Velez


T Die Magier von PangeaPlayers Score RatingChris M. 28 4John 8 4Darren 21 4Jeremy 22 4


Web of PowerWeb of Powereb of Power is an areainfluence game set inearly Renaissance

Europe in which 3-5 players placecloisters and counselors in severalkingdoms in the hope of extend-ing the greatest network of politi-cal influence.

It is a very deep game fromboth a tactical and strategic per-spective that fortunately relies onfairly simple mechanics and pro-vides an abundance of tense deci-sions in less than an hour of play-ing time.

Each player begins with ahand of three cards that allow theplayer to place cloisters or coun-selors in one of the nine king-doms. Four of the five card typesallow one to choose between twolocations that share the same colorwhile one card type allows theplayer only to play in the largecentral kingdom of Frankreich.

One can play one, two or threecards on a turn and then refill hishand to the original three cardseither by choosing form two faceup cards or by drawing blindlyfrom the card pile.

Each card played allows forthe placement of an individualcloister or advisor in a particularkingdom.

One can use two matchingcards of any type as a wild card tomake a single placement in akingdom of choice.

The rules for the placement ofthe pieces, however, make thegameplay tense. Players may onlyplace one or two pieces per turnand all pieces must be placed in

the same kingdom. Only onecloister may be placed in a king-dom on the first move into thatregion and counselors may onlybe placed up to the number of thecloisters held by the player withthe plurality of cloisters in thatregion.

The ultimate goal of the racefor placement is to put oneself inan advantageous position by thetime of the scoring rounds thatoccur when the draw deck hasbeen depleted by the playersrefreshing their cards at the end oftheir turns.

After the first round only thecloisters are scored. The holder ofthe plurality of cloisters in aregion receives a point for eachcloister in the region, regardlessof color.

The second place playerreceives points for each of thefirst place player’s cloisters andthe third place player receivespoints for the cloisters of the sec-ond place player (and so on).

At the end of the game, clois-ters are scored again in the samemanner, but also, points areawarded for chains of cloistersthat are at least four units in con-tinuous length and the alliancesbetween the kingdoms are scoredon the basis of the counselors thathave been placed in the adjacentregions.

The alliance scoring allowsplayers who have a plurality ofcounselors in a set of two linkedkingdoms on the mapboard toreceive a number of points equalto the total amount of counselors

in the two kingdoms regardless ofcolor. There is no second placescoring in these instances.

It is here that dramatic shiftscan occur as players vying for aplurality in a region can unwit-tingly assist their opponents byincreasing the number of coun-selors in region without gainingcontrol and thus boost their oppo-nent’s score.

Each turn forces the players toconsider the board and their handvery carefully with an eye towardseizing tactical opportunities totake control of a region, extend achain of cloisters, block oppo-nents or horn in on their points.

These opportunities must beweighed against strategic con-cerns involving longer term goalsoften related to the play of thecounselors in the endgame.

As the number of counselorsallowed in a region is a directcorollary of the number of clois-ters held by the player with theplurality, these numbers must bekept in mind when making deci-sions about the placement of thecloisters many turns ahead of theactual placement of the counselorsin question.

Hand management is also dif-ficult in this game as the rules forplacement reward the possessionof matching kingdom cards byoffering the opportunity to playtwo units but it’s often moreimportant to place a unit in a par-ticular region for tactical purposesat a specific time in the game.

These concerns must be bal-anced with the need to keep cards

W


Web of PowerWeb of Powerthat offer profitable placements onfuture turns when paired with thecards that may be drawn at theend of the turn.

Despite its analytical nature,the game plays quickly and neverseems to bog down into an overlycalculative exercise. On the con-trary, the tension involved in mak-ing decisions and managing one’shand makes the game’s alreadybrisk playing time of 45 minutesto an hour seem even shorter.

Web of Power is an excellentarea influence game that lives upto its reputation as a classic.

The first half of the recentgame between Chris, Michael andBill, saw all three playersattempting to extend their net-works of influence through clois-ters exclusively.

Michael concentrated on thelarge kingdom of Frankreich, inwhich he eventually secured aplurality, and in Aragon. Bill heldcontrol of Bayern and Italien andChris had pluralities in Frankenand Lothringen on the Easternhalf of the board.

By the end of the first deck ofcards Michael and Chris hadtaken a one point lead over Billbut Chris and Bill had each devel-oped continuous networks ofcloisters that would count forpoints at the game’s end.

Michael began expanding hisholdings in Aragon and managedto secure a network of four clois-ters of his own while Bill wasextending one of his cloister net-works deeper into Italy.

Chris wisely began to move

into the placementof counselors earli-er than his oppo-nents and haddeveloped a com-fortable buffer ofpieces in severallinked Easternkingdoms beforeBill and Michaelreally had begun toconsider counselorplacement.

However, thismove – where he guaranteed him-self the plurality in severalregions – backfired, as no oneelse joined into his regions(depriving him of points, later).

Bill then began to place coun-selors in the Western part of theboard a few turns earlier thanMichael.

