Friday, 13 June 2014

Friday

The name certainly sounds interesting but this game is truly a sadistic solo adventure, designed only for the most patient and courageous.



Name: Friday (2011)

Publisher: Rio Grande Games (amongst many others)

Designer: Friedemann Friese

Players: 1 (!)

Age: 10+

Time to play: 25 mins+

Price Range (AUD):  $20 - $45 (including shipping); even the bottom end of the price range mentioned is quite overpriced.

Availability: Online but hard to find, especially one that posts to Australia

Genres: 
  • Solo
  • Strategy
  • Mildly Thematic
  • Luck
  • Hard/Challenging
  • Deck-building
Andre Lim's Rating and Brief Summary:

5.99 or thereabouts out of 10. (OK, passes as a game but, to be fair, will be fun for those who love, and are patient enough for, a good challenge -  See my Rating Scale)

This is a challenging and difficult solo game, though no where near as complicated as Mage Knight of course. However, the difficulty lies not with the complexity of rules and gameplay; rather most of it derives from the frustrating lack of control you have over gameplay. The game is named after the character Friday in the novel Robinson Crusoe, who is Crusoe's Carib servant. You play as Friday who has to teach Robinson Crusoe basic survival abilities against the hazards of the island that Crusoe is shipwrecked upon.

The first thing to note is that the game is quite sadistic and cruel, in the sense that there appears to be, at least from my own understanding of the game, a low chance of winning even for those who have played this game a few times. The game even has a diary entry for you to record your victories (indicating just how rare it is to achieve victory) and even asks you "How many games did you need for your first victory?". Being a solo game however, this is understandable - who would want a solo game that is easy to win? (But, on the other hand, who would play such a difficult game as this?!)

The key aspect of this game that makes it difficult is the fact that the hazards become exponentially more difficult to defeat. The game is divided into three phases (Green, Yellow and Red) and each phase steps up the difficulty considerably.

The player receives "bonus" cards with special abilities for defeating hazards. The key to the game appears to be collecting the powerful/more useful abilities in the earlier rounds (while they are easier to obtain, namely in the Green phase and, sometimes, in the Yellow phase). However even this is easier said than done because, even at the beginning, the player starts off with a few handicaps that are really designed to make this game challenging by nature. Drawing the right cards requires some amount of luck as well. Please do read the rules for more information.

There is of course strategy in this game that increases the chances of winning but I feel that this does not really mitigate the difficulty of the game (though admittedly, I am not the best strategist so this could be wrong) - it is all about obtaining the best cards and making your deck as efficient as possible to combat the hazards.

The Good:
  • Very challenging, but almost to the point of tears
  • Interesting for a while
The Bad:
  • Almost impossible to win when you first play; still almost impossible when you get better
  • (A very frustrating game!)
  • Though strategy plays its part, the game is extremely reliant on luck
  • The difficulty level may turn people off after a while, even for the most enthusiastic of gamers

What makes this game fun? 

If you like challenges that seem impossible to win, and have some spare time to kill, try this.






- This concludes the basic overview of the game.
If you are interested in reading about the components & rules to the game, please read on -









Rules & Components (Photos courtesy of my mum, Joanne)

You start off with 20 life points as represented below with these green wooden tokens, with an extra 2 in reserve (making for a total of 22).

These are what your life points symbolise 


As this is primarily a deck-builder, let me introduce you to the different types of cards available in the game.

Base cards (Your "fight deck"): You start off with these 18 cards that form your deck:

8 "zeroes" (Weak)
3 "ones" (Focuses)
1 "twos" (Genius)
5 "negative ones" (Distracteds)
1 "special zero" (Eating)

These cards represent the different states of efficiency Robinson Crusoe has when competing against certain challenges or hazards the island poses. To "bypass" or "succeed against"  the hazards, you need to draw the better cards and avoid/destroy the bad cards. The game starts off with a lot of -1's and 0's which makes the game quite hard to win (and as such, operates as a handicap of sorts)



Hazard Cards: These cards form crux of the game as they are Crusoe's antagonists.

