Not, in my opinion, the world's best review. (What's the emoticon for "British understatement"? I think it should have a bowler hat - even though no one (I mean no one) wears one anymore. Who do I suggest creating one to?)

Not because of its lukewarm attitude (I've read good reviews that disliked games I like) but because it's rather superficial. In particular, but not only:



Is rather a throwaway comment for that even in the basic set 30 of the 60 cards have either special power text or icons (or both) - and the proportion goes up in the later decks (in fact it's 100% in two of them). And even in the basic set they do more than the two examples (but not stated as just examples) indicated.

I don't aim to write comprehensive information about each card or ability. I write my reviews based on the necessary information I would like to read about a game: what kind is it, how does it play, what are its good and bad points, and how does it compare to other games.

That's just my style. If I reviewed Settlers, I would say "there are action cards that let you gain a few resources, gain VP, or move the robber." That's all.

Yehuda

Yes, the statement is short and accurate.

But it does not do the game justice, as this is really the key element of Blue Moon, together with the symbols. That the powers are so varied, asymmetric and yet well balanced is the main charm of BM.

Re: price - you could produce any game functionally for 4 bucks, just throw in crap paper components. I for one am glad it is not the case in general and am more than willing to pay for extras if they enhance the game setup (and that includes your own published game for that matter).

Re: art - "pornography" also lies in the eye of the beholder, probably heavily tainted by cultural background.

And my point is that you haven't done that, it's missing necessary information. And I couldn't make a meaningful comparison from it.



You have here listed almost all the cards, and they are a more minor feature. As I noted for Blue Moon, even in the basic game, half the cards have special abilities, and your two examples are indicated as if all the abilities, no hint of "for example".

Yep, the sexist artwork really puts a damper on the violence that is the heart of the game.

OK, someone may say - you criticised that review because it didn't like the game. So as an exercise, here's a "review" which I've writtten which I don't actually agree with at all, but I've attempted to make informative from a certain angle.

Please don't quote me outside this thread without making clear that it was in a spoof review, or some such words. "Classic fantasy babes" was the reaction from an American female gamer who used to be a member of our local games club.


Blue Moon is Reiner Knizia's second game clearly inspired by collectable card games. (The other is Scarab Lords and its expansion, but I haven't played those.) However compared to a true CCG, it has certain drawbacks:

- Every deck is the same, there's no surprise element in opening a Mimix deck, for example. There are five promotional cards to chase (two only in German) but hardly anyone uses them, so there's no fun there.

- There's a limited pool of cards, less than 400 in all. This compares to Magic the gathering for example, which has a current pool significantly larger than that, and over ten time the current total overall.

- While you can construct your own decks, many (maybe most) people just play with the decks as they come. That limits the number of players out there you can play the full game with. (There is an AI out there now, but it is totally limited to the "out of the box" game.)

- Furthermore you can't build your deck freely, you are limited to starting with one people, and only able to add ten "moons" cost of additional cards to it (taking out any of your own cards, obviously the less good ones). With cards costing up to four moons, that denies you the opportunity to build a killer deck of all the good cards. Things are a bit better with the "Emissaries and Inquisitors" decks which expand on the deck building, and allow you to add more moons. They also make you add more cards - but also provide some excellent new cards, such as the Hyla, that don't cost moons, as well as some free "own people" cards. In fact playing with these decks is clearly the only way to go.

- The nature of the game is limited too. You play a sequence of fights, at the end of which all the cards are swept away, so there's no opportunity for an open-ended build up of forces. (You score a certain number of "dragons" for winning a fight, usually one, two if it's a long fight, sometimes modified. These are exchanged back and forth across the table as fortunes ebb and flow.) The only exception is the Hyla noted above, but there can only be one of those, and ships in the Buka Invasion. In fact the latter deck, with its ship and bluffing rules is good additional complexity in a game that needs more. Without these three final decks, the game is rather too easy for people to pick up and play (though there is a long FAQ list on the Internet, which is good news, even if most of it is obvious).