Michael eventually placed sin-gle units that threatened to chal-lenge Bill’s counselors inFrankreich and Chris’ in Italienbut never gained a plurality ineither kingdom as Bill ended thegame before he was able to playthe crucial cards.

In fact, both he and Bill didn’trealize that Michael could nothave seized control of the all-important central kingdom ofFrankreich even if the game hadextended because the player withthe plurality of cloisters in thekingdom only held four and Billalready had two counselors in thekingdom.

Bill was thus awarded an extrapoint for Michael’s counselor inthree separate alliances while

Chris only enjoyed the benefit ofan extra counselor in one of hisalliances. Bill also had an advan-tage in that he was the only playerat the end of the game who hadtwo continuous chains of cloistersthat scored points for him.

Chris’ network of alliances inthe Eastern half of the board wasimpressive, however, and earnedhim a bounty of points as he wasthe only player to put all of hiscounselors into play by thegame’s end.

Ultimately, Bill won the gameby one point over Chris by a scoreof 71 to 70 with Michael in thirdplace with 50.—Bill Herbst


Web of PowerPlayers Score RatingMichael 50 4Bill 71 5Chris 70 4


Next Month inINDEPTH:

Eurogames /Descartes Games

SaboteurSaboteuraboteur, the latest offeringfrom Frederic Moyersoen andZ-Man games, is quite sim-

ply, a great example of a simplegame done right.

Saboteur is very playable withas few as 3 players, but the gamereally shines with 6 or more (thegame can easily accommodate up to10). Interplay between players,bluffing, and acts of treachery existquite readily in the game, and it isin these mechanics where Saboteurreally shines.

In Saboteur, players take on therole of dwarven miners, hunting forburied gold in a twisting under-ground labyrinth. At least, MOSTof the players are hunting for buriedgold. Some players take on the roleof dwarven traitors, trying to secret-ly sabotage the digging expeditionslaid forth by the other players andsteal the gold for themselves.

Saboteur is strictly a card game.The game is easy to pick up, andthe rules are clear and straightfor-ward. Someone who has read thetwo-page rulebook, can quicklyexplain this game to a group offriends in fewer than five minutes,making it readily accessible to bothyoung teens as well as a fun gamefor adults.

At the start of the game, thedealer hands out Role cards to eachplayer, face down. These cards willindicate if the player is either anhonest dwarf, trying to dig a tunnelto reach the gold, or a traitor, benton hampering the progress of theothers to keep the gold for himself.Based on the number of players,there are a variable number of trai-

tors, so players arenever sure howmany traitors are ina particular round,or, in a smallergame, if there iseven a traitor amongthem at all!

To complete thegame setup, anEntrance card isplaced on the leftside of the playingarea. This carddepicts the start of atunnel entrance.Then three Exit cards are shuffledand played face down, at a distanceof seven card-lengths away fromthe Entrance card. These hiddencards depict the three possible exitsin the game. Two of these exits areactually dead ends, but one of themholds the true exit out, as well asthe hidden stash of buried gold! It isup to the “good” dwarves to worktogether and build a complete tun-nel to the gold, and it is the job ofthe saboteurs to foil that endeavorin any way possible.

Players are then dealt six cardseach. Cards are of two types: Cavecards and Action cards. Cave cardsenable a player, on their turn, tocontinue the mazelike tunnels byplacing the card next to an already-played cave card in the playingarea, thereby continuing the under-ground tunnel. Some cards havetwists and turns, and some havedead-ends. By playing Cave cards,players slowly create a maze-likelabyrinth stretching out across theplaying area.

Instead of playing a Cave cardon their turn, players may opt toplay an Action card, which can doany number of things. Most actioncards show a picture of a lantern,mining cart or pickaxe. SomeAction cards show these items to bebroken, others show them as intact.Players can play these cards onthemselves, or each other.

If one player gives another abroken item, then that player maynot continue adding Cave cards tothe tunnel until he, or someone else,plays an intact item of the sametype upon him. For instance, ifPlayer A places a broken pick axein front of Player B, then Player Bcannot play Cave cards until some-one plays an intact pickaxe card infront of him. Other Action cards letplayers remove an existing piece oftunnel, thereby removing a road-block or stopping a tunnel frombeing finished, or letting a playerpeek under the hidden exit card oftheir choice, giving them a crucialpiece of information.

S


SaboteurPlayers Score RatingAndrew 4 4Chris M 3 4Anna Maria 0 5John 10 4Darren 3 4


SaboteurSaboteurPlay continues in this manner

until the players successfully createan intact tunnel leading to the gold,or the playing deck runs out, withno players able to play any morecards, and no tunnel to the gold cre-ated. At this point, all players revealwho they were. If the gold was suc-cessfully reached, all good playersshare in grabbing some gold cards.These cards show one, two, or threegold nuggets on them. The playerwho finished the tunnel gets thefirst pick from the cards, with allplayers except saboteurs gettingsome gold as well. If the Saboteurswin, however, only the traitorsshare in the spoils.

This ends a playing round, anda new round begins. Players arereassigned roles each round, so aSaboteur in round 1 may be a gooddwarf in round 2. Play continues forthree rounds, at which time whoev-er has the most gold nuggets, wins.