Eg. "Cannibals" below (presumably Crusoe is attacked by cannibals), which is the hardest card to defeat in the game.


Now, notice the bubble on the left hand corner? That tells you how many cards you can draw from your main player deck (or "fight deck" as the game calls it). If you go over this so-called bubble limit, you have to pay 1 life point for every extra card you draw over the limit.

See the numbers in the red, yellow and green circles? That is the target that you must reach to "win" against that respective hazard on each respective difficulty level, with green being the easiest and red the hardest.

So, for example, to defeat the Cannibals card on the Yellow level, the sum of Crusoe's 5 fight cards must be equal to or greater than 9. More on this later.

Rewards

If you defeat a hazard card, you get a reward that gets placed directly into your fight deck. The reward is found by flipping the respective hazard card UPSIDE DOWN. Thus you can see that the harder the hazard is, the better the reward.

For example, the reward for Cannibals is a fight card called "weapon" worth a massive 4 fight points (which is amazing, given that you start off with so many "0" and "-1" cards). Other cards successfully obtained, like the wild animals card, give you other perks such as the ability to draw extra cards over the bubble limit.




Layout of game

This is what the game looks like when set up.



The hazard cards are on the bottom left; the fight cards (your deck) are on the bottom right.

The top cards are ageing cards. They make the game harder. When you start the game, you must add an ageing card to your fight deck. Every time you exhaust your fight deck you must add one card to your fight deck. They add an additional handicap.

Examples of ageing cards - they make you weaker.
Note the two life points that must be paid to get rid of them (top right corner, see below section on "Destroying cards")

How to play

What happens now is that the player must flip over the first two hazard cards. They choose which one they want to tackle.

Then the player flips over one card at a time from their fight deck, and the number of cards permissible is dictated by the limit stated in the bubble.

As an example suppose the player chooses to fight Cannibals instead of "Exploring the Island" in the Green Phase. The card says you must reach a target of 5 points (Green number) with 5 cards of less (limit shown in the bubble on the left side)

If the player flips the first card and gets a zero, no progress has been made.


Suppose the next few flips are like this:


The player is no where near their goal and in fact further away because of the -1 card.

What can they do now?

Destroying cards: Now, an interesting aspect of this game is destroying cards. A player may destroy any flipped up card in their deck by paying the cost in the top-right hand corner of the card. For most cards, this is just 1 life point. For ageing cards, it is 2 life points (as they are nastier so you pay more to get rid of them)

For example, if I was tired of drawing 0's and -1's I would pay 4 life points to get rid of all of them like so:

Removing 4 life points from my stash. This improves my game by getting rid of the bad cards in my deck but makes me closer to dying.

Losing health

If you reach zero life points, you don't lose but you are close to it. You lose if you lose 1 more life point after being on 0 points.

Losing battles against hazards: Another interesting aspect of this game is this: If you cannot meet the target indicated by the card, you must pay the difference between the target and the summed amount you have drawn on your fight cards (at any time you wish, which means before or when the bubble limit is reached). So for example, back to the above example, if I didn't pay to get rid of the cards, I would pay 5 - (-1) = 6 points to get rid of the Cannibals card, as the summed value of my fight deck cards is (0 + 0 + 0 + -1).

Thus, you can even pay to get rid of the hazard card from the outset by paying the face value of the target value. All failed hazards (ie. hazards you could not complete with your fight deck but by paying life points) are discarded.

Different phases and end of game:

When you have gone through all the hazards once (ie. all hazards are either in your deck as reward cards or discarded) you have completed a phase and must move to the next phase. The order of phases goes like this: Green, Yellow and Red.

This means that the discarded hazards are now shuffled and form a new draw pile for the hazard deck.

The game is now harder - the target values now increase based on the new colour of the phase you have entered.  Hence, after completing the Green phase, the target for "Cannibals" for the Yellow phase is now 9 rather than 5 (as it was in the green phase).

