استریم

برچسب: after

  • An Ancient Civilizations of the Middle East After Action Report – InsideGMT


    Introduction by Ancient Civilizations of the Middle East’s Game Developer, Fred Schachter: When ACME Designers Chris & Mark, as well as myself, first read in BGG James Lowry’s entertaining ACME Game After Action Report, we thought “Wow, wouldn’t this, with a bit of editing, be grand to share with InsideGMT’s audience?!?” and so this article came to be.

    Hopefully, readers will enjoy the Ancient Civilizations of the Middle East gaming experiences of James and his three fellow ACME adventurers as they seek victory to become “The King of the Fertile Crescent”. What’s remarkable is that this was their first time playing the game!  James has a wonderful blog covering gaming as well as a range of other topics of interest to gamers, so if you enjoy his ACME presentation, there’s more, much more, available at: www.rindis.com/blog

    Incidentally, Ancient Civilizations of the Inner Sea, ACME’s predecessor, is available via GMT Games – Ancient Civilizations of the Inner Sea, as is Ancient Civilizations of the Middle East (ACME).  See GMT Games – Ancient Civilizations of the Middle East for details as well as a wealth of other ACME material.

    Now take it away James!

    Back on the 25th of May (the day before Memorial Day), I had some people over to my home for FtF gaming. Patch was originally scheduled to attend so we could have a five-player game, but he couldn’t make it, thereby leaving me, Dave, Mark, and Jason to learn the rules for a four-player game of Ancient Civilizations of the Middle East.

    It has been a while, but our group has played its brother game, Ancient Civilizations of the Inner Sea a few times and enjoyed it, so I figured this would be easy for us to get into. I panicked when I looked at the rules before everyone arrived that morning and realized I didn’t remember nearly as much as I thought I did. But once we were looking at the actual game spread out on the table, everything started coming back. Short of the new rules, we just needed to go through the details of conflict (again) and follow the sequence of play on the aid cards.

    Mark and I had gone over the ACME Playbook ahead of time, and we decided upon the “Cyrus the Great” scenario as the only historical four-player scenario utilizing the full map. In hindsight, a more compact scenario would have been better, as we needed a bit of the board to save table space; notably my smallish table held the main board and our supplies of tokens fine enough, but we didn’t have a good place for the cards of available deities. The random draws for civilizations gave me the bullseye—I mean Babylon.

    The scenario’s other civilizations use the game’s standard, somewhat compact, setups, but this scenario’s special rules grant Babylon the entire Fertile Crescent at the start of the game. The real changes in ACME from its ACIS predecessor are the terrain rules, and the game board’s green fertile areas are powerful, as instead of only growing with two-disk settlements, you can just have single disk camps and grow, or, best of all, have three disk cities to get VPs and growth disks.

    With that setup, my initial growth was phenomenal, and only stalled later for a single turn, when a horde of barbarians came storming out of the deserts which kept me from having control of a bunch of fertile areas. After that, they were largely cleared out and my growth resumed to put me back from a poor board position to max out the number of disks in use. (Each civilization has fifty disks available for board position and growth, which then get sent back to stock by events played against you and competition. It’s very much like the stock in Tresham’s classic Civilization board game.)

    Mark had the Medes & Persians to Babylon’s east and was a constant thorn in my side (as he should be). But I didn’t have a lot of other troubles, so while he got more powerful as the game went on, he could never really challenge me in the Fertile Crescent for longer than a turn at a time but progressively took control of areas just east of there. He also refused to join in on the initial rush to acquire a deity, so he didn’t get VPs that way, and at the end of Epoch III (which the scenario starts in), he was trailing well behind in points.

    Dave had the Lydian Kingdom of the board’s northwest, and Jason Egypt, safely tucked in the board’s southeast with the Nile—the board’s other fertile area (but only five areas to the Tigris and Euphrates’ thirteen).  To my relief, the two of them largely focused on each other, partially powered by Dave’s aggressively sea-oriented offensive strategy as he strove to gain a foothold on Egypt’s Mediterranean coast. I was more focused on pure growth and managing my frontiers at first, so Dave also took a lead in cities, followed closely by Jason, and I slipped into third place in VPs.

    We broke for a late-ish lunch at the end of Epoch III, and Epoch IV saw the earlier conflicts come into ever-sharper focus. Mark was getting his act together and caught up to me in points (fueled by that bad turn with the barbarian invasion), and he started catching up to the other Civilizations as well. I swept away the Fertile Crescent’s barbarian invaders and concentrated on cities (and growth!) for a revival during the game’s last two turns that put me near the VP lead again, but I didn’t quite catch up to my rivals.

