geek
Recently Viewed
Hot Games
Dominion
Agricola
Android
Settlers of Catan, The
Axis & Allies Anniversary Edition
Battlestar Galactica
Race for the Galaxy
Pandemic
Titan
Puerto Rico
Wasabi!
Le Havre
Apples to Apples
Power Grid
Ghost Stories
Carcassonne
Twilight Struggle
Arkham Horror
Conflict of Heroes: Awakening the Bear! - Russia 1941-1942
Ticket to Ride
Through the Ages: A Story of Civilization
Tigris & Euphrates
Risk
War of the Ring
Descent: Journeys in the Dark
Stone Age
Formula D
Lost Cities: The Board Game
Last Night on Earth: The Zombie Game
Caylus
StarCraft: The Board Game
BattleLore
Twilight Imperium 3rd Edition
Red November
El Grande
Space Alert
Hannibal: Rome vs. Carthage
Galaxy Trucker
Race for the Galaxy: The Gathering Storm
Mad Gab
Age of Empires III: The Age of Discovery
Scrabble
Hive
Munchkin Quest
A Touch of Evil, The Supernatural Game
Sequence
Guess Who
World of WarCraft Miniatures Game
Clue
Railroad Tycoon
Rules | Subscriptions | Bookmarks | Search | Account | Moderators
Recommend
31
12 Posts
New Thread | Printer Friendly | Subscribe | Bookmark
Your Tags: Login to Add Tags | View 
Popular Tags: [View All]
Ryan Hulse
Picked this game up at GenCon yesterday. I hadn't heard anything about it, but watching the demos a couple selling points caught my attention. The goal seems to be a full-on role playing experience in less time, without the requirement to have a DM plan an entire game.

This speaks to me. To put this game into context I'll first mention that my fantasy board gaming experience is somewhat limited. I play games mostly with my family and am not a true D&D type gamer. My family likes Talisman, but every time we've played the fun tends to peak before the end of the game. The turns get kind of repetitive: roll, move, fight; repeat. Despite the overall repetition, we just love the way the characters gain various weapons, followers, and abilities.

On the other extreme we have tried Descent three different times now and never get past the second room before running out of evening. I appreciate what they've done and the game is certainly impressive but unless I took some sort of Descent DM certification course I could never run a game fast enough for my family to finish in a reasonable time.

Enter "Tomb". We played the game last evening after returning home from GenCon and I think we may have a winner on our hands. Granted, the first game did take 3 hours and we only played 3/4 of the tombs on the 'easy' side of the board, but the good news is that by mid-game everyone except my 9-year old had a good grasp of the rules and was really getting into the gameplay. The ability to decide how many crypts you want to fill make the game length very customizable.

So what is the gameplay? Each player recruits a party of characters from the inn and goes on raiding parties to clear crypts. Smaller tombs are closer to the inn and larger tombs are farther away. The tombs themselves are just collections of cards describing the various traps, monsters and treasures that have been placed there by the players at the beginning of the game. There is definite strategy to placing items, however on our first game we didn't know what was good/bad, so it was all pretty random. I immediately forgot everything I placed.

Tomb does a pretty good job of organizing the player's turn. First, a player can adjust equipped items on their party. Move a sword here, switch spells on the two wizards in the party, etc. Then the player needs to make a choice about what type of turn this is by doing one of the following:

- Recruit a new member for your party at the Inn
- Use your clerics to heal party members
- Acquire items for your party at the inn.
- Move the party toward a crypt
- Raid a crypt
- Return to the inn

Raiding crypts is the core of the game, but everything else you *could* do with a turn is always a strategic choice on how much risk you are willing to take by attacking crypts potentially out-manned and out-gunned.

There is a huge stack of cards for traps, monsters, and treasures, as well as 84 different potential party members. Lots of of monsters, treasures, characters and items have special abilities that can be used; not to mention the tactic cards and spells and prayers available to the magic characters.
Tomb does a relatively good job of keeping it all straight. There are three main types of abilities:

- Turn: You can use this ability instead of doing one of the things listed above. These are often powerful, but you can't do them in combat and they do consume your entire turn.

- Battle Actions: These can be taken as a battle action instead of (I think) the character performing an attack.

- React: These can be played at any time on anyone's turn whenever the trigger occurs. For example "React: When a character dies, The scepter of skulls resurrects it and they are added to your party. Discard this card" (that is a made-up example).

Other abilities are constant when attached to a character.

When fighting monsters, the battle order is monster-character-monster-character, etc., until every monster and character have had an attack. That is a single battle round, and rounds continue until either all monsters are defeated or the player decides to cut-and-run.

One thing I found confusing is that DM for that crypt selects which monster attacks but the raiding player selects who will take the damage. Conversely, the when the party is attacking, the raiding player selects both the character attacking and the monster to take the damage.

