|
|
|
Tomb
» Forums » Reviews
Tomb: This game sucked… until we realized how great it is really was!
I initially bought TOMB after seeing the reviews here on BGG. But after buying it, the ratings started to drop and the less than stellar reviews started being posted. Having not had a chance to play it yet, I started to get nervous and questioned my investment decision. I finally got my chance to play a six player game. It only took a few turns before the first, “This sucks...” comments started to emerge. But, by the end of the game, the comments were, “This game is awesome! Let’s play that again!” Here are a few secrets we discovered in the TOMB to turn this game around: The rulebook sucked… until we read through all the stuff posted on the forums and the errata. I agree that you shouldn’t have to do extra research to play any game. However, once we knew what we were doing, everything flowed very smoothly. The rules aren’t bad; it’s the way they are presented and explained. Downtime in this game sucked… until we figured out what the cause was and how to deal with it. When you draw 5 characters tiles and pick one (and so do the other 5 players), and if you choose to recruit on your turn, you have to sift through 24 tiles. The other players have to sit and wait for you, especially if they too want to recruit on their turn. Use the optional rule or drawing 5 tiles and choosing 2, or pass the tile along as soon as you have read it. When everyone chooses to recruit on the first 2-3 turns, accept the fact that it will be a bit slower. The other issue we had with downtime was two players with a party of wizards and clerics and a million spells. On their turns, it took 5-10 minutes to figure out all the reaction and what their subsequent effects. Worse still, these two guys sat next to each other. And most of the time, they were each other’s crypt master. We let other players be the crypt master instead. Next time, we’re splitting them up. And we’re putting a limit on the amount of spells you can have. It sucked that you can’t upgrade the characters… until we realized that weapons and spells and treasure are attribute enhancers. This is a great dynamic of the game – random characters, weapons and spells make this game very dynamic. I had a below average type of fighter who attacked with 4 green dice, 1 blue and 1 red. He attacked before monsters. He was good, but not great. But then I drew a short sword that gave him 4 more green dice and the ability to re-roll. Suddenly, he was a killer. Losing party members sucked… until you realize that’s part of the game. One of the guys at the table said he hated the game because he spent so much time carefully selecting his crew only to have them killed. But once he realized that men will die, he loved it. In fact, he deliberately tried to kill off some of his guys. Casualties are to be expected. It sucked that you can only make one choice each turn… until we realized that this is one of the coolest aspects of the game. Choices! Choices! Do I continue to recruit? Should I spend my turn playing this tactics card? Do I bank this treasure or use it? The opportunity cost in this game is HEAVY! And it makes it very difficult at times to make decisions you won’t regret. The special abilities and attributes sucked… until we realized the element of risk it added to the game. Some of the tactics, traps, characters, weapons and monster abilities have a major “screw-over” factor. But that is what made the crypt crawl so much fun! There is risk associated with your role in the game. Even being a crypt master can have its downfalls. In one game, the crypt master had to put one of his own party members into the crypt as a monster. I had a poison dagger that increased the less than average attack skill of my rogue to better than average. But it also allowed me to kill a party member in another player’s raiding party (forcing me to discard the dagger). As crypt master, one of the monsters I revealed got to make two attack rolls on EVERYONE in the tomb. I rolled all misses until I got to my own party and killed two of them. This is yet another example of the opportunity cost of making choices. Things can go bad very quickly and easily. Taking SO many turns to build and equip a party sucked… until we realized that it does not win you the game. Again – opportunity cost! While some players take up turns to recruit and equip the perfect party, other players are already in the tomb. In one of our games one guy drew a character that attacked with 6 red dice if they went in solo. He cleared 2 crypts himself. I had a party of 3 and took out 3 crypts, one of which had the most cards. A bit of luck I guess, but I also drew equipment and spells that made my team that much better. Sometimes, you pull cards and receive little to no benefit. It sucked that the guy with the biggest and best party wins… until we realized that’s not always the case. It all depends on what you kill, what you bank, and who you do it with. I won the game with 3 party members, but I also banked everything. The two guys with the biggest parties and who also cleared the most crypts equipped their party with the treasure they found – that cost them points. The guy who went solo had the second highest score. Part of it is luck of the draw, but the other part is what you do with your loot. Opening a crypt and just getting treasure sucked… until we realized that it is the nature of the game. The crypts are random! But everything is also scalable! Put more/less monsters, traps or treasure in each crypt. TOMB is an awesome game! It is very dynamic. And it is also what you make of it. I was happy that we could work through all the “suck” factors. And now there are 6 players waiting to play again.