- The fight mechanism is basically one of "climbing", continually attempting to improve on your opponents' score. There are two "elements" to fight in, chosen by the loser of the last fight. Better half of the cards in the basic game (and more in other decks - all in the Flit and the Khind, the real game players' decks) have special abilities, either in the form of special power text, or icons, which are a sort of standardised ability. The abilities don't compare in complexity with some of the more complicated Magic abilities, especially those which take some pages of explanation. About the most complicated are "ignore" effects, changing elements subject to conditions ("mutant" cards) and the way that the Khind can build up an attack turn by turn, using "gangs" - most peoples have to play a new "character" card each turn. But there's a complement of things like resetting the climbing count (shields), bringing cards back into hand (retrieve) and cards best played in combination (pairs).

- There are also other sorts of cards, especially booster cards that also get replaced each turn, and support cards that last a whole fight, but still are removed after its end. The basic game only has one other sort of card "leadership" cards which are one-off event cards (Muster Reinforcements for five new cards is what every magic player wants to see). The Emissaries and Inquisitors decks and the Buka Invasion deck have more card types - including the only "interrupt"-like cards (interference cards in Blue Moon terminology).

- Worst of all, the existing eleven decks (two in the base game) seem to be all there will be. Once you've learned all of them, and played all the 72 people versus people matchups (with a choice of up to four inquisitors each, and decks to design and build in each case) you'll have exhausted the game.

- There are some things that the game doesn't have that you'll miss: the most obvious is mana to play cards (so you can't run into a "no land" problem, but "no characters" is this game's possible problem - though most decks have plenty), a complicated stack of spells, triggered effects and so on (there's a fudge where certain cards just say what they don't effect, fine for a game with this few cards I suppose, to avoid precedence problems). But "card advantage" is less important in Blue Moon too - you can win if you run out of cards, ands you get to refill your hand each turn. (There's a small advantage in winning a tie if you have cards left last.) But a good choice in your hand is still good.

- I haven't understood all the tactics, and I'm still making up my mind about what strategy means. But some things are obvious - keep choices in your hands, don't throw good cards after bad, and don't forget you can retreat even if you don't have to.

- The base set has some nice features, the three dragons supplied are quite good. I would complain about the colours - what sort of "green" is that? - but in fact unless you have the Emissaries and Inquisitors decks, the colours are irrelevant anyway. But they really should have supplied some "crystal" pieces to score matches (actually I'm told the designer calls them "campaigns" but didn't say so in the rulebook) up to five crystals, again the only way to play.

- And at least the Mimix "classic fantasy babes" are better than anything that Wizards of the Coast let get printed.

It's a good review Yehuda. Keep 'em coming I appreciate a shorter, trimmed-down review. Heaven knows if it sparks my interest and I want more opinions, there's a novel's worth of super indepth reviews out there. Succinct can be good.

The moral message is in Blue Moon City where the people of Blue Moon realise they have been conned, that the best choice of the two Royal Heirs is neither of them, and agree to rebuild the city in a cooperative manner. While still competing of course, there has to be a game in it!

Well, it's longer, but I can't say that it's my type of review.



While I contrast one game with another, I try not to judge a game as being bad simply because it's not like another. The review you posted compares Blue Moon negatively to Magic because it doesn't do something that it's not supposed to to - be collectible, for instance.

I think the only time I overtly did that was when reviewing Citadels, when I indeed said that playing Magic had spoiled me for games with boring cards like those in Citadels.



Here is a place where you added detail - "moons" - which didn't help the review but harmed it. I had to read this a few times before I remembered what moons were. And even then it was hard to fathom.

If I were to have included this feature in my review, I would have said that "each card is worth 0-4 points, and your deck can only contain up to 10 points". My 16 word summary is your entire paragraph.

I wouldn't use the word "moons", because it's an unnecessary complication in the review. All of those other words: Hyla, free people, and so on are also meaningless to me. So I wouldn't use them, unless they were critical to the mechanics.



I honestly thought maybe I was just being lazy with my review, but I wouldn't include any of this. For a review, you don't need to know that specific packs of cards are exceptions, nor that certain cards allow only one, nor mention ships and bluffing rules that you don't explain and are unnecessary to the core mechanics. I don't know what they are, but I bet I know what they do: they give you some powers to change the numbers, swap some cards, or so on. All unnecessary information, as far as I'm concerned.