The game ends when ALL 3 phases are completed AND after that, the pirates are defeated!!

Two pirates are drawn from a pirate deck and each has to be fought in the order of the player's choice.

If you have even made it to the Red phase of the game, I applaud you. There are other "harder difficulty levels" that the game offers, but this is quite frankly too ridiculous and is only for the most adventurous/persevering of gamers.


Saturday, 7 June 2014

Key Question: Does the 2014 FIFA World Cup contain a Group of Death??

TeamPldWDLGFGAGDPts
 Italy220053+24
 Brazil210154+12
 Argentina200225−30

As mentioned in a previous post, one way to determine if a Group of Death exists is by summing up the World Rankings of all countries within a group which in turn will give an indication of how tough that group is: the lower the summed number of a group, presumably the harder the group is.

But that is just one definition of a Group of Death (ie. lots of highly ranked teams). However is this the proper approach? For example, might we find another definition for a Group of Death? Are seedings or world rankings even accurate in the first place? Even if they are accurate, is merely adding up rankings enough?

Let's take a look..

If we use the latest rankings as at 5 June 2014, we get these results:

Group A: 3 (Brazil) + 20 (Mexico) +  18 (Croatia) +  56 (Cameroon) = 97
Group B:  1 (Spain) +  14 (Chile) +  15 (Netherlands) + 62 (Australia) = 92
Group C:  8 (Columbia) + 12 (Greece) + 23 (Ivory Coast) + 46 (Japan) = 89
Group D:  7 (Uruguay) +  9 (Italy) + 10 (England) +  28 (Costa Rica) = 54
Group E:  6 (Switzerland) + 17 (France) +  26 (Ecuador) +  33 (Honduras) = 82
Group F:  5 (Argentina) + 21 (Bosnia and Herzegovina) + 43 (Iran) + 44 (Nigeria) = 113
Group G:  2 (Germany) + 4 (Portugal) + 13 (USA) +  37 (Ghana) = 56
Group H:  11 (Belgium) + 19 (Russia) + 22 (Algeria) +  57 (Korea Republic) = 109

In short, under this methodology Groups F and H are relatively weak, whilst Groups G and D are the "hardest groups" and could be considered Groups of Death in that sense.

If we use rankings that were used for the World Cup Draw (October 2013) we still get Groups G and D as the harder groups with slight variations to the strength of other groups:

Group A:  11 (Brazil) + 24 (Mexico) + 18 (Croatia) + 59 (Cameroon) = 112
Group B: 1 (Spain) + 12 (Chile) + 8 (Netherlands) +  57 (Australia) = 78
Group C: 4 (Columbia) + 15 (Greece) + 17 (Ivory Coast) + 44 (Japan) = 80
Group D: 6 (Uruguay) + 9 (Italy) + 10 (England) + 31 (Costa Rica) = 56
Group E: 7 (Switzerland) + 21 (France) + 22 (Ecuador) + 34 (Honduras) = 84
Group F: 3 (Argentina) + 16 (Bosnia and Herzegovina) + 49 (Iran) + 33 (Nigeria) =101
Group G: 2 (Germany) + 14 (Portugal) + 13 (USA) + 23 (Ghana) = 52
Group H: 5 (Belgium) + 19 (Russia) + 32 (Algeria) + 56 (Korea Republic) = 112

And using the rankings as at last month (8 May 2014):

Group A:  4 (Brazil) + 19 (Mexico) + 20 (Croatia) + 50 (Cameroon) = 93
Group B: 1 (Spain) + 13 (Chile) + 15 (Netherlands) + 59 (Australia) = 88
Group C: 5 (Columbia) + 10 (Greece) + 21 (Ivory Coast) + 47 (Japan) = 83
Group D: 6 (Uruguay) + 9 (Italy) + 11 (England) + 34 (Costa Rica) = 60
Group E: 8 (Switzerland) + 16 (France) + 28 (Ecuador) + 30 (Honduras) = 82
Group F: 7 (Argentina) + 25 (Bosnia and Herzegovina) + 37 (Iran) + 44 (Nigeria) = 113
Group G: 2 (Germany) + 3 (Portugal) + 14 (USA) + 38 (Ghana) = 57
Group H: 12 (Belgium) + 18 (Russia) + 25 (Algeria) + 55 (Korea Republic) =  110

G and D are therefore consistent Groups of Death. But some comment should be mentioned here.



