...But not a "Civ" game. Assyria was quite different in play to the impression I got from reading through the rules. I thoroughly enjoyed our two games of it today, although I narrowly lost both (and equally narrowly lost the game of Notre Dame too).Both today's games were new to us but were a pleasant surprise and we had a very satisfying day's gaming. Where did I go wrong? Hard to say. We were new to both and inevitably discovered that we missed a rule or two in both. I was certainly labouring under some misconceptions as far as scoring wells, carrying-over cards and one or two other scoring and placement nuances were concerned.
In the end it didn't matter too much. Honour was served by the closeness of the finishes (in one case a single point I think and never more than five) and more importantly we both had a very satisfying day's games with both of us talking in terms of 8s out of 10 as far as ratings were concerned.
The two games were quite different: Notre Dame being action card driven, whereas the cards in Assyria provide food types to support placement of huts. The placement of the huts then provides points or "camels", effectively this game's currency. With camels you can buy actions like placing parts of ziggurats which ultimately add to your score.
Both games seemed nicely balanced and well thought-out and despite their differences I couldn't really choose between them as far as the pleasure of playing them was concerned. Of our recent purchases we still have La Citta and Strozzi to go but the recent games have more than justified their bargain prices so I look forward to the remainder.
No comments:
Post a Comment