geek
The Hotness
Games|People|Company
Rules | Subscriptions | Bookmarks | Search | Account | Moderators
Recommend
12
14 Posts
New Thread | Printer Friendly | Subscribe  sub options | Bookmark
Your Tags: Add tags
Popular Tags: [View All]
Simon Taylor
United Kingdom
HOPE VALLEY
Derbyshire/Yorkshire
flag msg tools
Avatar
patron08
mbmb
Guillotine » Forums » Reviews
Good idea badly implemented
I played this game a couple of times today. My overall opinion is that it was ok... the theme was great, but it just didn't quite work as well as I thought it should have done. As a result, it was a bit of a disappointment

The game starts with a queue of twelve nobles waiting to be guillotined. Each noble is worth a different amount, and the aim is to chop the heads off the ones that are worth the most. This is a great theme.

To aid the chopping of the best heads, each player has a range of action cards, which allow them to alter the order of the queue for the guillotine, or possibly alter the number of points they have directly.

You gradually chop the heads off all the nobles in the queue, until none remain. That's the end of "day 1". You then repeat this twice more, for a three-day game.

So far, the theme is great, and I'm seeing potential for a few simple strategies to make it interesting. But I was then disappointed by some of the features.

Here are a couple of problems I had with the game:


o) The cards that can kill off 33% of the game in one go.

Some of the nobles have special features, so that when you chop off their head, you get some sort of bonus. One of these has a special feature that when you chop off his head, the "day" ends. Since the game is three days long, ending one of the days means losing a good portion of the game.

As well as that noble, there is also an action card that says "end the day after my turn" which means that potentially, you could end two of the three days after one turn, and you've barely started the game by the time you've finished, with two thirds of the game being cut out.

Since this is a fun, and already short, game, it's a real disappointment when it's cut short like this.


o) The luck.

Too many of the cards revolve around luck. Some luck is fine - for a game like this, luck is good, because it means it gives people more of a chance to win. But too much luck stops it from being a game, and just makes it a lottery.

For example, there's an action card that allows you to re-order the line. But you can't choose how to reorder it, you just scoop the cards up, shuffle them, and put them back randomly. What should be an opportunity for a little tactic play just becomes an exercise in blind luck.


o) One action card at a time.

The action cards would work really nicely together. But the game lets you play only one at once. Instead of being able to use two cards to do something really cunning and amusing, you can only use one card, so you just do the one that works best on its own.

First, this means that it limits considerably the number of things you can do. For example, I had one card that added a noble to the back of the queue, and one that reversed the order of the queue. At the time, a really bad card was at the back of the queue. For a game like this, where so many of the cards are designed to screw over your opponents, I would have loved to have done:
1) Add nice noble to the end of the queue
2) Swap queue round, to take the nice noble, and leave the bad one ready for the next player.
As it was, only able to do one action, I just shunted an ok-ish noble to the front of the queue and took him. With the queue changing so much between turns, a two-turn strategic move is all but impossible, so you are forced to do moderately exciting short-term things.

Second, you end up with lots of action cards you can't use. I can have two great cards that cause annoyance and pain to my opponents, but because I are forced to play a boring card just to make sure I get an acceptable noble at the front, I can't then play my fun cards as well. Both times I played, I had cards left over that would have been great fun to play, but there wasn't the opportunity.


o) Too little risk-it-for-next-turn, or interesting, options

By this, I mean that almost always, the best card to play is one which causes the best noble to go to the front of the line, which you then take. Very rarely is the best strategy to use a card to re-sort the nobles, hoping that you have put them in an order that will help you next time.

There are a lot of action cards that allow you to shift a single noble forwards or backwards in the queue. So the best option is frequently to move the best noble to the front, so you can have it, or move the noble currently at the front further back, so you can have the one that was second in the queue. That's a bit dull, compared to cards that could allow you to make changes to the queue that would attempt to set you up for doing better next time.

Also, just moving one card forwards (so that you can take it) is not very exciting. It's just a card that let's you say "I'll have that one instead". I would like to have seen more that say you can swap a couple of cards over, or exchange some for ones in players' hands, or anything that means you're doing something that has more of a lasting effect on the queue for future players to deal with.


