I recently played several games of Samurai with Mary and Gerald over at MabiWeb. Going we, we all claimed to be piss-poor Samurai players. Hyperbole aside, I really struggle with this game. I think it’s due to the funky, opportunistic timing of the play and the stutter-step narrative.
I equate this cadence to one other game: Stefan Dorra’s Medina. In both games, players are well served by playing in places where the position of their pieces will bear fruit several turns down the road. Unless, of course, they see an opportunity to strike at an immediate scoring opportunity. This is clearer in Samurai than it is in Medina, so I would tend to like Samurai a bit less. (I still think very highly of Medina.)
So it is that in my games with Mary and Gerald, I began to apply a simple rule. I would play my pieces where they would appear to be strong in position, but would not yield immediate gain to the succeeding player. Essentially, I would never play where one more unit would give a piece to an opponent. I combined this with a change in how I targeted pieces. Instead of concentrating on a single icon, I would eschew one icon. I thought that this would provide some flexibility in play instead of the constant struggle to take just one kind of piece, or the diffuse aim of taking any piece that proved convenient.
This worked to an extent. I prevailed in two games, and shared a victory in a third with Mary, who also won one. Gerald was shut out of the winner’s circle.
I still have trouble with Samurai’s story arc, but now there’s a glimmer of recognition.