Darren, John, Chris M., AnnaMaria, and Andrew all playedSaboteur. In Round 1, both Andrewand John were the initial saboteurs.John revealed himself to the groupto be evil very quickly, playingnumerous dead end cards and open-ly thwarting the progress of thegood dwarves. The group quicklypicked up on John’s treachery andbegan to continually incapacitatehim. Chris M., in particular, contin-ued to break John’s pickaxe, hand-cuffing John for much of the laterpart of the round. Andrew tried toplay his treachery under the radar,playing helpful cards, but neverplaying them in a way that was ashelpful as he could. Moreso, he

openly questioned any action takenby another player, citing them asthe traitor, as often as he could, inan effort to throw suspicion offhimself. This strategy paid off nice-ly, as he was able to cast suspicionon some of Anna Maria’s moves,and was ultimately able to end theround with the gold undiscovered,giving both Andrew and John theround, and 3 gold each.

In Round 2, John was again asaboteur, along with Chris M. AnnaMaria made a very early question-able move to the group, placing adead end to a tunnel the group wastrying to lengthen. This made her aquick suspect for saboteur. Andrewquickly played a broken pickaxe onher, trying to stop her scheme. Thisplan worked, in that Anna Mariawas not able to repair her pickaxefor most of the round. As the roundwound down, Andrew began to sus-pect other players as the traitors,and fixed Anna Maria’s pickaxe forher. In theend, it wastoo little toolate, as Johnand Chris M.sailed to vic-tory, withanother tun-nel leftunfinished atthe end ofthe round.

Round 3was equallybizarre. Earlyin the round,Anna Mariabroke Chris

M.’s lantern, after he made a ques-tionable move. Chris M. retaliatedby breaking Anna Maria’s miningcart. The round continued, as eachof them continually hampered themovements of the other. In the end,it was revealed that BOTH AnnaMaria and Chris M. were the sabo-teurs, and had basically sabotagedeach other. The good guys werefinally able to win a round. Johnwon the game with 10 gold andAndrew came in second with 4.

Saboteur is a great game. It islight enough for casual gamers, butfun for even the most hardcore. Thesocial dynamic is where the gametruly shines, as devious players tryto sabotage the others, while castingsuspicion upon each other. A typicalgame with a large group will sel-dom take more than 45 minutes,adding even more to its “accessibil-ity” factor. This is one light gamethat should not be overlooked.

—Andrew DiGregorio


IndustriaIndustriaany classic boardgames,from Monopoly toAcquire, put the players

in the roles of capitalists developingtheir financial empires by manipu-lating the game’s unique economicsystem. Michael Schacht’s recentIndustria offers players an opportu-nity to compete with their oppo-nents to gain victory points throughthe development of factories andtechnologies throughout a five-epoch time period that stretchesfrom the pre-industrial age to animagined time in the technological-ly advanced near future.

The game can be played with 3or 4 players and will always consistof 15 auction phases. These auctionphases, which occur at the begin-ning of each round, are the heart ofthe game. A number of tiles fromthe current epoch are drawn and theplayers then bid on them beginningwith the player to the left of theauctioneer, who is the starting play-er of the round.

The auctions proceed oncearound the table with each personbidding until it arrives at the auc-tioneer who has the final choice totake the tile for free and pass theauctioneering duties onto the nextplayer in the sequence or to sell thetile to the highest bidder.

The choice of which tile to auc-tion is a major consideration for theauctioneer as money is very tight inthis game and is most easily gainedby accepting the bids of others forcertain important tiles. It wouldobviously be ideal for the auction-eer to select the least useful itemsfrom his perspective and put themup for auction first because hecould then collect money from theother players’ bids and choose totake the last item for himself.

The strategy ismade more compli-cated by the fact thatthe rules state theauctioneer must takean item that receivesno bids from theother players andpass his auctioneer-ing duties to thenext player.Obviously, onlyselecting the mostuseful items canensure that the auc-tioneer will receivebids on his item and be able to col-lect income but this poses the prob-lem of whether he should refuse theincome and take the item for him-self. One’s decision in this situationwill depend upon a variety of fac-tors and the weighing of such con-siderations yields a large part of thegame’s tactical depth.

After the auction phase, allplayers are allowed to construct anytiles they have purchased in the cur-rent or previous rounds. Each play-er may build up to three tiles pro-vided that he only builds one ofeach type on a given game turn.

The first type of tiles are facto-ries, whichgenerally costmoney andresources, andoften yieldvictory pointsand/or provideotherresources forlater turns inthe game.Anotherimportant setof tiles are thetechnologies,

which only cost resources to pro-duce and generally yield relativelylarge victory point bonuses, but areoften risky to build as all the neces-sary resources might not be avail-able for purchase in the currentepoch (if the other players winthem and the factories that producethem in the auctions) and they areworthless if not played in their cur-rent epoch.

