Castle Danger
I’m not a huge abstract strategy fan, ever since I continually lost the game of checkers to my girlfriend when in college. Now that we’re married, I can get her to play the Kosmos two-player series, so checkers never sees the light of day. I know that the Gipf project has produced some wonderful games, but I just don’t have the same enthusiasm for abstract strategy games as I do with a game that has a theme. However, give one of these abstract games a theme, no matter how light, and suddenly I am more interested. Thus it was that when I prepared to play Castle Danger (Matt Worden Games, 2003 – Matt Worden), even though I knew it was an abstract strategy game, I didn’t care because the pieces were cannons, wizards, etc.
And after playing the game, was my dislike of abstract games mitigated by the theme? I actually enjoyed Castle Danger quite a bit, but felt constricted by the board, so that my options were limited. It was a good game, but those of us who played it felt like the winner was determined by a mistake by the loser, rather than good play by the winner.
Setup of this two-player game is as follows: A small board is placed between the two players. Unlike many boards, the board is split into two grids, with a river running between them. Each grid is seven squares by four squares, and pieces from one side can never cross the river into the opponent’s squares. Each player starts with a “King” and a “Wizard” piece, which are each placed behind a wall piece on the back row. A group of “fire” tokens in each player’s color are placed near each player and the rest of the pieces are placed in a pile near the board (the pieces are neutral, since it’s easy to see who controls each piece – because of that pesky river!). One player starts the game and then turns alternate between the players.
The first phase of a turn consists of removing “fire” tokens of that player’s color from the board, and “resetting” any cannon pieces that are in the “fired” mode. After that, a player calculates how many moves they have this turn. This is determined by how many Wizard pieces they have on the board – with each wizard giving three additional moves (to a base of three). The player may then add one piece to their “Portal” space on the board (the middle square of the back row). The pieces that can be added are as follows:
- Wizards: All these pieces are good for are for extra movement points. Of course, that can lead to huge advantages for the player who has more of them.
- Builders: Builders can add or remove Wall pieces from the board.
- Cannons: These are the only pieces that can assail the opponent.
The next phase, probably the most important one, is the movement phase. The player then can use up their movement points in the following ways
- Moving: Each piece can move orthogonically one square for one movement point. Several pieces can be moved this way, as long as they do not move more than the player’s total movement points.
- Firing: Each cannon can fire one shot. The cannon is moved to its “fired” position to show that it cannot shoot again this turn. The shot uses up one movement point for each square it passes through. Any piece hit by a shot is killed and removed from the board. Walls, however, block cannon shots, and if a shot encounters one, the wall is removed from the board. Anything that is hit by a shot (even a wall) is removed, and a fire marker is placed in that square (preventing movement into that square for one turn).
After using up their movement points, a player’s turn is over, and play passes to the next player. If either player manages to kill the opponent’s king with one of their cannons, they win the game!
Some comments on the game…
1.) Components: All the components are obviously homemade, as Matt Worden is self-producing his own game, so that must be taken into account. The board is small, colorful, and a laminated piece of paper attached to a thick board (much better than other independent publishers, I must say). The wall pieces are large wooden blocks, big enough that my kids would love to play with them, but functional for game purposes. The other pieces are smaller wooden blocks, with what looks like decals of a wizard hat, hammer, or cannon on them. I wish that the decals were on all six sides, but I suppose that would have driven up the price of the game. The fire pieces are star-shaped wooden bits painted blue or red (the two colors), and the kings are basically wooden pawns. Everything comes in plastic bags stored in a sturdy, but plain-looking box. The components are nothing to write home about, but are fine, considering the game is self-published.
2.) Rules: The rules are very straightforward and painless to pick up. We found ourselves catching onto the stratagem of the game in a very short time, and only had to consult the rules once. The rules do have color illustrations and are nicely formatted.
3.) Website and Computer game: Matt’s website, www.mwgames.com, is very helpful, having a downloadable .pdf file of the rules for the game – but even better, a downloadable version of the game that one can play for free! This is an excellent way to see if one would be interested in purchasing the board game, as the computer game plays the exact same way. I am always pleased with publishers who publish demos and rulebooks on their sites, as I am usually rather leery of those who don’t.
4.) Strategy: There seems to be a couple different routes that players can take when attempting to win. One can build piles of wizards, hoping to accumulate enough movement points to do whatever they want. Or one can build a lot of cannons, hoping to blow their opponent into submission. Or one can build walls all over their side of the board, trying to make an impenetrable fortress. And of course, one can always try to do a happy medium of these three. Which is best? We haven’t discovered that yet. But almost always our games have ended by the person who lost making a mistake (leaving their king in an easy to kill location, or such) rather than by superior strategy of the winner. Of course, this still makes for a satisfying win, just not AS satisfying. The board is small, and this seems to limit strategy quite a bit. I’m wondering if a larger board would have made the game more fun, giving pieces to move around. Right now, the game often gets a “crowded” feel.
5.) Theme and Fun Factor: The game was fun, and we enjoyed it a lot. The theme fit fairly well (the cannons were great, but the wizards didn’t seem to make a lot of sense). One part of the game that was NOT enjoyable, however, was the fact that the game can easily end in a stalemate. The rules recommend ending the game after twenty-five turns, and I heartily agree – as the board can get so crowded that nothing much is ever going to happen.
If you like abstract strategy games, this is not a bad one to pick up, as the idea (shooting across the board as one another) is a good idea (from Chinese Chess, I believe) and makes for a fun, usually quick game. If you must have great components, a huge board, and win using superior strategy, then go elsewhere. But if you’d like a quick amusing game for two players, then this might be up your alley. But either way, go try the game out for yourself at the website! You have nothing to lose by doing that!
Tom Vasel
"Real men play board games"
| Back to the
main page! |