-----

So - on the plus side, it was great to chop off people's heads, and that theme was wonderful. Also on the plus side, I played a couple of games, and would happily have played another one.

But - on the negative side, there was really no strategy/tactics at all. As long as you have a vauge bit of sense, it's pretty obvious that one of your cards will do very well for you, and the others are less good. And since you can only play one card, you just play the one that's obviously best. There's less scope than I expected for screwing over your opponents at the same time as benefitting yourself, there's less scope for really awesome moves that are good fun to be able to play out, and in general, my brain just didn't have to be awake at all. I didn't want it to be working overtime, but just the need to be awake would have been nice.

For me, a similar game with a similarly silly theme, also with cards with good (even better) illustrations, also involving some killing, also simple to teach, and quick to play, but with just that added interest to keep me interested and awake, is Unexploded Cow. My recommendation would be avoid Guillotine, and buy Unexploded Cow instead. However, if you've already got Guillotine, then it's good enough to keep, and play once in a while. And maybe there's scope for a few house rules to be added to spice it up a bit and make it a little more interesting as a game as well as as a theme.
Was George Orwell an optimist?
United States
Corvallis
Oregon
flag msg tools
Avatar
0506070809
mbmbmbmbmb
I have to agree with you. I'm always buying new games in hopes of getting the family interested. Guillotine is one where the ploy worked, and I regret it.

The best plays are always obvious, so the only real decision making is who picks on who with the penalty cards. The idea is clever, but the game is no better than UNO if ask me. I have no idea why it gets so many favorable ratings.
Richard Sampson
United States

New York
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
Great review. I totally agree with you on pretty much all of your complaints, and I think you were spot on when you suggest house rules. The rules for the game are so simple anyways that to mold it a little only seems fit. Removing day ending cards, enabling using 2 cards are two you suggest and I think they are pretty good suggestions.

I have been thinking about trying it where you can play as many cards as you like or draw 1 card but not both allowing for someone to save up for some wicked combo, but then paying the price of not having any more cards. I don't think people should necessarily avoid this game because it really does fit the niche of a filler game, but I think that playing with the suggested rules can be disappointing for many.
Chris H - I saw the rain-dirty valley, you saw Brigadoon
United Kingdom
Bolton
Lancashire
flag msg tools
Avatar
patron06070809
mbmbmbmbmb
I disagree. Guillotine is a light, take-that sort of card game. In my opinion it is no more random than most of that genre and certainly more fun than most.

I agree it is frustrating that a couple of cards can really cut the game short, that is one of my peeves with the game too.

However, I think you overstate issue of luck. As you point out, most games of this type employ luck. I think one of the nice things about Guillotine is the way many of the cards balance power with luck, so for example there are cards that allow you to make small changes to the line but if you want to make major changes they are at random. Equally, there is a strong card that allows you to remove a noble (at random) from another player's pile, or a weaker card that allows you to take a noble (your choice) from another player who then gets to take one back from you. For me, this is better balancing than in other games where the luck is in whether you draw the strong card or the weak one (or perhaps the card you need right at this moment).

Your other gripes are also features of many of this genre. Guillotine is no euro. It would be better to judge it against the standards of Bang, Family Business, Give Me The Brain or even Mille Bornes than to expect a luck free game of deep decision making.
ackmondual
United States

Virginia
flag msg tools
Avatar
patron08
mbmbmbmbmb
I bought this game b/c it was very inexpensive, takes up very little physical space, and makes for a great filler. It's a great filler in where the game takes < 5 min to teach, plays in 30 min, and is very easy pretty much for anyone to get into.

I acknowledge that there's a lot of luck in this game, but that's kind of the whole point. For social/party games, quick casual games, or games with close friends where the focus is more on chillin', hanging out, and catching up than the game itself, it works VERY well. If I want a game of strategy and less luck, I have different gaming groups for that, as well as different types of games such as strategy, abstract, and euro games for that.

I'm more in tune with BGG's user ratings for Uno and this. Guillotine can be frustrating in where during "not so shining moments", you get stuck with lower valued nobles and the gray ones that are worth (-) points for the most part, but IMO, I feel you still have more control here than in Uno. In Uno, you're just as likely to get a whoop-load of cards dumped on you, and have nothing you can do about it. This makes it VERY easy for you to lag behind.
Simon Taylor
United Kingdom
HOPE VALLEY
Derbyshire/Yorkshire
flag msg tools
Avatar
patron08
mbmb
boltongeordie wrote:
Your other gripes are also features of many of this genre. Guillotine is no euro. It would be better to judge it against the standards of Bang, Family Business, Give Me The Brain or even Mille Bornes than to expect a luck free game of deep decision making.