The third type of tile is thebonus tile which yields victorypoints at the end of the game forevery factory a player owns with amatching symbol; these each have acost of one. Each epoch also offers

M


IndustriaPlayers Score RatingBill 39 4Chris 26 3Brian 29 4Jeremy 55 5


IndustriaIndustriaseveral resource tiles for biddingwhich can be used in the construc-tion of factories or technologiesduring the building phase, althoughthe resource tiles themselves are notbuilt.

At the end of the game, one’sscore is calculated from the numberof victory points gained from theconstruction of factories and tech-nologies, along with any bonuspoints gained from factories thatmatch the bonus symbols that aplayer has built and for any streetsthat connect related factories andtechnologies on the gameboard.Players always need to keep a closeeye towards possible bonus tile andconnection opportunities throughoutthe game in order to further theirown progress toward victory andblock the paths of their rivals.

The components for the gameare very typical of a Eurogame ofthis type. It has painted woodendisks for money, thick cardboardtiles for the auctioned goods and anicely illustrated game board. Thegame is currently only available inGerman, although its gameplay iscompletely language independentdespite the text on the tiles andboards. Rio Grande is currentlyscheduled to release an English ver-sion in December 2005 and Englishpaste-up stickers are available onBoardgame Geek.

Although its theme might besomewhat clichéd and is not verywell integrated into the gameplay,Industria offers an interesting intel-lectual challenge for those whoenjoy auction games with uniquebidding systems.

Brian, Chris, Bill and Jeremyplayed a recent game. Bill beganthe game by trying to use the auc-tioneer role to gain money for him-self as the rules emphasized that

money would be tightand he wanted to givehimself some room topurchase and buildtiles as the gamedeveloped.

Chris, Brian andBill concentratedtheir efforts in theearly epochs on thedevelopment of facto-ries which potentiallyyield victory pointsand offer playersaccess to resourcesfor later turns in thegame. Jeremy took adifferent path anddeveloped a largenumber of technologies, whichoffer high victory point bonuses butproduce nothing for future turnsand require the acquisition of tech-nologies to be played.

Throughout the game Jeremywas willing to spend significantsums of money in the auctions toensure that he acquired the appro-priate technologies. The wisdom ofhis strategy became apparent as hehad earned approximately doublethe victory point totals of his near-est competitor by the end of thethird epoch.

Brian managed to acquire boththe Stock Market and the Bank buttheir usefulness was limited as itwas difficult to acquire the neces-sary resources and money to playthem to the board early enough inorder to benefit from their costreduction bonus for future purchas-es.

Chris was able to secure a net-work of three factories in a chain inthe center of the board whichthreatened to offer him a large num-ber of points for factory connec-tions in the end game if he were

allowed to build another nearby.Chris was hurt ultimately byunlucky tile draws in which thenecessary factories and resourcesfor his technologies only becameavailable in the final auction roundof an epoch and thus foiled hisattempts at several high scoringplays.

In the middle of the game, Billattempted to diversify from hisearly focus on factories but his oneexploration into technology wasfruitless as he was unwilling to bidhis very limited monetary supplyfor the necessary resource beforethe tile’s usefulness expired at theend of the epoch.

Ultimately, Jeremy won thegame with a commanding victorywith 55 points mostly earnedthrough his play of technology tilesalong with 12 points of connectionsin the technology portion of theboard. Bill managed to grab a dis-tant second with 39 points, mostlyby maximizing the scoring of hisbonus tiles for factories in laterrounds. Brian finished with 29 andChris with 26 points.—Bill Herbst


Other GamesOther Games


2. Tanz der HornochsenPlayers Score RatingAndrew 23 3Bill 33 3Anna Maria 62 4Chris 36 4Brian 58 4


3. HivePlayers Score RatingBill 6 4Brian 3 4


1. Blue MoonPlayers Score RatingAndrew (2 g) 0 4Bill (2 g) 4 5Brian (1 win) 4 3Darren (1 win) 4 3


1.

2.

6.

4.

Other GamesOther Games


7. Lightning D-DayPlayers Score RatingChris M. 0 4Chris 5 3Bill 5 2John 0 3


4. BabelPlayers Score RatingAnna Maria 10Darren 9Andrew 9Chris M 16


6. Battle LinePlayers Score RatingJohn 0 5Brian 6 5Anna Maria 6 5Chris 0 5


5. PitchcarPlayers Score RatingBill 20 3Chris M 25 4Chris 21 4John 18 5Darren 15 4

Overall Rating: 4.0Our time: 15m (4 games)Rules explanation time: 3m

7.

5.


DiamantDiamantiamant is at its heart a risktaking game. Each playeris part of an expedition

that will be exploring five cavesfor treasure. Each player gets atoken representing his adventurer.Exploration takes place by placing

a card at the begin-ning of a cave. Thecard will either be atreasure consistingof varying amountsof rubies, or a dan-ger card.

After eachcard is placed,a vote takesplace. Eachplayer voteson whetherthey are head-ing back tocamp or con-tinuing deeper into the cave.Players vote by putting aclosed hand in the center ofthe table. You vote to leavethe cave by having youradventurer token in yourhand. If you want to continuedeeper into the cave, yourhand remains empty.

