This week we start a 2 part mini-series on the 2-player scenarios Channel Tunnel (designed by David Brain) and Siege of St.Petersburg (designed by Alan Paull). Both of these scenarios were designed from the ground up as 2 player experiences (though St.Petersburg can play with 4) and both of them are more adventurous with how far they push the core of Snowdonia. Most Snowdonia scenarios already play well with 2, but what could a dedicated 2-player experience offer that the multiplayer scenarios can’t? We will start that exploration today by looking at the Channel Tunnel. 

Core changes

A lot of big things change in this scenario. So many that I feel they’re best presented as a list:

• The scenario is exclusively 2 player (one player must play blue and the other yellow)

• Players work from opposite ends of the track

• All track cards are tunnels, subsequently, there is no lay track action.

• The bag composition and starting stock yard are considerably different.

• There is no weather. It is replaced with crisis management.

• Excavation work rate is frozen at 2.

• There is no surveyor.

• Players can have 2 trains and up to 4 workers each.

Stockyard and Bag changes

Instead of the usual distribution of 27 iron ore and 11 stone, this scenario uses 20 Iron ore and 15 stone. Coal and events are unchanged.

Additionally, The stockyard does not start the game with any stone in it. Stone is much higher value than iron ore or coal in this scenario and should be grabbed pretty much whenever it’s contested.

Crisis Management

There is no weather in this scenario. In its place are crises. Weather cards now add blue or yellow discs to the crisis management card. Every turn when weather would resolve, instead players lose a player marker to the crisis area for every disc there matching their colour. If players can’t provide these from the general supply, they must start removing them from the board. Players lose 2 VP at game end for every ownership marker here matching their colour.

Players can remove a weather disc here, stopping the haemorrhaging of ownership markers by taking the new G action. If there are no weather discs of your colour, this action gives you one of your lost ownership markers back.

This is vicious. Outside of extremely extenuating circumstances, you cannot allow a weather disc of your colour to stay here for more than a round. Remove them at top priority as the situation becomes significantly harder to fix the more that pile up. Spending an action to get a marker back is quite inefficient, it is far better to prevent them leaving in the first place. 

Track

There is no normal track in this scenario. It is all replaced with tunnels. Players work from opposite ends towards the middle of the tunnel and so will never directly compete over this. The game now ends when the two players tunneling meets.

Tunnels allow a player to spend 1 stone each time they remove 2 rubble to place a player marker and score 2 or 3 VP. The lack of weather in this scenario means the work rate is permanently at 2.  

Ownership markers on tunnels count as track for the purposes of contracts. This makes track contracts incredibly valuable because each track marker now only costs a single stone. By working from opposite ends, players also know they can’t have this taken from them (until near the very end of the game).

It is also noteworthy that this significantly decreases the value of iron ore and steel since it is now only needed for trains and building. It can be reasonably expected to see each player use 3 or fewer steel bars in a game.

The player that makes it to the middle first scores 5 extra VP and will score another 5 for every subsequent station of their opponent’s that they pass before the game ends, heavily incentivising getting on with tunneling.

Stations

Stations in this scenario are entirely symmetrical. Both players can build in Gare du Nord and in St.Pancras from the start of the game, but after that, they can only build in the stations on their side of the tunnel. Once again, there will be no competition from your opponent for these. 

Usually I would be raving about these station spaces, the return on investment is well above the curve on every space. But tunnel spaces paired with contracts are such an efficient use of stone and actions that these needed to be this big just to keep up. 

Trains

Captain Thomas English’s Boring Machine is a new type of train. Firstly, it moves onto the board and follows the progress of your tunnel. It scores points for pushing into your opponent’s territory but also closes each of your stations it passes in the same way events do. It is also immune to train maintenance and holds your surveyor who can be used a 4th worker here for the D or G actions at the cost of an iron ore.

The new D action can only be taken using the Boring Machine and offers players a discounted build action or a doubled excavation. It’s the best action on offer and you should use it as often as you can afford the resources to leverage it.

The boring machines are basically mandatory purchases. The benefits so far outweigh the costs. I am not sure this scenario is winnable without a Boring Machine against an evenly skilled opponent who has bought theirs.

The other trains are the Moel Siabod, Snowdon, Enid and Wyddfa. With a train and a Boring Machine, you can have 4 workers on the board if you pay a coal and an iron ore. It’s probably not sustainable to do this every turn and the train maintenance costs are not insignificant, but it’s very powerful.

Contracts

Contracts 1 and 2 are incredible. 3 excavation actions in 1 is a huge advantage if you have the stone to claim the track. Their top halves are unlikely to be worth scoring though. 

Contract 8 is also excellent. The top half will easily get scored and the bottom lets you clear out the ever-terrifying crisis area without burning an action. 

Contract 4 is probably the weakest. The top half compares poorly to other track contracts and the bottom half only nets you 2 points. That said, its value goes up if you’re running out of ownership markers.

Jaya’s Design Thoughts

I think this scenario perfectly demonstrates that all game systems have limits. A scenario-based game is, fundamentally, all about exploring those limits and finding the many permutations and explorations possible within a core system. This scenario breaks up a lot of the Snowdonia core by making it more stable than usual:

• Players are kept separate, reducing interaction. 

• They’re offered identical opportunities. Their tunnels match, their Boring Machines match, their stations match.

• The weather is gone, and so is the variability of the desirability of certain actions.

These are worthy things to experiment with but unfortunately I think that by levelling the playingfield, the game ironically becomes much more swingy and luck-based:

• The crises only affect one player at a time. While the deck distribution is 50/50, it is perfectly possible that one player gets more crises to deal with than the other. Which linearly drains their actions or VP while their opponent moves on unhindered.

• Contracts become an emphasised point of difference between players at the same time that track contracts become far bigger value spikes than usual. This means which contract cards come off the top of the deck each round and who has the first player marker to take the F action will have a far greater impact on who wins than is desirable.

• Events randomly only affect one side of the tunnel. If one player gets more of them than the other, they are easily set-up to dig deeper into the opponent’s territory for more points.

I admire how far this scenario pushed the core system. I think it’s better that a scenario push the bounds of the design space too far, but learn something important in the process, than not push it enough to meaningfully vary. But it’s also important to understand taste. I strongly believe Snowdonia’s interaction and variance are what makes it special… But some players have always wanted less variance in Snowdonia and this scenario lets them have that!

What do you think? Do you like this scenario? Do you find the dedicated 2 player experience it offers more compelling than playing normal scenarios at 2? Let me know!