I would suggest that this methodology of adding up world ranking values is extremely flawed because the FIFA Ranking System itself is flawed for the following reasons:

First, it takes into account friendly games, which whilst retaining a limited degree of competitive nature, often fail to provide a true reflection of both teams' quality as there is no trophy or qualification at stake (and teams are often experimenting with their line up). It's true that friendly matches are already worth less because FIFA currently awards a multiplier of 1 for those matches (as opposed to, say, 2.5 for a World Cup Qualifier), but on the basis I have mentioned above, I would argue that a lower multiplier should be awarded (if at all).

Second, the worth of some of these ranking points is also questionable on the other basis that most World Cup Qualifying matches are played within confederations - whilst the rankings do consider the relative strength of the opponent and discount or multiply points (depending on the strength of the confederation and the importance of the match respectively), FIFA's world ranking formula still does not adequately consider the weakness of a particular confederation. For example, as a baseline measurement, no deduction is given where the country played was in UEFA or CONMEBOL (and this is fine - as they are the strongest confederations). However, a ridiculously generous 0.15 discount (ie. multiply points earned by 0.85) is granted to points earned against an Oceanic team - one would, and should, argue that the discount ought be higher as Oceanic teams are incredibly weak.

However, this is not to say that the rankings aren't useful. There are, however, other ways of measuring a Group of Death - though all of them can and should be combined with the "Sum of World Rankings" approach.


Perspective Approach ("What is the sum of the rankings of the other three teams?")

This approach goes like this: Pick one team in the group. Now, from the perspective of that particular team selected, would this group be a Group of Death?

The answer is obviously a resounding YES if one picks the lowest ranked team in a group of otherwise highly ranked teams. Thus, going on this logic, in addition to Groups G and D, Group B certainly looks like a Group of Death from the perspective of Australia - when adding up rankings of the other three teams Group B has the lowest summed "3-team" rank out of all other groups (apart from G and D, depending on which rankings you use above).

Team
PldWDLGFGAGDPts
 Spain32010006
 Netherlands32010006
 Chile32010006
 Australia30030000
Figure A: A possible final outcome of this group...

Group D is clearly also a Group of Death from the perspective of Costa Rica, as is Group G from Ghana's perspective.

Underrated or Overrated Approach

This approach is quite subjective, or at least, more subjective than other approaches.

It asks: Are any teams UNDERRATED or OVERRATED such that its ranking does not properly reflect its true competitive status?

For example, on that definition, Group C could be a Group of Death. Japan's ranking of 47 is arguably underrated given their strong displays at the Confederations Cup (despite their losses) and their strong and consistent record at previous important tournaments (World Cups and AFC Asian Cups). One might also reason that Ivory Coast has a star-studded team and should do well this World Cup (of course, a team is more than the sum of its individuals..).

Team
PldWDLGFGAGDPts
 Colombia00000000
 Greece00000000
 Ivory Coast00000000
 Japan00000000

The difficult issue though is assigning values to underrated teams. For example, should we halve Japan's ranking if we are so confident that they are underrated? Or do we just subtract 10 places? Do we compare Japan to another team that plays like them?

On this approach though, Group G to me definitely seems like a Group of Death as Ghana is arguably an underrated team given their consistency in the last 2 World Cups.

Comparisons

One might even compare teams under the Underrated or Overrated Approach. For example, if one makes the assumption that Australia is just as strong as Ghana because it drew 1-1 with Ghana in the 2010 Group Stages (a very dangerous assumption to make), then arguably, Group B might also be a candidate for a Group of Death as Australia is "underrated" on that logic.

But, again, this logic is quite flawed and subjective.