The player or players that

vote to leave, get the treasure onthe current card. If more than oneplayer is fleeing the cave, thetreasure is split evenly amongthose leaving, with the extraremaining on the card, which canbe picked up be players fleeingfrom deeper points in the cave. Iftwo of the same kind of dangercards appear in the cave, everyoneflees the cave, taking no treasure.

The risk is in pushing forrewards, but the deeper players gointo the cave, the chances of thematching danger card appearingincreases.

The players in a recent gamewere Anna Maria, Darren, John,Andrew and Chris M. In the firstcave, the trip started out with 2rubies, and no one felt it wasworth leaving the cave at this time.The next card was a snake. Again,no one left. The third card was alsoa snake, and so everyone ran fromthe cave.

The party of hardy adventurersheaded into the second cave afterbeing surprised at a couple of early

D DiamantPlayers Score RatingAndrew 14 3Chris M 28 3Anna Maria 12 4John 42 4Darren 24 4


snakes in the first cave. The cardscame out; snake, cave-in, scorpion,(where’s the money?), and thencave-in, and everyone fled thecave empty-handed again.

The third cave started out witha four ruby card. Chris M. electedto take the money and run afterseeing how the danger was high inthe first two caves. This cave,however, saw a decent amount ofmoney.

The next card was 1 ruby, andthe next one 14 rubies. AnnaMaria, Andrew, and John fled thecave at that point with 5 rubieseach. Darren stayed in the cave byhimself, and the next card was a15 ruby card he took.

In the fourth cave, Anna Mariaand Chris M. ran out early, eachgrabbing seven rubies. Andrew andDarren followed next with ninerubies each, and John risked a few

morecards andleft thecave witha whop-ping 23rubies.

Thefinal cavestartedout with a17 rubycard, andChris M.took itand ran.A snakefollowednext, then a 14 ruby card, and thenan explosion. That was enoughdanger for John, so he ran from thecave grabbing the 14 rubies on theway out. Anna Maria, Darren andAndrew continued on to encounter

a gas leak, and then the secondsnake. This forced them all to fleethe cave empty handed.

The final scores were John 42,Chris M 28, Darren 24, Andrew14, and Anna Maria 12.

—Chris Matusiak

DiamantDiamant


Here are the top players in six short 2-player games played by LIBO.

Babel Battle Line Lost Cities

Rio Grande Games GMT Games Rio Grande Games

Mike Albergo 0.15 Bill Herbst 0.21 Jeremy Waite 0.12

Chris Matusiak 0.14 Brian Stone 0.21 Andrew DiGregorio 0.10

Chris Palermo 0.11 A.M. Palermo 0.08 Mike Albergo 0.06

A.M. Palermo 0.06 Andrew DiGregorio 0.06 Brian Stone 0.05

Brian Stone 0.05 Mike Albergo 0.04 Chris Palermo 0.03

CK 0.00 Chris Palermo 0.03 John Reiners 0.00

Darren Velez -0.03 Joe Dozier -0.23 Joe Dozier 0.00

John Reiners -0.03 Jeremy Waite -0.33 CK -0.04

Jeremy Waite -0.13 John Reiners -0.50 A.M. Palermo -0.35

Andrew DiGregorio -0.14 Chris Matusiak Bill Herbst

Joe Dozier -0.15 CK Chris Matusiak

Deb Dozier -0.18 Darren Velez Darren Velez

Bill Herbst Deb Dozier Deb Dozier

Balloon Cup Blue Moon Lightning: D-Day

Rio Grande Games Fantasy Flight Games Decision Games

Deb Dozier 0.30 Bill Herbst 0.50 Bill Herbst 0.50

Chris Palermo 0.12 Brian Stone 0.00 Chris Palermo 0.40

Bill Herbst 0.10 Darren Velez 0.00 Darren Velez -0.30

Joe Dozier -0.02 Andrew DiGregorio -0.50 Chris Matusiak -0.50

Andrew DiGregorio -0.03 A.M. Palermo John Reiners -0.50

A.M. Palermo -0.10 Chris Matusiak A.M. Palermo

Mike Albergo -0.10 Chris Palermo Andrew DiGregorio

John Reiners -0.25 CK Brian Stone

Brian Stone Deb Dozier CK

Chris Matusiak Jeremy Waite Deb Dozier

CK Joe Dozier Jeremy Waite

Darren Velez John Reiners Joe Dozier

Jeremy Waite Mike Albergo Mike Albergo


LIBOLIBO Football LeagueFootball Leaguet the halfway point of theinagural LIBO Strat-O-Matic Football League,

Chris Matusiak’s Dallas Cowboysare the talk of the league. A steadyoffense and sterling defense, withimmovable offensive and defensivelines, are the key elements to his sur-prising lead.