The attribute rating mechanic is also worthy of mention. the game comes with 21 10-sided dice. 7 green, 7 blue, 7 red. All the dice have either blanks or hits. No numbers. Green dice have 3 potential hits on the dice, blue 5, and red has 7 of 10. Clearly, rolling red dice result in more hits.

The attributes of attack, skill, magic and holiness having ratings composed of how many dice of each color you roll. For example my fighter may get 1 green, 3 blue and 2 red dice, and his spear may add 1 green and 1 red dice to the attack. When you roll you simply count the hits and that's the damage to the creatures hit points. It's a very easy system to use, yet supports a wide range of attribute values.

Complaints
I do have a few.
Some of the abilities are a little incomprehensible. One card I had allowed a character in my party to add his attack in with a currently attacking party member, it had the statement "This counts as an attack for only both party members". Huh? I had no idea if the character adding his attack would still be able to attack himself that round. Other cards also caused some quizzical looks around the table.

As with any system that provides lots of interacting abilities, the potential exists for occasional unbalanced gameplay. My son was just beside himself with two of his party members. he had a powerful wizard with a spell that let him roll his magic attribute against the creature's HP. If he exceeded that value, the creature was instantly killed. He also had a fighter that doubled wound damage, and he put a good weapon on the guy and was regularly able to dish out 14+ damage on an attack. My son won the game quite handily btw (65 XP to the next closest player at 24).

I also am not crazy about the party tokens that move around the board. They have identical artwork with very subdued color differences.

All in all, I suspect Tomb will see frequent play this year in our house. Right now the argument is whether we use the persistent XP campaign rules. With 65 XP my son has already qualified for a free re-roll at the beginning of the game to determine start order.







Mark
flag
Avatar
0607
I got in a play of this at GEN CON and I thought it was pretty well done with the exception that the rules needed an errata for all the cards and characters that can come into conflict.

It's fun.
It has plenty of chaos (both good and bad, unfortunately).
It has tough decisions about when to push your luck, and when to run.
It has tough decisions about banking XP or using the gains to enhance your party.
It seems like you can win the game even if you're doing poorly in encounters if other players don't watch their XP bank.

Neat game I could recommend.
Jerry Hawthorne
flag
I too got this game at Gencon. I have been having a great time playing it. I think it gets a little crazy at 5 and 6 players, so we have decided to limit it to 4 players or less from now on. As the above poster mentioned there are areas of the rules that need some clarification and we went to the AEG booth with a list of them and had them all answered by the folks there.

This game has 84 characters!! The variety is insane!

There are 4 decks of spells, items, tricks, and prayers that have a dynamic impact on the game.

There are like 200 dungeon encounter cards!! The variety means that your gaming experiences should be fresh each time and a big part of the game is learning to make the best with what you have. Do I give the bow that adds 2 red dice to the skill power to my Fighter who has zero skill power just in case he needs it, or to the thief to make him an even better pick pocket? I'll give it to the thief and make pick pocketing my new focus. Two turns later I attempt to pick pocket a party whose Cleric has a spell that can be used to catch a thief in the act. Now that my thief is dead, I wished I had placed the goods on my fighter. Well I guess its back to the inn to hire some more characters.... And I have a character that allows me a free item card every time I enter that Inn so it's not that bad..
Last edited on 2008-08-18 14:53:02 CST (Total Number of Edits: 1)
David Winter
flag
Avatar
I love the diversity they achieved with character abilities, every now and then someone has a real curveball ability, some of which include.

A character that can join the monster party whenever you're the CM and gets to steal stuff of anyone he kills

A character that can ressurect dead monsters from your XP pile to join your party

A character that boosts the attack of all monsters when you're CM

A cleric that has a chance to ressurect herself when she dies

And thats just 4 of the 84 available.

There are a few game effects that allow you to outright kill another party member, and a crossbow (arbalest) that allows you to take pot shots at other partys. We've had some runaway leaders by the middle of the game, so i think these kinds of abilities are best held till then.
Either way the game's a blast.
Jon Dockter
flag
Avatar
tardyharbinger wrote:

Complaints
I do have a few.
Some of the abilities are a little incomprehensible. One card I had allowed a character in my party to add his attack in with a currently attacking party member, it had the statement "This counts as an attack for only both party members". Huh? I had no idea if the character adding his attack would still be able to attack himself that round. Other cards also caused some quizzical looks around the table.


Legend of the Five Rings card text is very specific and it looks like this has carried over into Tomb. All cards are meant to be read quite literally and are written that way to prevent any loopholes from other cards. This may cause some cards to make you go, huh? In this case Double Team: "This counts as an attack for only both of the Characters." would mean that both of them would attack and be done for the round. The "only" does sound weird, but it's there for a reason.

