Ever since I finally had a chance to unbox Tigris & Euphrates, I've been itching to play again. I've given it a little thought, and have been hoping that my understanding of the game is somewhat deeper. In hope of getting a game going last night, I rang Dan C. After waking him up from his afternoon nap, I got him to groggily agree to meet me at the store for gaming at 8 pm. While waiting at the store, I had to convince Peter, who Dan had called, that I was not going to play Mutant Chronicles: Siege of the Citadel with him, as I had T&E burning a hole in the bottom of my mind. Dan arrived, and he, Peter, Jerod, and myself sat down in the cradle of civilization.

In our first play, we went at the game like it was a race for monuments. This quickly proved a mistake, as the early monument holder was caught out in conflict and became a man without a kingdom. That first game was really a learning experience in the mechanics of internal and external conflict, and gave a hint of the game's potential. This game, I wanted to utilize a more cautious gradual kingdom-building approach.

We spent several minutes explaining the basics of the game to Dan and Peter. A couple of things that didn't stick for them that I probably need to explain better were needing a green leader for treasure taking, and multiple conflicts (aside from conflict in general...). We got into the first game, proceeded several turns, got into some conflicts, worked out some misunderstandings, and then decided to start over, now that everyone "got it." The second game advanced more quickly, with players advancing kingdoms and building toward treasures. Jerod threw some chaos into the mix, making a couple moves based on how he felt rather than what he should have done to advance himself. This is fine, of course, and ultimately ended up helping the new players, which is good. As we got into conflict, it became apparent that everyone didn't "get it" yet, so we had to sort some stuff out/take moves back/etc.. Consequently, I'll still be looking forward to a "real" play of this game. We had some really intersting situations, as Jerod built up in the middle and became a sort of axis of conflict, as Peter, and then myself, moved in to try to link up for some treasure/vps, and then Jerod made a bad decision on attacking Dan based on a misunderstanding. I had luckily remained relatively isolated on one side of the board, taking the three treasures there. With a catastrophe tile to cut off Peter, and a timely link-up to the middle, I forced some more interaction there. Dan built a red monument at the lower middle board hoping to pump up black vps a little. However, the next turn I tied into it, won several external conflicts, and forced the game end by dumping my whole hand of tiles into the ensuing battles. It ended up being a little shakier of a decision than I thought, as I only beat Peter by a point. Dan was only probably one or two actions off the win, while Jerod was further behind. I think multiple conflict losses kicking his leaders off the board cost him too many actions. He also went last in this game, which seems it might be a disadvantage in 4 player games. You really have to pick where you are going to start to build from, and I think that fourth player will often get stuck in that middle position, which becomes vulnerable from too many sides. That said, I think the middle gets better as the number of players goes down to three, becoming a bit of an advantage, especially if you snag it early, probably influencing the other two to fight it out under the river/around you. I'll have to try it out. Of course, it depends on who you are playing with. This game would have been entirely different if Peter hadn't become obsessed with one of the corner treasures (the one opposite my own expansion). Overall, a good, fun play for me, althought a little frustrating for the new players I think. Ready for next time...

Perhaps it will come this weekend. I'm still waffling a little on Gamicon, but I think I'll go. We'll see if the game can make it out at the IMU.