A W L T Pct PF PA Diff

Dallas 4 1 0.800 167 113 54

Denver 3 2 0.600 148 136 12

Buffalo 3 2 0.600 113 131 -18

Kansas City 1 2 0.333 82 71 11

St. Louis 4 0.000 77 136 -59

Last First Team PTS Last First Team PTS

1 Bledsoe Drew Buffalo 95 1 Bledsoe Drew Buffalo 95

2 Aikman Troy Dallas 90 2 Aikman Troy Dallas 90

3 Portis Clinton Denver 84 3 Elway John Denver 68

4 Lofton James Buffalo 81 4 Griese Brian Denver 43

5 Elway John Denver 68 5 DeBerg Steve Kansas City 41

6 Gonzalez Tony Kansas City 62

7 Smith Emmitt Dallas 61

8 Warner Kurt St Louis 54

9 Irvin Michael Dallas 52

0 Smith Rod Denver 50

1 Griese Brian Denver 43

2 DeBerg Steve Kansas City 41

3 Holmes Priest Kansas City 37

4 Faulk Marshall St Louis 36

5 Hughes Tyrone Dallas 36

Last First Team PTS Last First Team PTS

1 Portis Clinton Denver 84 1 Lofton James Buffalo 81

2 Smith Emmitt Dallas 61 2 Gonzalez Tony Kansas City 62

3 Holmes Priest Kansas City 37 3 Irvin Michael Dallas 52

4 Faulk Marshall St Louis 36 4 Smith Rod Denver 50

5 Thomas Thurman Buffalo 34 5 Galloway Joey Dallas 29

6 Griffith Howard Denver 14 6 Novacek Jay Dallas 28

7 Anderson Mike Denver 13 7 Bruce Isaac St Louis 22

8 Henry Travis Buffalo 12 8 Sharpe Shannon Denver 21

9 Canidate Trung St Louis 11 9 Reed Andre Buffalo 19

0 Warren Chris Dallas 11 10 McCaffrey Ed Denver 16

Awards Tracker

MVP TOP QUARTERBACK

TOP RUNNING BACK TOP RECEIVER


LIBO RatingsLIBO Ratings

GAME NAME AVERAGE PUBLISHER # OF PLAYS

Battle Cry 5.0 Avalon Hill / Hasbro 1

Battle Line 5.0 GMT Games 3

Hannibal 5.0 Avalon Hill 1

Memoir '44 5.0 Days of Wonder 1

Puerto Rico 5.0 Rio Grande Games 3

Tigris & Euphrates 5.0 Mayfair Games 2

We the People 5.0 Avalon Hill 1

Settlers of Catan 4.9 Mayfair Games 2

Advanced Civilization 4.8 Avalon Hill 1

Age of Steam 4.8 Warfrog 2

El Grande 4.8 Rio Grande Games 1

Hammer of the Scots 4.8 Columbia Games 2

Iliad 4.8 GDW (Game Designers Workshop) 2

Oltremare 4.8 Mind the Move 1

The Year’s Top Rated Games

Top Rated Games Top Rated Games (2+ Plays)

Worst Rated Games

Games Joe Plays Best(2+ Plays)

Games Joe Plays Worst

The Year’s Worst Rated Games

GAME NAME PUBLISHER RATING # PLAYS

Advanced Civilization Avalon Hill 5.0 1

Carcassonne Rio Grande Games 5.0 5

Carcassonne: Hunters and Gatherers Rio Grande Games 5.0 1

Carcassonne: The Castle Rio Grande Games 5.0 1

Clans Rio Grande Games 5.0 1

Corsairs Rio Grande Games 5.0 1

Lost Cities Rio Grande Games 5.0 1

Medici Rio Grande Games 5.0 6

Puerto Rico Rio Grande Games 5.0 4

Settlers of Catan Mayfair Games 5.0 2

Settlers of the Stone Age Mayfair Games 5.0 1

San Juan Rio Grande Games 4.7 3

Atlantic Storm Avalon Hill 4.5 2

Attila Rio Grande Games 4.5 2

Domaine Mayfair Games 4.5 2

Royal Turf Alea 4.5 2

Shark Flying Turtle Games 4.5 2

Union Pacific Rio Grande Games 4.5 2

Win, Place and Show Avalon Hill 4.5 2

Traders of Genoa Rio Grande Games 4.3 3


Carcassonne Rio Grande Games 5.0 5



Settlers of Catan Mayfair Games 5.0 2



Cosmic Encounter Mayfair Games 1.0 1

Hoity Toity Uberplay 1.0 1

Lord of the Rings Hasbro 1.0 1

Monsters Ravage America Avalon Hill 1.0 1

Age of Mythology Eagle Games 2.0 1

Knights of the Rainbow FX Schmid 2.0 1

Tony & Tino EuroGames / Descartes 2.0 1

Trias Rio Grande Games 2.0 1

GAME NAME PUBLISHER SCORE # PLAYS

Pirates Cove Days of Wonder 0.39 2

Traders of Genoa Rio Grande Games 0.29 3


Union Pacific Rio Grande Games 0.18 2

Transamerica Rio Grande Games 0.15 5



Royal Turf Alea 0.08 2

Goa Rio Grande Games 0.04 2

GAME NAME PUBLISHER SCORE # PLAYS

Age of Mythology Eagle Games -1.00 1

Win, Place and Show Avalon Hill -0.67 2

Slapshot Avalon Hill -0.64 1

Monsters Ravage America Avalon Hill -0.60 1

Canyon Rio Grande Games -0.57 1

Condottiere EuroGames / Descartes -0.55 1

Kremlin Avalon Hill -0.43 1

Facts in Five Avalon Hill -0.37 1

Air Baron Avalon Hill -0.37 3

Settlers of Catan Mayfair Games -0.29 2

Acquire Avalon Hill -0.28 1

Marracash Kosmos -0.27 1

Domaine Mayfair Games -0.23 2

Battle Line GMT Games -0.23 2

Coloretto Rio Grande Games -0.23 1

Member of the Month’s Ratings and Stats

To see more of Joe’s statistics (and all of LIBO’s), just turn the page.

