Designed by Reiner Knizia
Published by Parker/Hasbro
Reviewed by Mike Siggins
3-5 players
60 minutes
One of the most fascinating questions in life is whether that multitude of monkeys could in fact reproduce Shakespeare, or whether a child locked in a cell and deprived of stimuli from birth will still support Manchester United when he emerges. So when Reiner Knizia is shut away in his garret, understandably refusing to play others' games, while producing two or three designs before breakfast, what are the chances of him coming up with a very similar game to one that already exists? And even more intriguing, what are the chances of it being better than what has gone before?
Why do I mention this? Because Rheinlaender is obviously a foal out of Acquire and Big Boss, but with Herr Knizia's unique stamp of individuality. There is nothing sinister here - I have no doubt that the actual derivation was as a spin off from his tile-laying work on Tigris and recent card games, but the similarities are marked. So my task is to decide whether Big Boss can effectively be shelved and whether Rheinlaender is a good stab at mass market crossover for Parker and Reiner. The theme is medieval dukes fighting for control of Rhine-side provinces, the length is dutifully under the magical hour, and as befits a Reiner game, there is much to be done and precious little time or resources available to achieve it.
The board shows a section of the Rhine river and the bordering land regions on both banks, and on a mid-stream island (which adds much to play interest). Each of these regions and eventually the bridges between can be claimed by a players' knights, by the simple expedient of laying numbered cards. Cleverly, these can sometimes be used to reinforce existing holdings even if the appropriate number is not available. When two adjacent areas are secured duchy is formed and the player places one of his six dukes to show ownership. If the duchy abuts a church, the duke also becomes a bishop - important because the holder of most bishop tokens becomes archbishop who has powers of conversion (!). If the duchy contains a town (valuable, these), its numerical value is added to the ducal economic worth (essentially property holdings plus one for the duke's nob), while an adjoining castle can be garrisoned adding to the duchy's military strength (number of knights). Duchies with lebensraum may be expanded at will, taking in more and more holdings, adding knights to the standing army and strengthening weak flanks with bastions, but eventually you will encounter a rival on the riverbank, and nasty territorial disputes may ensue.
Playing a card and knight to join the two duchies results in a takeover of the militarily weaker faction (Acquire style), and a payout of cash (victory points by any other name) is made to the loser. The winner gets no cash, though he now owns any buildings in the new combined duchy. On the downside he often has a sizeable enemy knight faction to keep his eye on. Why do it? If you hold on till the end of the game there is a big bonus for each duke compared to their value in the interim payouts. But otherwise there is no VP income unless you are taken over. What is frying the logic circuits is quite what is happening when one duchy takes over a neighbour. The loser is paid out in cash - as what? Compensation for loss of office? - and his knights remain in place, ready to stage a comeback when reinforcements arrive. It makes some sense when we are talking hotel chains, but not medieval duchies - especially when you can take over your own duchies and get paid as well. But them's the rules.
What results is a game that can feel a mite odd at times but generally seems to work well. It is also a little inaccessible. The rules explanation goes on for slightly longer than normal for this weight of game, and there are a few more exceptions than we are used to. For some players, this can mean they are slightly at a loss for tactics in their first game. What am I meant to be doing? Do I want this to be taken over? Is building this huge duchy a good move? It gradually becomes clearer but the slight concern remains that you can, with a fair wind, set up a strong position and not be troubled at all by rivals which makes the game less than interactive. At the other end of the scale you can spend an entire game squabbling. It can also be over rather quickly since there are subtle ways of bringing the end game closer by laying knights in castles.
I have never been one to suggest tactics (because I am rarely sure of their merit) but in Rheinlaender it would seem to make sense to get as many of your dukes onto the board as possible, in high value locations, and to keep your head down until the end of the game. If you are going to be taken over, it makes sense to have it happen (like voting) early and often. The other maxim is to avoid tit-for-tat squabbles because they certainly hurt all players involved. The 'low profile' strategy does seem to work - you can often lay cards which set up a small duchy close to no-one and only towards the end of the game do duchies spread sufficiently to make space limited.
Production is an issue, not because the components are anything less than attractive (the dukes are plastic figures, everything else is thick, good quality card), but because the board is rather busy and when covered in tiles and dukes and bishoprics and bastions it all becomes rather confusing. The choice of board and token colours is less than inspired as well - why, when we have six perfectly good player colours, do we have to resort to closely shaded purple and magenta? Again, a small issue but one that may contribute towards the opacity of the game that some have remarked upon.
I like Rheinlaender a lot. Apart from the slightly incongruous interim victory points, I think it makes for an admirable middleweight game. It is quick for the depth on offer, has a straightforward system, yet (as with most of Reiner's output) has some rapid and interesting decisions on every turn. My wider concern is with accessibility, play balance and its interactive qualities, but as we play more, and games remain tight and different each time, I am worrying less. Those players that have expressed an inability to grasp the game have found things better second time out, and to an extent it is one of those games, like Tigris, where you play three or four times just to get to grips with the system. As I've said before, with Reiner's games this is hardly a chore and anyway I like that feature - as long as one is left wanting more after game one, I see no problem with trying an effectively new game second time out without the pain of rules reading. This 'sticky' quality is one that eludes a large percentage of German Games, usually results in five plays or more, and at least gives you value for money even if ultimately the game proves a 'sell'. I don't think for a minute that this will be Rheinlaender's fate.