Competitive Group Approach ("Is the race for Second Spot close?")

One rogue or outlandish method of determining a Group of Death is to ask: Are all the countries of a SIMILAR world ranking? If so, you have a Group of Death because anyone can win any selected game given the close proximity of all the world rankings.

Hence, the focus of this approach is not on Absolute Strength but Relative Strength - how strong are the teams relative to each other? Does everyone have a real, credible chance to fight it out for Second Place?

In this instance, Group F and Group H (along with Group E) could arguably be Groups of Death as Second Place is closely contested, given the relative closeness of the ranks of the non-seeded teams. Indeed, closeness may not even be the right term for it - rather, it is more the fact that, within a group of lower-ranked teams, they all arguably have a reasonable probability of winning their matches. Of course, Groups D and G might still be Groups of Death under this method, but of a different class.

Team
PldWDLGFGAGDPts
 Argentina00000000
 Bosnia and Herzegovina00000000
 Iran00000000
 Nigeria00000000
Team
PldWDLGFGAGDPts
 Belgium00000000
 Algeria00000000
 Russia00000000
 South Korea00000000

However, this approach isn't favourable because the traditional use of the term "Group of Death" refers to the Absolute Strength of teams in a group.  In fact, under this method, depending on how you define Relative Strength, almost all groups in theory might be Groups of Death.


Conclusion:

In my view, under all the approaches, and this is likely to be an extremely obvious statement but, Group G is a true Group of Death. I do not consider Costa Rica's rank of 28 to be accurate - indeed, it seems overrated which should inflate the real value of Group D's Summed World Ranking.

Andre Lim

Monday, 2 June 2014

Niagara

Not many games replicate a live waterfall, let alone the fury of Niagara Falls!
This is a gem of a game because of its thematic emphasis and beautiful colour.

In our gaming group it appears to be Roy's favourite game*

*October 2014: Roy tells me that, whilst Niagara is good, his favourite game has now changed to Coup.

A game as colourful, lively and amusing as its box art!!

Name: Niagara (2004)

Publisher: Rio Grande Games

Designer: Thomas Liesching (Artist: Victor Boden)

Players: 2 to 5

Age: 13+

Time to play: 30+

Price Range (AUD): $70 to $93 at the time of writing (massively overpriced - when I bought it last year, it was about just under $50)

Availability:  Available online, but probably not in local stores. Might even be hard to find in board game stores

Genres: 
  • Thematic/Tribute/Reference
  • Family
Andre Lim's Rating and Brief Summary:

7.3* out of 10. (Good, fantastic replication of a real geographical place which creates a nice thematic feel - See my Rating Scale)

This game is a lively and interesting family game. Even when we ignore the beautiful artwork and components, the gameplay, whilst simple and a bit artificial, has much substance.

Daring adventurers try to obtain as many gems as possible by navigating the river that leads to Niagara Falls. However there's a catch: if they are too greedy and try to get too many gems, they may get caught up in the river and fall off the waterfall. Stealing is also a fun and important part of this game - it forces players to think carefully about their moves and to plan countermeasures against potential thieves.

I also enjoy the multiple victory conditions. For example, obtaining 1 of each colour of gem is no easy feat as pink and blue gems are incredibly risky to obtain (being so close to the water's edge - and even if you can make it upstream, no doubt, someone will steal them off you!!). One effective way to win the game is to let other people do the work for you whilst you sit back and wait for an opportunity to steal their bounty. It may be easier to opt for taking 4 gems of a kind, but usually if your friends are competitive enough, this is impossible to execute as there are only 8 gems of each colour.

The only downside to this game is that it can take a very long time to finish. Stealing usually stops someone from winning but also prolongs the game for a considerable period of time. Gameplay is may also seem rather repetitive, as turn after turn players secretly bid what they will do and execute that move. However, it is the act of guessing and predicting what other people will do that adds to the suspense of this game (of course, this is a feature of most games, but it is particularly important here as it directly affects whether your canoe will be stolen from or thrown off the game board).