LIBOLIBO StatisticsStatistics


Ran

k

Ran

k

Ran

k

Ran

k

Ran

k

Ho

urs

Ran

k

Ho

urs

Ran

k

Ran

k

Ran

k

Ran

k

Ran

k

Ran

k

Ran

k

Mike Albergo 74% 7 74% 7 71% 6 170 1 193 1 90h-34m 6 102h-59m 6 3.97 11 12 6 32 7 37.5% 1 4.25 2 100.0% 1

Andrew DiGregorio 96% 3 96% 3 89% 2 98 6 117 6 96h-35m 3 115h-14m 3 4.15 7 15 4 58 3 25.9% 11 3.42 13 93.2% 8

Deb Dozier 43% 11 43% 10 36% 10 58 13 73 13 26h-57m 11 34h-7m 11 4.61 1 8 9 27 9 29.6% 8 4.11 5 96.3% 4

Joe Dozier 57% 10 57% 9 46% 9 110 3 126 4 45h-46m 9 52h-40m 9 4.40 2 9 8 25 10 36.0% 3 3.75 10 87.5% 12

Bill Herbst 96% 2 96% 2 93% 1 106 4 125 5106h-22m 1 125h-12m 1 4.15 8 22 1 60 2 36.7% 2 3.77 9 93.3% 7

CK 26% 13 26% 12 21% 12 90 9 116 7 22h-30m 12 28h-58m 12 4.40 2 5 12 15 13 33.3% 6 4.14 4 78.6% 13

Chris Matusiak 60% 9 26% 12 21% 12 62 12 82 12 16h-26m 13 21h-55m 13 3.81 13 5 12 16 12 31.3% 7 3.50 12 93.8% 6

A.M. Palermo 83% 5 83% 5 71% 6 75 11 91 11 63h-20m 7 77h-18m 7 4.33 4 18 2 51 5 35.3% 5 4.11 5 88.9% 11

Chris Palermo 100% 1 100% 1 89% 2 91 8 109 9 99h-55m 2 119h-28m 2 3.97 10 18 2 66 1 27.3% 10 3.75 11 91.0% 10

John Reiners 92% 4 92% 4 79% 4 95 7 116 8 92h-15m 4 112h-0m 4 4.19 6 12 6 58 3 20.7% 12 4.04 7 100.0% 1

Brian Stone 81% 6 81% 6 75% 5 137 2 164 2 91h-9m 5 109h-2m 5 4.23 5 14 5 39 6 35.9% 4 4.18 3 92.3% 9

Darren Velez 74% 8 61% 8 50% 8 103 5 129 3 56h-32m 8 70h-51m 8 3.94 12 6 10 32 7 18.8% 13 3.91 8 93.9% 5

Jeremy Waite 42% 12 42% 11 36% 10 81 10 97 10 29h-34m 10 35h-35m 10 4.00 9 6 10 21 11 28.6% 9 4.28 1 100.0% 1

PlayAtten.

Atten.

Mins Minsfor

Average RepeatAvg

Percentage

Total Avg. Avg

GameDays Plaque (Game) (Rules) "Yes" Pct

Players Total Total Game

Per Game Wins Games Rating

Winning

Total

Atten.

(All events)

Total Game

Time

With Rules

Total Game

Time

Ran

k

Ran

k

Ran

k

Ran

k

Ran

k

Ran

k

Ran

k

Ran

k

Ran

k

Ran

k

Ran

k

Ran

k

Mike Albergo 29.4% 4 2.60 4 8.1% 4 ### 5.1 2 #### 0.00 3 #### 0.23 7 #### 1.11 7 ####

Andrew DiGregorio 28.0% 6 -1.50 10 -2.5% 6 ### 4.0 8 #### -0.01 5 #### 0.34 1 #### 1.76 2 ####

Deb Dozier 23.2% 13 1.49 6 ### 5.3% 2 ### 4.3 3 ### 0.00 3 #### 0.36 2 ### 1.86 2

Joe Dozier 26.3% 11 2.43 5 9.7% 1 ### 5.0 4 #### -0.05 8 #### #### 0.24 6 ### 1.06 6

Bill Herbst 27.5% 8 5.49 1 9.1% 2 ### 5.2 1 #### 0.09 2 #### 0.31 4 #### 1.30 5 ####