|
Zack Stackurski
United States Mankato Minnesota
|
Sweet review. I've been keeping an eye on this due to the artwork and the realization that I probably won't ever have time for a proper game of D&D again... I'm glad to hear that playing the game turned you around on some popular negative points.
|
Michael J
United States Folsom California
|
Glad you stuck with this game. When you accept this game for what it is - "fun", it's a much better romp through disaster. People expecting scientifically formulated perfection will not find it here. What you will find is lots of monsters, crypts that kick ass while other players get to laugh through theirs, and killer treasures that make other treasures look like stuff you can buy at the dollar store. Balanced, this game is not. But that's life - not everything is fair. Raid more crypts if you want better loot. Raid one crypt and hope for a killer weapon? You won't get it. BTW - Just to make sure you are playing this right. You wrote: Quote: The two guys with the biggest parties and who also cleared the most crypts equipped their party with the treasure they found – that cost them points. Treasures equipped at the end of the game still count as points even if not banked by the end. Just making sure you played that right.
|
Bill H
United States Absecon New Jersey
|
mjacobsca wrote: Treasures equipped at the end of the game still count as points even if not banked by the end. Just making sure you played that right. There is a fair bit of turnover though, so equipped items have a good chance of being lost with their owners long before the game ends.
|
David Winter
United Kingdom Chester Cheshire
|
Fabkok wrote: Losing party members sucked… until you realize that’s part of the game. One of the guys at the table said he hated the game because he spent so much time carefully selecting his crew only to have them killed. But once he realized that men will die, he loved it. In fact, he deliberately tried to kill off some of his guys. Casualties are to be expected.
Ahh, "Chump blockers" an endless source of comedy gold. Our favorite game for this is runebound.. Big angry dragon rears. Hero thinks "eeek, looks like he's about to breath fire" Hero says "go brave rune apprentice, your time has come, you are now ready to slay the dragon" Rune apprentice says "what, uh, you sure???" Rune apprentice gets the extra crispy treatment. I guess it's easier to kill off Ally cards than "heroes" you just have to realise the roles heroes play in Tomb.
|
|
|
Nice review with unusual style! Well done!
It's good to see some post-play response to all the criticism the game has taken. Some players will always say that a game shouldn't require any additional research or errata reading to be a good game. My personal experiences with adventure games over the years has shown that that is seldom the case, the making or breaking of many (most/all?) adventure games has come from either house rules, author clarification/errata, or new editions.
Looks like Tomb is going on my wishlist.
|
|
|
Good catch on the end game rule, Michael! We did play this incorrectly. Despite that, it still added an element to the game. The ones with all the treasure had to make a choice between returning to the inn to bank treasure or staying and raiding the last crypt. Since I got to the last one first, they stayed because they thought my party would not make it (5 cards; 3 party members, 2 of whom were wounded). But I got lucky on my dice rolls. We'll play it right the next time.
|
Michael J
United States Folsom California
|
Fabkok wrote: Good catch on the end game rule, Michael! We did play this incorrectly. Despite that, it still added an element to the game. The ones with all the treasure had to make a choice between returning to the inn to bank treasure or staying and raiding the last crypt. Since I got to the last one first, they stayed because they thought my party would not make it (5 cards; 3 party members, 2 of whom were wounded). But I got lucky on my dice rolls. We'll play it right the next time. Sorry to ruin your day! You probably got your a$$ handed to you. Still, as pointed out above, keeping treasure on a character for too long has its share of risks too.
|
Michael J
United States Folsom California
|
gmonk wrote: Nice review with unusual style! Well done!