I don't know those games you mention, but I was taking into account the fact that it's a short, simple game. Sure, it's not Puerto Rico, but it has three lines of rules, not 14 pages, and plays in a fifth of the time. So they're completely different. But I compared it to Unexploded Cow, which is of a similar "filler" type, but which, without losing the "fun", and without losing the simplicity to teach, contains that extra level of interest and involvement. Similarly, for a short game which is easy to teach, but keeps my brain moving, there's Hey! That's My Fish! - although that has a less silly-fun theme.

Actually, Mille Bornes is the same as Fast and Furious, right? Ok, I have played that one. In comparison to that, I'd say that Guillotine's theme is more fun, but the brain activity is lower. At least in Mille Bornes, you have a decision to make about whether to play 200-mile cards or not, and you have to gauge what your partner will or won't have. In terms of keeping my interest, I prefer Mille Bornes. In terms of the fun theme, Guillotine is much better.

I did quite like Guillotine, I just felt it had the potential to be Really Great, as a short, simple, silly-fun game, but instead, it was only Ok. It's the difference between me buying it for myself, and not bothering. If it was a new music release, I'd be really hoping that someone would make a cover version and do it better.
United States
38.978164N 76.486881W
Maryland
flag msg tools
Avatar
patron06070809
psymann wrote:
If it was a new music release, I'd be really hoping that someone would make a cover version and do it better.


    Carpe Diem.

             Sag.
Chris H - I saw the rain-dirty valley, you saw Brigadoon
United Kingdom
Bolton
Lancashire
flag msg tools
Avatar
patron06070809
mbmbmbmbmb
Simon,

I see where you are coming from. You are saying that in Guillotine, most of the decisions are fairly obvious or perhaps a choice of two broadly similar paths such as a a small gain or a larger gamble. The decisions may be obvious to you but believe me, that is not true for everyone who plays this game, and that does not make the game bad (or badly implemented), just not good for you.

You might want to look at Monkeys on the Moon and The Penguin Ultimatum (it sounds like you may like both of those) and there are plenty of other, deeper, less chaotic card games out there.

I think you are pushing it with the Milles Bornes thing though. Sure there is the decision on whether to play 200s and the decision about when to lay safeties but they are obvious decisions and there are few others. At least having the choice between a 1 point noble and a 2 point noble is better than having a flat and no spare tyre at all (you can spend all game like that).
Last edited on 2008-03-24 16:23:48 CST (Total Number of Edits: 1)
ackmondual
United States

Virginia
flag msg tools
Avatar
patron08
mbmbmbmbmb
I heard Sitting Ducks is similar to this game. Can anyone comment on how that games fares with regards to the topic the OP has presented with "too much luck" and "not enough strategy" as issues?
Simon Taylor
United Kingdom
HOPE VALLEY
Derbyshire/Yorkshire
flag msg tools
Avatar
patron08
mbmb
boltongeordie wrote:
You might want to look at Monkeys on the Moon and The Penguin Ultimatum (it sounds like you may like both of those) and there are plenty of other, deeper, less chaotic card games out there.


Thanks for the tips, they both look good. Especially since my family have in-jokes with both monkeys and penguins. :D

As for the "less chaotic" bit - I do quite like the chaos for a lighthearted game; I suppose only when I'm in control of it. By that, I mean that I'd like a game where I cause chaos to my opponents one turn, only for them to cause chaos to me next turn. What I don't like is the game causing the chaos. With Guillotine, I thought there was scope for me to cause more chaos, but chaos that was in my control at the time.

But, as you point out, that's only my view. There will be enough interest for others, less bothered about strategy/tactics, to get a lot of fun out of Guillotine - and then, with the theme and illustrations and speed-of-play to sell it, it would certainly be a good buy.