...

I think I'll stick with my short core reviews. I appreciate that I shouldn't be lazy, and that you like longer reviews with more theme and detail on exceptions, but mostly this is a disagreement over style.

Yehuda

Did I suggest it was?

You did notice I said it was a spoof, right?

It's actually really saying Magic is great, but Blue Moon isn't Magic. The intent is to actually mention what I think are the good points with a negative spin on them, but which would allow a reader to pick up the facts through the opinions. Sometimes it's a bit heavy handed. It's only real purpose is to say there can be a review I disagree with, but don't think is bad (at least not for that reason).

I note some points you note could be improved. Very true. Had I actually meant it I would have sharpened it up, though probably still not as much as would be ideal.

If you want my real review of Blue Moon, see at http://www.mnemosyne.demon.co.uk/bgames/bluemoon
It also is a lot longer, but it was for print publication.
(I'd change a few details now, and tighten it up a bit more.)



Nothing wrong with a short review. But yours was misleading in all but omitting a key point, and in what you did mention not indicate that you were quoting examples when you were just quoting two cases of many.



No, it's not. It's about that your review gives a false impression that it's almost entirely about the numbers. The absolutely minimal fix to avoid that is to change the piece which refers to special abilities to note that there are many of them, and examples are (the two you quote are as good as any).

This is a poor review. You certainly don't have to like the game but the lack of understanding the game is really very apparent in the review...

Which would be OK if it was a sort of "First play session report" but it is a review so I feel that for a fair review a game you have to have a good grasp of what the game is about.

I don't get that sense here.

I personally do love Blue Moon but could see how it is not for everyone and admit that there are certainly flaws. This review highlights neither the strengths or the flaws well.

Component-wise, it is just a card game, but Knizia and Kosmos invested a lot of money and/or effort in it—after all, the eight people decks were designed up front, and all twenty-eight of the match-ups had to be balanced—so what should they do? Do you really think it makes any sense for them to sell it as cheaply as possible, get a tiny return on their investment, and pray that it doesn't fly under everyone's radar? All because gamers aren't going to play the game more than once before they pass judgment on it and so shouldn't have to pay too much for the privilege?


I think this is the paragraph that is drawing the negative reactions from your readers. Certainly this is an important element of the game, but there's much more going on than just that. For example, some cards work very well in combination or in specific situations, and so the number on the card is only one factor in the decision of whether or not to play it. Whether or not you think you will be able to draw out the fight to six cards (and win it) is another important consideration.

It's sort of like saying that jambalaya is essentially rice; that's true only if you're ignoring all the stuff that's not rice.

Anyway, this is the reason why I am always encouraging people to play games more than once before they write reviews.

Gola. point taken.

Perhaps it is not the lack of mechanics, but the lack of expanding on the depths of strategy that is bothering people here.

Yehuda

Actually, this was the quote that chapped my goat. I'm always appreciative when I'm compared to a child because of the games I like. Thanks a lot for your condescending and superior attitude.

skrebs: I'm terribly sorry if this gave the impression that I think people who like these games must be children. That wasn't my intention. That I find them too simplistic was all that I meant to imply.

Yehuda

Agreed. Lost Cities and Loco have a LOT of strategy to them. Loco I'd say actually is an extremely deep game if you spend the time to PLAY IT enough times to find the strategy. That's not sarcasm either. Blue moon is 20x as deep as Loco, and if you add the expansions becomes deeper than MTG in my opinion... Go Reiner. Go!

First i have to say i like the game and i think it is very good 2 player game, one of the best out there.

and ART, which is off course matter of taste, for me is very good. And Mimix is one of the best of all decks.
Pornographic ?? What do You mean? Have You ever seen real porno? If BM has pornographic art then commercials on TV are hard core porno, and every woman directed commercial of oils, creams and so on is sexist.
Not everyone have to like BM art but... pornographic??
Have You ever seen porno movie ?

Perhaps the reviewer avoids the beach, and is unaccustomed to the female body.

Which might give a shock if he happens to a beach one day.

Imagine the real live "pornography" happening right there in front of him - and worse, the people at the beach seem to be unaware of their shocking indecency.