It's good to see some post-play response to all the criticism the game has taken. Some players will always say that a game shouldn't require any additional research or errata reading to be a good game. My personal experiences with adventure games over the years has shown that that is seldom the case, the making or breaking of many (most/all?) adventure games has come from either house rules, author clarification/errata, or new editions.
Looks like Tomb is going on my wishlist. I think this game receives too much criticism for it's rulebook, which admitedly leaves some holes. I don't buy games for the rulebooks; I buy them for the game itself. And I think this game is plain fun. One should definitely not take this game too seriously. There are too many wild swings just due to luck of the draw in treasure. But sheesh, there are something like 150 different treasures to draw. That's plain cool. There are 150 monsters and traps. There is tons of replayability here. And the potential for expansion with this game is huge. Imagine all the new characters, weapons, and monsters they will be creating. My game group has played this once, and we had a lot of laughs, especially when the troublesome rogues were put out of play. My daughter and I have played it some more, and we always have fun. It's a great game. I'm glad you added it to your wishlist. You may not get an engine as perfect as Power Grid, but I think you'll get something much more fun!
|
|
|
I've stuck through games that actually sounded (and played) a lot worse than Tomb has sounded in some of these reviews. I usually play fantasy adventure games for the flavour, though, so I'm willing to wait for rules clarifications and community/house variants to have a more playable game if the components and basic premise are good. Perfect engines have their place, but, being an analytical person, I wants me some colourful imperfect adventure when I'm relaxing  . Don't get me wrong, I like Euros, too, but adventure seems to be more satisfying when I want to unwind. Hope Tomb sees some expansions, too. Adventure games can become a worthy lifetime investment (for the author as much as the consumer) by the addition of an expansion or two.
|
Anthony DuLac
United States Coon Rapids Minnesota
|
Quote: I don't buy games for the rulebooks; I buy them for the game itself. And I think this game is plain fun. I agree that the gameplay itself is what really matters but while we don't buy games solely for the rulebooks, we do expect them to be clearly organized and thorough. For the money the game costs, they could've taken the time to ensure a better rulebook, by the sounds of it. Good and interesting take for a review, Fabkok. Thanks for posting it. One thing that scared me off this game was the lack of plastic minis for the figures - it was like they didn't want to make ANY effort to provide quality components. When you consider the clunky rulebook in addition to the lack of plastic minis (even non-painted ones), the game feels like they were trying to cut costs everywhere. Normally I can understand the concept of keeping a good profit margin but when it affects the game's quality in key ways, it becomes a strong warning sign to avoid that game. On a somewhat related sidenote: I also was interested in this game while I was at GenCon but the bossy school-marm who was running their booth drove me away. I may pick up this up down the road if they have a 2nd edition with better rules and such. Or an expansion that does the same thing.
|
T F
United States San Francisco California
|
Wow, someone wanted 80-someodd plastic minis to sort through whenever you recruit characters? Ouch!...
|
Jeff Inks
United States Linden North Carolina
|
Fabkok wrote: Again – opportunity cost! hey! I know what this means...I have just taken an economics class, against my will, and I GET TO USE SOMETHING I HAVE LEARNED OUTSIDE OF KINDERGARTEN!!! I love this game, great review.
|
Jeff Inks
United States Linden North Carolina
|
dedindahed wrote: Rune apprentice gets the extra crispy treatment.
now that's funny
|
Anthony DuLac
United States Coon Rapids Minnesota
|
Quote: Wow, someone wanted 80-some odd plastic minis to sort through whenever you recruit characters? Ouch! Well if Battlelore and Memoir '44' could manage it, along with Descent, I think it's not at all unreasonable.  These kinds of games always seem to benefit more from higher-quality or sculpted pieces, in my experience. Helps you get in the game a tiny bit more than cardboard cutouts.