And you're right, I am pushing it with the Miles Bornes thing... but although it's pushed a bit, I really would truthfully prefer to play Miles Bornes more often than Guillotine. Though perhaps part of that is that Miles Bornes does't leave me thinking "that could have been better if...".

Anyway, thanks for the alternative views and recommendations. thumbsup
Scot K
United States
Madison
Wisconsin
flag msg tools
patron08
mb
ackmondual wrote:
I acknowledge that there's a lot of luck in this game, but that's kind of the whole point. For social/party games, quick casual games, or games with close friends where the focus is more on chillin', hanging out, and catching up than the game itself, it works VERY well. If I want a game of strategy and less luck, I have different gaming groups for that, as well as different types of games such as strategy, abstract, and euro games for that.


The problem goes beyond the luck for me. It's simply too easy for one person to ruin someone else's game without them having a chance of fighting back. It feels extremely imbalanced.
ackmondual
United States

Virginia
flag msg tools
Avatar
patron08
mbmbmbmbmb
scotwk wrote:
ackmondual wrote:
I acknowledge that there's a lot of luck in this game, but that's kind of the whole point. For social/party games, quick casual games, or games with close friends where the focus is more on chillin', hanging out, and catching up than the game itself, it works VERY well. If I want a game of strategy and less luck, I have different gaming groups for that, as well as different types of games such as strategy, abstract, and euro games for that.


The problem goes beyond the luck for me. It's simply too easy for one person to ruin someone else's game without them having a chance of fighting back. It feels extremely imbalanced.
That appears to be from luck. Ruining people's games was resulted from getting better cards or certain cards at the right time. Granted some games have mechanisms to keep luck from becoming a dominating factor in winning games (and not just outright eliminating luck), but otherwise, short of holding back those with a higher score in Guillotine, don't know how else one could balance the game. Ditto with other games where luck plays a big factor (like Settlers Of Catan for one)
♫ Eric Herman ♫
United States
Richland
Washington
flag msg tools
designer
Avatar
patron070809
mbmbmbmbmb
Having played this a few times now, I generally agree with your assessments... However, I think the game actually works very well, as is, for a 2 player game. 3 players is okaaaaay, but especially beyond that number, it's almost completely arbitrary what you can do to affect your situation and you're kind of left with whatever you can get. But with only 2 players, everything that both players do has an impact on themselves and on each other. So I think this is far and away best as a 2 player game. I've had some very tight 2 player games where the decisions really mattered, but every time I've played with more than 2, we may as well have just randomly drawn one card each and considered whoever had the highest number the winner. It's not that the game isn't fun with more than 2 in a totally random and silly way, but it's completely arbitrary, whereas with only 2 players, it's actually a game.
Last edited on 2008-08-24 10:50:23 CST (Total Number of Edits: 1)
Marco Marandola
Canada
Montreal
Quebec
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmb
Quote:
o) One action card at a time.

The action cards would work really nicely together. But the game lets you play only one at once. Instead of being able to use two cards to do something really cunning and amusing, you can only use one card, so you just do the one that works best on its own.

First, this means that it limits considerably the number of things you can do. For example, I had one card that added a noble to the back of the queue, and one that reversed the order of the queue. At the time, a really bad card was at the back of the queue. For a game like this, where so many of the cards are designed to screw over your opponents, I would have loved to have done:
1) Add nice noble to the end of the queue
2) Swap queue round, to take the nice noble, and leave the bad one ready for the next player.
As it was, only able to do one action, I just shunted an ok-ish noble to the front of the queue and took him. With the queue changing so much between turns, a two-turn strategic move is all but impossible, so you are forced to do moderately exciting short-term things.

Second, you end up with lots of action cards you can't use. I can have two great cards that cause annoyance and pain to my opponents, but because I are forced to play a boring card just to make sure I get an acceptable noble at the front, I can't then play my fun cards as well. Both times I played, I had cards left over that would have been great fun to play, but there wasn't the opportunity.





We play that you can play any number of action cards you want but you only draw one at the end of your turn. This is actually suggested in the French version as a variant. I played once with only play one draw one didn’t like it very much but the other way is very fun add more chaos to the game
Front Page | Welcome | Contact | Privacy Policy | Advertise | Support BGG | Feeds RSS
BoardGameGeek and the BoardGameGeek logo are trademarks of BoardGameGeek, LLC.