*August 2014: Reduced from 7.9+. Still a good game; my primary reason for reducing this score is because there probably isn't a whole lot of depth to this game - a lot of it is predicated on "luck" in the sense that you truly are at the mercy of what other people do. If you can guess what people will do, good for you; but this isn't so much explained by strategy as it is by random chance. Additionally, this game can drag on for a bit because of all the unintentional stealing that goes on (in the sense that you may find yourself in a favourable position to steal, depending on turn order and what others have played). I admire the theme and family feel of this game which give it the bulk of its marks. It still isn't quite up there though with a modern classic like Ticket to Ride.

September 2014: Another reason why this game doesn't belong in the fantastic category is because it has too many rules that aren't exactly intuitive. It is confusing and hard to remember for the average player. It's a bit surprising that this won the German Game of the Year award - but hey, Europeans must enjoy their board games a lot better and thus must like more complication to their rules. For example, it can be very confusing for new players to remember the rules regarding loading/unloading canoes with gems and moving canoes. However, most of its relatively high marks comes from its fantastic theme. Gameplay is a bit clunky but it makes for a good game.

The Good:
  • Thematic - the board is very cool and actually plays and looks like a waterfall
  • Colourful and cool components
  • Relatively simple rules
  • Interesting "game-theory" mechanic where players are encouraged to outguess each other's moves
  • Quite novel - even the game box is specifically designed to hold the full length of raging river and waterfall!
The Bad:
  • If everyone is competitive, the game can be difficult to win, especially with the element of stealing gems. This prolongs the game considerably until someone makes a mistake to break the deadlock.
  • Some may perceive this game to have artificial gameplay mechanics with the whole idea of moving canoes up and down one circular disc at a time.

What makes this game fun? 

If you enjoy a game that puts a lot of emphasis on artwork and theme (and, as a bonus, if you are a fan of geography/landmarks/Niagara Falls) perhaps give this a go.






- This concludes the basic overview of the game.
If you are interested in reading about the components & rules to the game, please read on -









Rules & Components (Photos courtesy of my mum, Joanne)

If you open the box you will see this:

Components of Niagara (minus the board and two wooden tokens, as I accidentally placed the wooden components underneath the plastic circular discs - though you will see them in the next picture)

The game box is actually important because they are just the right size to place the board over as follows:

How the board is set up

Notice how all the gems are placed in their matching coloured locations.
The Life Raft on the right indicates who gets to go first for that round
The circular discs represent places along the river and are "pushed" to mimic the movement of the waterfall!!
The cloud is placed on the weather track (see below)
Canoes start off on the beach

Weather track and icons on board:

Weather track on the right - this dictates how fast the river moves. By default, the cloud starts on 0, but it may be wise to start on -1 for beginners.
The circular icon on the left is to place the Life Raft, which indicates who goes first for that round
The rectangular icon is to place game tiles.
There are 5 spots on the board that have these icons
Game Tiles look like this:

Everyone gets 7 tiles - numbers 1 to 6 and the cloud icon

What the game board looks like from the side:



Rules: Placing Tiles Phase

Everyone gets 7 Tiles (numbers 1 to 6 and a tile with a cloud symbol) which will be used over the course of 7 "rounds".

On each round, players place 1 tile FACE DOWN. Then when everyone is ready, all tiles are simultaneously revealed. Once this tile is used for that round, it can't be used any more until after the 7th round. After the 7th round, everyone gets their tiles back. This repeats until someone meets a victory condition.

Hence only one tile can be used per round, and it is wise to think about what number you will place down because you won't be able to play it again until after everyone runs out of tiles (in which case, everyone gets their tiles back).

The aim of the game is to return to shore any with one of these 3 winning conditions:

- 4 gems of the same colour
- 1 gem of each colour (ie. 5 gems: 1 pink, 1 blue, 1 orange, 1 white, 1 purple). this is probably the hardest one to do as pink and blue is difficult to capture being so close to the waterfall edge.
- Any 7 gems, of any colour

Movement of canoe(s)
Numbers on a tile you placed down indicate the number of movements your canoe(s) can make.