|
John W
United States Sacramento California
|
Michael, I'm glad you clarified the banking treasure statement in the OP - I was about to ask the same thing.  Actually, I think that rule is one of the balance problems in Tomb ; As long as you keep enough characters and equipment to obliterate monsters and it's not a high-lethality session, there is little drawback in my eyes if you can bank it later. Unless it's a crappy treasure, the benefit it provides in-game is worth so much more, it dominates over the risk of losing it. mjacobsca wrote: One should definitely not take this game too seriously. Exactly. I agree. So why does the game design push you in the direction of planning and strategy? Do you agree that strategy is somewhat at odds with the requirement not to take the game seriously? Quote: There are too many wild swings just due to luck of the draw in treasure. But sheesh, there are something like 150 different treasures to draw. That's plain cool. There are 150 monsters and traps. That's exactly my point with Tomb. Why are there SO MANY monsters, treasures, and traps? It leads the game design right into the problem of being so random and wild-swingy. What you see as "plain cool", I look at as a design flaw. If they had halved the number of cards for every category, and kept them more balanced, it would have made the wild swings of luck more manageable and then strategy and planning wouldn't have to take such a back seat to luck and low-seriousness. Quote: And the potential for expansion with this game is huge. Imagine all the new characters, weapons, and monsters they will be creating. All I see is the potential for even MORE unbalancedness due to overwhelmingly good or crappy additions. The LAST thing Tomb needs is more of that, IMO. Glad to see your comments for this game, Michael.
|
John W
United States Sacramento California
|
wytefang wrote: One thing that scared me off this game was the lack of plastic minis for the figures - it was like they didn't want to make ANY effort to provide quality components. Have you played Tomb, Anthony? I agree with your initial assessment that plastic minis would be nice in a game (I think they really help Heroscape, Memoir 44, etc), I just don't see how it's feasible to have 80 different sculpts (with paint would be great I agree) and then have to track their stats and position with 80 cards. Since individual position doesn't come into Tomb's mechanics/game-play, a generic party marker is fine, and providing plastic stands is actually MORE components than just having 80 character cards.... If your argument is that IF the designers included less characters (40 or less) they could include better components, than I agree (since they presumably could have more balanced characters, too) - I just don't see how plastic minis could improve the gameplay of Tomb.
|
Anthony DuLac
United States Coon Rapids Minnesota
|
John, I should've clarified, my apologies - yes, if they had less characters, then plastic would have been nice.
|
Michael J
United States Folsom California
|
wytefang wrote: John, I should've clarified, my apologies - yes, if they had less characters, then plastic would have been nice.
I went on got some D&D minis to use as party markers. They work very well. Quote: The game is simple so you end up figuring it out - but it's just themeless, dry and not much fun at all. It's always interesting to me how VASTLY different people's tastes are. Of course, all opinions are valid. If you don't think a game is fun, it isn't fun. If you think too many treasures are a flaw rather than a help, then the treasures are a flaw. Designers know this when they make the game and I guess you can either make it for people that think like you, or try to please everyone. There are many games out there, and people can all find games they like, so it shouldn't matter too much. Still, I am amazed at how wild the swings of opinion are on this game. There are very few in-between opinions. There aren't many "this game is OK" reviews. It's either "this game is COOL", or "this game would butcher my dog if it could". Makes game publishing a scary business indeed! I personally like the game. The wild swings in treasure and luck have been compensated for by spells in the games I have played, so I don't see it as too much trouble. I for one would still rather a company take a chance than not publish it at all. I found a game I like, and I don't really care who else likes it. And that's OK with me.
|
Larry Cross
United States Dallas Texas
|
Super review Mike !!     I like the "..this game sucked....until.." perspective that you used. I think it captures very well the paradigm shift required to appreciate the game. Very very well done ! Larry
|
|
|