    Both Epochs ended after three turns (it varies from two to four), and IV concluded with a Lydian (Dave -Blue disks) win with 36 VPs, followed by Egypt (Jason – Green Disks) at 34, Babylon (me – Light Colored Tan Disks)  at 33, and the Medes & Persians (Mark – Red Disks) at 27 VP.

    Presumably, a fourth turn could have favored me for a win, but the VP gain caused by twelve cities caught everyone’s attention, and with the borders of Egypt and the Lydians now truly at my doorstep in the west, I was looking at a lot of negative attention at that point. (On the other hand, you can see in the photo below that Dave was still dealing with the aftermath of two rounds of barbarians.) I had actually gambled on this turn to build as many cities as I could (and since my cities could generate growth and VPs it’s not the serious decision it is for everyone else) to get back in the lead. Sadly, I didn’t quite make it, and didn’t have the extra turn to carry the momentum forward.

    I think I like the long, skinny map set up of ACIS better, and I don’t see enough difference between the wonder and deity mechanics for it to matter all that much save that an ACME civilization can have but a single deity. But the terrain mechanics (including desert and mountain, which are also important) really make ACME the better game in my view.

    Certainly, all of us have enjoyed both “brothers”, ACIS and Ancient Civilizations of the Middle East, and they will see the table again. ACME has a wealth of scenarios and seventeen different civilizations, each with their own unique abilities (we didn’t leverage ours very well; too busy getting used to the flow of the game), and options for putting together any mix of them in non-historic scenarios. We’re really still just in the wading section of this game. Thanks for this gem of a game GMT!

    Our Ancient Civilizations of the Middle East’s gameboard at the end of Epoch IV’s Turn 3. Note how red, the Medes & Persians, had established a city in the Fertile Crescent next to my homeland (the big tan square block). This was his third, and most successful, incursion into fertile terrain, and I’d been too busy to push him out. A theoretical turn four would have turned into a big fight in there.
    We’d had comparatively few barbarians this game, but two turns of them in Anatolia had taken a severe toll on blue’s, Lydian home, which had been full of cities for almost all of Epoch III. Perhaps the most surprising board position is the VP markers. Nine VPs from first to last isn’t much, and I was surprised at how much the “pack” stayed together for the entire game.



    Source link

  • After five tumultuous years, Ubisoft’s Prince of Persia: Sands of Time remake is now “deep” in development

    After five tumultuous years, Ubisoft’s Prince of Persia: Sands of Time remake is now “deep” in development



    It’s now been five years since Ubisoft’s beleaguered Prince of Persia: Sands of Time remake was originally revealed, and a little over a year since the publisher last popped up to remind us all the project was still alive. But here we are again, 12 months on, with another brief update, this time letting fans know the remake remains “deep” in development.


    Ubisoft’s Sands of Time remake was initially unveiled back in September 2020, when it was expected to arrive in January the following year. However, after its announcement trailer was met with a less than positive reception, Ubisoft kicked off what would prove to be a succession of delays. Eventually, the project moved from its original developers Ubisoft Pune and Mumbai to Ubisoft Montreal, where it was seemingly rebooted from scratch, and last year brought the news it wouldn’t be ready for release until 2026.


    But while it seemed like Ubisoft might opt for radio silence until its remake was finally ready for its big re-reveal, the publisher has instead shared the briefest of updates today on social media, a little over a year since its last one. “Yep, we’re still deep in the game,” it wrote, “exploring, building, and ensuring the sands move with purpose.”

    Here’s what the Sands of Time remake looked like before it was rebooted from scratch.Watch on YouTube


    “This game is being crafted by a team that truly cares,” it continued, “and they’re pouring their hearts (and a lot of coffee) into every step. Thank you for sticking with us.” And that’s pretty much all we’re getting for now, aside from an accompanying bit of art showing a glass palace against a pink sky. Ubisoft also pointed fans in the direction of series spin-off The Rogue Prince of Persia, from Dead Cells studio Evil Empire, which is set to leave early access this August.


