Friday, February 16, 2007

Taj for Two, and Two for Taj

Scrabblette and I had a quiet night at home last night which included our first playing of Taj Mahal which arrived only on Wednesday. Yes, I know it needs 3 players but we used Shane Laporte's two player variant and that seemed to work OK. Scrabblette got the purple guy special card with the elephant on and dominated the elephants in the middle of the game (she got 8 elephant tiles, I got 4). I focused on building palaces, collecting bonus tiles, and keeping a card advantage. My strategy didn't work very well, particularly as I ran out of palaces (something which can't happen in 3+ player) and was unable to build any in region 12. By the time I noticed how many points Scrabblette was getting from elephants it took a couple of turns to get the elephant man away from her, and then she took him back again.

Scrabblette won, 69 points to 60. My feeling is that the 2-player variant successfully preserves the essence of the game, though the grand moghuls are next to useless. We should play with the kid and gang up on him...


Maria said...

Speaking of reducing numbers in a game ... I went back to your 28 July 2006 entry. Saw a brief entry for Set. I think I may have to write a long involved entry on this somewhere because I've just become hooked, and pretty obsessed. I usually play it against someone, but I decided to play it myself in order to increase my visual recognition skills.

Then I realised I got more sets when I played by myself.

'Tis an advantage of the one-player game *wink*

Friendless said...

Some people say Set isn't a game, but whatever it is, I like it.