11th Dec 2025 - The League and Galactic Cruise
by Robin. Sun 14 Dec (Updated at Sun 14 Dec)It's been a while since I did a write-up of the tournament, on account of not really having featured in the last couple of years'. Last time I did that, we were acclaiming Ed on managing to join the exclusive list of multiple winners. Since then, well, that list has not got any less exclusive.
But regardless of all these individual interests, we've had a completely different format of tournament - now known as the League - this year, so let's start with that. In the past, we used to elect 5 games which became the 5 "rounds" of the tournament. Do well in those 5 rounds, and you're in the final. But not any more. As you've probably noticed, we now count all "main" games that people play.
So if you only play Garphill games with the same group every week, or whatever, this can still work for you. Or if you didn't like the concept of "practice" games one week for the tournament game the next week, this can work for you. And it's based on averages, not sum-totals, so if you can only make it to the club 15 times a year, this can work for you too. (Less than 15, it can't, but that's another story.)
There are pros and cons. It's clearly more inclusive and less intrusive, as above, which is great. But how many games do we all play a year? Based on the final Grand Prix league table, the average for regulars is well over 30. Of course you'll all remember the Central Limit Theorem from your school maths, which broadly says that the more games you have in a league, the more predictable it becomes. So yes, you all know who topped the table. And so the new league is not so much a tournament in the traditional sense, as in a sporting contest that everyone can win - it's more like a thorough record of how well we all do at board games generally. How do you feel about knowing that? And will it be a different result next year?
For me, I did better in the league table this year than I've ever done before. But I don't like it as a competition - for me the competition should always have an element of jeopardy and uncertainty. I don't think the likes of Sky Sports have ever paid multi-billion pound TV rights deals for the results of a census.
Thankfully (or so it seemed) we did retain one element of uncertainty from the old format: the winner overall still had to win the Final, which - as before - was for the top 4 in the league. The old rule - that the final was chosen by the league winner from one of the games played in this year's league - would have been somewhat unwieldy, with more than 170 different games having been counted towards the final league table. So this time we just said that the game played the most had to be played again as the final. Either way, it was always possible that someone would come to the final to play a game that they had never played before: and this year, that was me.
So yes, I think it was in April or May this year that you were all getting your copies of Galactic Cruise and playing them? Not my thing - or at least, it didn't particularly jump out at me as something to try. So I never did, until this week.
I won't bore you with too much about Galactic Cruise on the basis that, as the most-played game at the club this year, you probably all know it better than I do. I did quite like it, particularly the art-deco artwork making a nice blend between the glitz of science fiction and the tat of cruise ships. I think it was best summarised by both Dan and Ian, who agreed that it was "like a Vital Lacerda game, just not by Vital Lacerda."
Certainly, like so many of these heavy euros, the trick is to find ways of getting the most out of your limited actions. But in this one, that was because the game is limited by the total number of achievements by all players, so it really is a race. It did feel a bit procedural, but I'm glad I tried it, and I'd be interested to try it again I think. Might not ever be my favourite game, but good fun.
Now, I'd like to be the bearer of some news, but no - Ed won. Well done Ed, again. I didn't come last, though apparently I should credit that more to Ian than to me. I wasn't sufficiently aware of what was going on to notice, but apparently he screwed himself over early on somehow. Dan and I hadn't played much (/ever) before, and Ian self-destructed - that's the excuse for what was surely the most landslide final score in the history of NPBGC tournament finals. We'll try better next year...
... Or indeed, maybe someone will prove me wrong! Maybe the league table isn't just a data record, and maybe the top 4 will be different next year. Maybe some new Ed will emerge from our extensive set of new joiners. We're doing mostly the same format again next year, so see what you can do. I'd be delighted to see someone else get in the final next year, but I remain convinced that it'll most likely be the same 4 again. Central Limit Theorem: look it up. If you knock me out of the top 4, I'll buy you a drink. Or Ian or Dan. If you can knock Ed out of it, I'll buy you a brewery.