    Ubisoft’s Sands of Time remake woes have continued to a tumultuous few years for the publisher, which has faced tumbling share prices and a number of high-profile flops in recent times, resulting in a string of layoffs and studio closures. As part of its attempts to right the ship, Ubisoft announced it was launching a new subsidiary dedicated to its big three IPs – Assassin’s Creed, Rainbow Six, and Far Cry – earlier this year. With those game under a new banner, Ubisoft itself will concentrate on a number of key areas, including “nurturing the development of iconic franchises”, including – presumably – Prince of Persia.



    Source link

  • After many bet against it, a PS5 State of Play is coming tomorrow with over 40 minutes of game reveals

    After many bet against it, a PS5 State of Play is coming tomorrow with over 40 minutes of game reveals


    Sony has officially announced that it’s going to be hosting an event in June after all. It’s going to be of the State of Play variety, and it will be airing live tomorrow. Sony has, in recent years, made a habit of announcing those livestreams one or two days before the event’s scheduled date.

    This June’s State of Play is no different, and it looks like it won’t be heavy on first-party games.

    This week’s State of Play will be live tomorrow, June 4 at 2pm PT, 5pm ET, 10pm UK. In the announcement blog post, Sony said we can expect “news and updates” on games coming to PS5.

    “The show highlights a selection of great games from creators across the globe,” the blog post adds, which really doesn’t tell us much. It is clear, however, that this won’t be a first-party-focused show, though it is curious that Sony elected not to use the terms ‘first’ or ‘third-party’ in the announcement.

    In any case, this State of Play is going to a little beefy, clocking in at over 40-minutes-long. As always, you’ll be able to watch it live on PlayStation’s official Twitch, and YouTube channels.

    This week is going to be very busy with events and game reveals. Summer Game Fest’s live opening show is scheduled for Friday, June 6, and the first edition of IO Interactive’s IOI Showcase is taking place just a couple of hours later on the same day.

    Then, on Sunday, June 8, Xbox will take its turn to host its own showcase, which will be followed by a dedicated The Outer Worlds 2 direct, so it’s all popping off. EA and Ubisoft are seemingly going to sit this one out, but we wouldn’t bet against some of their rumoured and in-development games showing up at one (or more) of these shows.



    Source link

  • If I double (takeout) after the opponents have bid two different suits, does the takeeout apply to "both" bids or only the most recent one?


    My left hand opponent dealt and bid one diamond. Partner passed. My right hand opponent bid one spade. I wanted to double one diamond, but not one spade, with the following hand: ♠KQT5 ♡K92 ♢2 ♣ KT653.

    So I passed. Left hand opponent rebid two diamonds. Partner and right hand opponent passed. Now I doubled, because the last opposing bid was diamonds.

    Partner’s distribution was 4-3-4-2, with xxx in hearts and Qx in clubs. She passed because she had four cards each and her remaining seven honor points in suits bid by the opponents, and she thought she was "playing defense." She didn’t want to bid one of her short "round" suits (clubs or hearts)to take out my double.

    I told her, "I had four spades to support a spade bid, and a only a singleton diamond opposite your four diamonds. We were not strong enough to defend, but we were strong enough to play two spades" (RHO opponent had five little ones for his bid).

    Partner thought that my double showed shortness in both the opponents suits. I say that my bidding pattern showed shortness only in diamonds and suggested strength in spades. Are either of these interpretations more nearly correct than the other? Or do some world class partnerships use one, and some the other?



    Source link

  • magic the gathering – Does Maddening Imp affect creatures cast after combat?

    magic the gathering – Does Maddening Imp affect creatures cast after combat?


    Maddening Imp does destroy creatures that enter after its ability has resolved.

    The main relevant rule is rule 611.2c:

    If a continuous effect generated by the resolution of a spell or ability modifies the characteristics or changes the controller of any objects, the set of objects it affects is determined when that continuous effect begins. After that point, the set won’t change. (Note that this works differently than a continuous effect from a static ability.) A continuous effect generated by the resolution of a spell or ability that doesn’t modify the characteristics or change the controller of any objects modifies the rules of the game, so it can affect objects that weren’t affected when that continuous effect began. If a single continuous effect has parts that modify the characteristics or changes the controller of any objects and other parts that don’t, the set of objects each part applies to is determined independently.

    The first part of Maddening Imp’s ability is a continuous effect that does not change any objects’ characteristics or controller, so it can affect objects that weren’t affected when the ability resolved. The delayed triggered ability is then not associated with any particular set of creatures when it is created, so it determines the set of creatures to destroy as it resolves in the end step.

    This is confirmed by the rulings in this Reddit thread.



    Source link