CK 24.0% 12 1.41 7 ### 9.4% 1 ### 5.2 1 ### 0.04 1 #### 0.43 1 ### 2.03 1

Chris Matusiak 29.9% 2 0.22 8 ### 1.4% 3 ### 1.5 4 ### 0.00 2 #### 0.27 5 ### 1.21 5

A.M. Palermo 26.3% 10 4.58 2 9.0% 3 ### 4.5 5 #### -0.01 4 #### 0.29 5 #### 1.46 4 ####

Chris Palermo 29.9% 1 -1.75 11 -2.6% 7 ### 4.2 6 #### -0.02 6 #### 0.24 6 #### 1.21 6 ####

John Reiners 27.0% 9 -3.69 13 -6.4% 8 ### 4.1 7 #### -0.05 9 #### 0.32 3 #### 1.73 3 ####

Brian Stone 27.8% 7 2.88 3 7.2% 5 ### 5.1 3 #### 0.11 1 #### 0.33 2 #### 1.99 1 ####

Darren Velez 29.5% 3 -2.75 12 -8.3% 9 ### 3.8 9 #### -0.03 7 #### #### 0.31 4 ### 1.48 3

Jeremy Waite 28.5% 5 -0.27 9 ### -1.2% 4 ### 4.5 2 ### -0.07 4 #### 0.33 3 ### 1.35 4

Over Avg. (ineligible)Ranking (ineligible) Domination (ineligible)Expected Expected Points (ineligible)

Percentage % Dom. Dominance Over Avg.Gamer Points Gamer Ranking

DominanceGamer Total GamerWin %

Above Exp.

(ineligible)

Expected Wins Win %

Win Above Above

Percentage

Ran

k

Ran

k

Ran

k

Ran

k

Ran

k

Ran

k

Ran

k

Ran

k

Ran

k

Ran

k

Ran

k

Ran

k

Mike Albergo 7 5 58.8% 3 59.4% 3 0.6% 5 9 5 29.4% 4 28.1% 7 1.3% 8 2.22 3 58.9% 2 ### 12-11-9 46.2% 3

Andrew DiGregorio 11 4 55.9% 5 44.8% 10 -11.1% 12 18 11 28.0% 6 31.0% 9 -3.1% 9 2.53 8 51.6% 7 ### 15-25-18 35.9% 11

Deb Dozier 4 11 46.5% 13 44.4% 12 -2.1% 8 9 5 23.2% 13 33.3% 10 -10.1% 13 2.89 13 ### 47.5% 3 8-10-9 36.7% 10

Joe Dozier 7 5 52.6% 11 64.0% 1 11.4% 1 3 1 26.3% 11 12.0% 1 14.3% 1 2.52 7 55.3% 4 ### 9-13-3 46.8% 1

Bill Herbst 14 2 55.0% 7 60.0% 2 5.0% 3 12 9 27.5% 8 20.0% 2 7.5% 2 2.38 5 56.1% 3 ### 22-26-12 46.7% 2

CK 3 13 47.9% 12 53.3% 7 5.4% 2 3 1 24.0% 12 20.0% 2 4.0% 5 2.40 6 ### 58.8% 1 5-7-3 43.1% 6

Chris Matusiak 4 11 52.6% 9 56.3% 5 3.6% 4 4 3 29.9% 2 25.0% 5 4.9% 3 2.19 2 ### 57.8% 2 5-7-4 43.3% 5

A.M. Palermo 7 5 52.6% 9 49.0% 9 -3.6% 9 17 10 26.3% 10 33.3% 10 -7.0% 10 2.53 9 54.1% 5 ### 18-16-17 42.0% 7

Chris Palermo 15 1 59.8% 1 50.0% 8 -9.8% 11 18 11 29.9% 1 27.3% 6 2.6% 6 2.38 4 53.6% 6 ### 18-30-18 38.8% 8

John Reiners 14 2 54.1% 8 44.8% 10 -9.3% 10 20 13 27.0% 9 34.5% 12 -7.4% 11 2.66 12 48.1% 8 ### 12-26-20 30.9% 13

Brian Stone 7 5 55.6% 6 53.8% 6 -1.7% 7 9 5 27.8% 7 23.1% 4 4.7% 4 2.18 1 63.6% 1 ### 14-16-9 45.1% 4

Darren Velez 6 9 59.1% 2 37.5% 13 -21.6% 13 9 5 29.5% 3 28.1% 7 1.4% 7 2.61 11 45.4% 9 ### 6-17-9 32.4% 12

Jeremy Waite 6 9 57.0% 4 57.1% 4 0.2% 6 8 4 28.5% 5 38.1% 13 -9.6% 12 2.59 10 ### 47.0% 4 6-7-8 36.9% 9

Lasts Last % Last % Last

Average Players Record &

2nds % % Expected Place Defeated Percentage

Total Expected Actual ThanTotal 1st & 2nd 1st & 2nd % Above

% of W-M-L% of

Players Def.

(ineligible)

Expected Actual 1st & 2nd % Better

long island boardgaming organization - indepth · 2013. 6. 27. · editor’s note indepth 2005...

Documents