Movement points can be used to pick up gems or to move canoes a number of spaces along the stream. 1 movement point lets you move 1 space over a circular disc.

The number of canoes you can move depends on the following:
  • If both canoes are on the beach, one, and only one, canoe must be moved. Movements must be made in one continuous direction (a canoe cannot change direction).
  • If one canoe is on the beach and the other one is in the water, the canoe in the water MUST be moved but the one on the beach MAY be moved.
  • If both canoes are on the river, both must be moved. You may choose to move one canoe in one direction and the canoe to move the other direction (but you don't have to - they can both move in the same direction).

Picking up or unloading gems: Gems can be picked up or unloaded at the cost of 2 movement points. Gems can be unloaded onto a pile of gems that is of a different colour. You cannot unload a canoe that has just been loaded in the same turn.

(Thus for 4 movement points, you can unload a gem of one colour to get a gem of a different colour, provided that you didn’t just load that canoe on that very turn.)

Landing/transporting gems: In order to own a gem, the loaded canoe itself needs to go back onto land.  All you need to do is move the canoe over the rope (ie. move the canoe over the last river circular disc). 

To do this you don’t need to use the exact number of movement points - you can have excess movement points. The canoe that has just been moved back to land (with or without the gem) cannot be used again until the next turn. It is placed on the beach. A gem in a canoe that makes it back to the beach belongs to the owner of that canoe.

Moving the river

The lowest number played by any player of that round PLUS the number on the weather track dictates the number of circular discs that the river will move.
  • If you played the weather tile on your turn it gives you the power to change the weather track (see below example)

Example

If these tiles are put face down at the start of the game in the first round..
Example - Yellow, Red and Green lay down their tiles in this 3 player game
and then revealed..
If this is the start of the game, Green can move 1 canoe 4 spaces. Red can move 1 canoe 2 spaces (see below)

If this isn't the start of the game and one Green canoe is in the river, Green must move that canoe in the river 4 spaces in the same direction (or alternatively, use up to 4 movement points which includes moving and picking up gems) and may, optionally, choose to move the other canoe that was on the beach

If both Green canoes are in the river, Green MUST use movement points for both of them, with each canoe using exactly 4 movement spaces, but they need not move in the same direction (it is up to Green to decide)

This would mean that Yellow gets to move the Cloud symbol on the weather track 1 space in any direction they like on the weather track. Below, Yellow chooses to move the Cloud symbol to "+1", which increases the pace of the river by +1.

The lowest number of the Round is 2 which means that, the River will move 2 + 1 circular discs down (as Yellow moved the cloud icon to +1)

Then Green and Red move like this:

Note that the cloud symbol has moved to +1
Red moves 1 canoe 2 spaces
Green moves 1 canoe 4 spaces
Then the discs are pushed 3  places to the left (2 + 1, the" +1" due to the weather track). This means that 3 discs must fall off before the waterfall movement ceases

Stealing

Players can steal gems only if they move upstream. To do this, the player must land on the same disc as another player's full/loaded canoe (ie the canoe must have a gem in it).

As an example, suppose this is the scenario. Green has an opportunity to steal from red by going back upstream (to the right)


Suppose Red must move first. Green can plan the steal by predicting what Red will do and play the right tile accordingly.

In this case, suppose Red plays a "3" and Green, predicting that Red is going to play a 3 (to take a gem and move 1 up), also plays a "3".

In a silly move, Red uses its 3 movement points by taking a White gem (remember, this costs 2 movement points) and then uses the last point to move upstream by one space, like so:




Then Green uses up their movement points to move upstream like so. Because Green ends up on the same disc as Red, Green can opt to steal!


Green steals the white gem because Green lands on the same disc as Red.
A player can steal from their own boats as well.

Canoes that fall down: A canoe that gets kicked off the waterfall is lost permanently but may be restored if the player pays 1 gem.