Another example is Elithe: When revealed, make a contested Skill vs. Skill roll against a Character in the Raiding Party (Raiding Player's choice). If successful, the Raiding Party must give one attached treasure to another Party. Some of my friends questioned if the item had to come from the targeted raid member. If that would have been the case it would have said something like: "...If successful, the Raiding Party must give one attached Treasure from the targeted raid member to another party." That's the way AEG writes their cards. :)
Ryan Hulse
Elithe makes sense. I'm a long time MTG player from Ice Age on, and a computer scientist, so the wording specificity doesn't bother me too much. In the case of "only both" that is a phrase I would argue could be written better no matter what they intended. Knowing there is some errata already on another card, I half assumed "only both" was a typo where they didn't fully correct the wording after changing their intent.

I will add that the family played a second game of Tomb last weekend and we had a "Sophomore funk". We filled up all the tombs on the easy side of the board, and everyone tried to play their cards to potential, and it took about 4 hours. There were a few minor spats about how we should interpret cards. my son had one spell that generated monsters for a party in a tomb to fight, however since the card didn't expressly permit it, I ruled that the CM for the tomb was the CM for those monsters, rather than the caster of the spell. He wanted to CM because his party members has special abilities for him when CM-ing. My son also pulled the card that let him switch crypt contents but luckily he didn't quite grasp how annoying that could have been to other players trying to get to the crypts.


David desJardins
flag
Avatar
0405060708
tardyharbinger wrote:
In the case of "only both" that is a phrase I would argue could be written better no matter what they intended.


I'm a mathematician, and "only both" seems perfectly clear, to me.
Ryan Hulse


DaviddesJ wrote:
tardyharbinger wrote:
In the case of "only both" that is a phrase I would argue could be written better no matter what they intended.


I'm a mathematician, and "only both" seems perfectly clear, to me.


Perhaps if you said you were a singer by trade and it was perfectly clear to you, then that would illustrate that the wording is great and I am just having a problem (not that a singer necessarily would have a problem reading it). But we are both technical people and one of us thought it was worded badly, so whatever.

...I wish ONLY BOTH of us could agree on the questionable wording here (as opposed to everyone agreeing, which apparently someone might imply if I had written 'I wish both of us could agree')



Jason Dlouhy
flag
"Only both" doesn't make any sense. Yes, it's clear what they mean, but Ryan's right, it's still just bad writing.

If the "only" means something here, then what is the difference between these to sentences:

This counts as an attack for both party members.
and
This counts as an attack for only both party members.

Saying "both" without the "only" certainly doesn't imply that it could include anyone other than the two characters referenced. It's just sloppy.

It's not a huge deal. It's not like that sort of thing is rampant throughout the game, but it is a case of bad writing and not of shoring up potential loopholes.
David desJardins
flag
Avatar
0405060708
jasdlo wrote:
Saying "both" without the "only" certainly doesn't imply that it could include anyone other than the two characters referenced.


Sure it does. It's ambiguous: it could include others, or not.

"The plunge in United's stock price cost both Alice and Bob a lot of money." This leaves entirely open the possibility that other people, than just those two, also lost money.
Ryan Hulse
DaviddesJ wrote:
jasdlo wrote:
Saying "both" without the "only" certainly doesn't imply that it could include anyone other than the two characters referenced.


Sure it does. It's ambiguous: it could include others, or not.

"The plunge in United's stock price cost both Alice and Bob a lot of money." This leaves entirely open the possibility that other people, than just those two, also lost money.



While you are technically correct that 'only both' is less ambiguous, understand that in natural language requirements, ambiguity is always a trade-off with readability.

I said 'less' rather that 'completely not' ambiguous, because as I was originally trying to reason out why they said "only both", one interpretation that came to me was that "only both" was logically equivalent to "neither individually", meaning that once I combined the attack of A+B, that did not count as either individual character's attack.

For example: "Only both of the maps are useful to the team". That sentence has one interpretation based on context and inference that each map individually is not useful to the team.


Anyway, I still contend that the card is not very readable and could be improved. I'm curious what misinterpretation led to the original use of 'only both'. It sounds like it was from another game. It's possible that misinterpretation isn't even likely in Tomb. I don't think anyone would think it applies to other party members if the word 'only' was removed.







David desJardins
flag
Avatar
0405060708
tardyharbinger wrote:
Anyway, I still contend that the card is not very readable and could be improved.


I don't disagree with that. It's certainly awkward language.
 
Front Page | Welcome | Contact | Privacy Policy | Advertise | Support BGG | Feeds RSS
BoardGameGeek and the BoardGameGeek logo are trademarks of BoardGameGeek, LLC.