by Tom Vasel
The visual appearance of a game, I think, is exceedingly important. Occasionally a good game can get away with plain, ordinary components, but it's always better when a game looks as good (or better) than it plays. For one reason, it helps draw people into the hobby. Seeing a fantastic game being played can often bring a crowd, and it's good for the hobby. Fantastic components often also help with the theme of the game. I bought Medina (Rio Grande Games, 2001 - Stefan Dorra) based solely on the components - one hundred sixty-nine wooden building pieces. Is Medina as good as its components suggest? I found it a fun game, with a slight poker-type element. Others don't like it as much because of the lack of instant gratification when playing. I'll have to explain a bit more, starting with the details of game play. Medina is a three to four player game. Each player, at the start of the game, receives a screen in their color (yellow, blue, red, or green), and fifty wooden pieces (three players) or forty-one pieces (four players). These pieces include 4 domes, of that player's color, 20 or 24 palace pieces in four colors (brown, gray, orange, and black), 8 or 10 wall pieces, 6 or 8 inhabitant pieces, and 3 or 4 stable pieces. A board is set up in the middle of the table. The board represents a city and is composed of a square grid that is 11 x 16 squares. Fifty-eight rectangles (wall spaces) surround this grid-giving the board a total of 234 spaces. Four palace tokens, with values from one to four, and four tower tokens, also with values one to four, are placed next to the board. Each player hides their pieces behind their screen, except for their domes, which are kept in the open in front of their screen. The youngest player places one of the extra inhabitants on a space on the board, then takes his first turn. Each player takes a turn following in clockwise order. On a turn, a player must place two of their pieces on the board. Each piece has some restrictions in placement and benefits for placing it.
Whenever a player completes a palace of a color, they get the matching palace tile of that color. They only receive this tile if their palace is the largest of that color (obviously the first person gets it easily). Whenever a player completes a palace that is adjacent to a city wall, that player claims the matching tower tile, even if another player holds it, regardless of whose palace is larger. Once a player cannot place any longer or runs out of pieces, they are finished with the game. When all the players are finished, the game is over, and scoring occurs. Each palace scores its owner one point for every piece in the palace. Also, each stable attached to that palace adds one point. If a palace (or stable in the palace) is orthogonally adjacent to a wall, one point is scored for each wall piece touching in this way. Inhabitants are scored the same way as walls, but may score points for more than one palace. Each player adds up their points for their four palaces plus the number on any tiles they have, and gets their final score. Whoever has the most points is the winner! (Ties are not broken) Some comments on the game: 1). Components: As stated earlier, components are what caused me to buy the game. Folks, there is a lot of wood in this game, more than any other game I own (except Carabande). And once the game is finished, the completed city looks absolutely fabulous. The pieces are simple, but look good, and are very easy to handle. I especially liked how the four palace colors clashed well with the four dome colors, eliminating any confusion between colors. The board is nicely decorated, and certainly gives the view of a city in the desert. 2). Rules: Fabulous rules are included in the game. As with any good rule set, this eight-page color booklet includes a listing of components, with pictures of each. Also included is a picture of initial setup, showing what each player should have behind their screen, etc. The rules are very, very thorough, especially on the rules for placement, but they are not very complicated. The game is very easy to teach and learn, although I found that the strategy to playing was not picked up that easily by beginners. 3). Strategy: There is absolutely no luck in this game. This usually causes me to dislike a game, as I like a little element of randomness in most of the games I play. A player is presented with quite a few choices on their turn, but the choices aren't so excruciating that turns take a long time, except… 4). Bluffing: It's very hard to determine when a player should claim a palace. Should they do it quickly, before anyone else grabs it, or should they wait it out, hoping to get a huge palace with many points. I found that waiting too long caused me to get an extremely poor palace at the end of the game (one piece!). So there is an element of bluffing here. How many pieces should I add to a palace, to make it worthwhile to me on a future turn, but not so worthwhile that an opponent will claim it. Some players have found this frustrating. They do not like setting up a palace, only to have another person claim it. And in a four-player game, six pieces will be placed between each of your turns. That's quite a few pieces, and that means the board will change quite a bit before a player can place again. I found this an endearing feature of the game. Others, however, found this intensely annoying. 5). Fun Factor: I will admit that there's not a lot of joyous fun in the game, however. The theme is there, but it's mostly just layered on top of a nice tile-laying game. The ideas are unique and interesting, but the game is so strategic as to stifle a lot of table talk. Games seem to be extremely quiet, with each player so intently studying the board that they don't talk much. I had fun playing the game, but it was really only from the bluffing aspect. 6). Time: The game isn't very long, and can be finished in an hour or so. If some players determine in their hearts that they will drag it out until all players reach retirement age, the game could slow down, but I found that it moved fairly quickly. Placing only two pieces a turn helped speed things along, and a player doesn't have to wait too terribly long until their next turn. I have to recommend Medina, for it is a game that I enjoyed. However, I do not recommend it to those who like a smattering of luck, or a lot of theme. The way palaces are placed means that players usually have to place pieces and hope that later it will bring them great gain. Then later, all the work they've put towards building a palace may go to waste when somebody claims it. This is an edgy feature, and not one that everybody enjoys. But for those who like a little risk, and don't need the instant gratification of placing big things each turn will really enjoy this game! Back to Table of Contents -- Game! # 7 To Game! List of Issues To MagWeb Master Magazine List © Copyright 2004 by George Phillies. This article appears in MagWeb (Magazine Web) on the Internet World Wide Web. Other articles from military history and related magazines are available at http://www.magweb.com |