1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 Next » 
Love the world.
(Image credit: BoardGamesAsArt)
Am I going to break down and paint these things?
First things, first: wow. The kickstarter miniatures are pretty amazing. They're extremely well sculpted and they look insanely great in play. When it was time to deploy my fire giant (trashing a friend's leader and warrior in the process) it was so much more satisfying to put this big nasty monster out on the board. The toy factor is very high with this one, and very well done. (The rest of the components are okay, except for the choice of font on cards and player boards; I found it hard to read.)
Moving on, the game play is strategically interesting and a lot of fun. Each round, players draft a hand of cards from the set available for the current "age" (the game lasts three ages).
Cards come in three flavors:
(1) Upgrade cards let you improve your clan generally or improve one of the types of figures that you control (leaders, warriors, ships). Upgrades are also the way that you acquire monsters.
(2) Quest cards let you select an end-of-the-age majority control condition for one of the provinces on the board. If you're dominant there at the end of the age, you get VP and can upgrade one of your stats.
(3) Battle cards are used to improve your position in battle. They can boost the numerical strength of your force and/or provide a special power. Some of these are very tricksy.
Once cards are drafted, players take turns performing actions until all pass. Actions may require the play of a card and/or cost some amount of "rage" (your action point currency, determined at the beginning of the age by the current value of your rage stat). The actions are:
(1) Invade. Place one of your available figures onto an edge-province on the board. Leaders invade for free; all others cost rage equal to their combat strength. The maximum number of figures a player can have on the board is equal to their "horns" stat.
(2) Move. Pay one rage to move any number of your figures from one province to any other province.
(3) Quest. Play a quest card face down. This is a precondition to scoring the quest at the end of the age. Quests in hand don't score.
(4) Upgrade. Pay rage equal to the strength shown on the upgrade card. If you're upgrading a figure type (including acquiring a monster) you may immediately invade with a figure of that type for free.
(5) Pillage. You can only do this in a province in which you have at least one figure that hasn't yet been pillaged this age. Going around the table, all players have an opportunity to move one unit into the province at issue, until it is full. All players compare the strength value of their present figures and add any value shown on one simultaneously-revealed battle card. High score is the winner (and gets VP equal to their "axes" stat). If the person who took the pillage action is the winner, they also get a bump to their stats. Winners keep their figures in place but discard all battle cards played. Losers' figures go off board to Valhalla, but they get to keep their battle cards.
After all actions are done, quests are scored for that round (any incomplete quests that were played to the table are discarded).
Then Ragnarok destroys one province on the board (the affected provinces are known from the beginning of the game). Any figures in the destroyed province earn bonus VPs and are off to Valhalla.
All figures come back from Valhalla and the next Age begins.
This is a relatively straightforward and very solidly developed game. We had no rules questions and nothing seemed wonky or overpowered. The very large set of upgrade options and secret battle card powers allows players wide scope for customizing strategy and tactics. There are lots of fun and interesting possibilities.
The card drafting prevents luck from playing too great a role and leads to some enjoyably difficult decision making.
This is a great game. I have no complaints at all. I can't wait to play it again.
(And, yes, I'm going to paint the miniatures. Wish me luck.)
Moongha Invaders: Mad Scientists and Atomic Monsters Attack the Earth!
(Image credit: King Bing)
Coulda been a contender!
What bad timing for Moongha to finally show up! Any other month, I would have had much stronger praise for the game. But I can't help but compare it to Blood Rage, and it falls short of that mark, in both game play and aesthetics.
Like Blood Rage, Moongha is a dudes-on-a-map game, with area influence scoring and combat elements. And it also has big plastic miniatures.
Players are mad scientists, out to destroy the major cities of the world with monsters that they've created and control. Players can also position human heroes and military units to interfere with other players' monsters.
The heart of the game is a clever action drafting system. Each action has a box on the board. A certain number of objects (tokens or figures) are placed into each box at the beginning of a turn. The number of objects placed in each box is determined partly by a dice roll and partly by a chart. Players then take turns removing one object from a box and performing the associated action. With one exception, once all of the objects have been removed from an action, that action can't be performed again that turn. This creates some timing and blocking tension, which is fun.
The exception: you have the option of using your turn to place your sole "pass" token into an action box. On a later turn, you can remove the token and perform the action it had been placed in, even if that action's box doesn't contain any objects. This allows you to do something crucial that has already been exhausted, but it requires you to use two turns to do so.
A turn ends whenever all players have passed in a row. Adding or removing a pass token counts as a pass for the purpose of that rule. This creates some brinksmanship surrounding the use of pass tokens that was interesting and fun. When do you place? When do you remove? What if your placement triggers the end of the turn and you never get to remove?
The number of objects placed into the action boxes increases over the span of the game, creating an interesting arc where later turns are considerably longer and more eventful.
The game ran a bit long, but we had a good time throughout. It's a solid design. But it's slightly longer, less fun, and less attractive than Blood Rage, so it definitely got upstaged this month. Good game though.
Tiny Epic Galaxies
(Image credit: mgcoe)
Fun little space empire dice roller.
Tiny Epic Galaxies is an engine building VP race game. The central mechanism is dice rolling. On a player's turn, that player chucks however many dice they have in their pool (which can increase as you get more advanced). Then the player takes actions by selecting a die to trigger an action of the type shown on the die. Each other player than has a chance to "follow" and perform the same action, but this costs "culture" (I think that's what the action currency was called.)
Between actions, the active player has the option to reroll remaining dice (spending "energy" to do so, IIRC).
There are planets with special powers that players can trigger by landing on them. Players can also try to colonize a planet by moving ships up a conquest track on the planet. Colonized planets provide VP and give you exclusive access to that planet's special power.
It was fun and interesting. The luck of the dice kept things lively without feeling dominant. It's a good game in a small package.
Between Two Cities
(Image credit: jameystegmaier)
Card drafting and tile laying, in cities you build together with your neighbors.
This was an enjoyable card drafting and tile laying game, where you place square city tiles of different types to maximize the scoring value of the cities that you're building. It's got the traditional don't-build-housing-next-to-factories type scoring rules, which work well enough.
The interesting novelty is that you're building two cities, one to your right and one to your left (you're between them!). You build these cities cooperatively with your neighbors on either side.
Only the two players who have jointly built the highest scoring city are eligible to win. As between them, the winner is the one whose second city is most valuable.
That was neat. The game played cleanly and quickly and the shared construction added an interesting wrinkle. I would play it again if asked, but probably wouldn't ask for it.
Guns & Steel
(Image credit: huffa2)
Clever micro-Civ card game.
Guns and Steel is a civ-building game played with a couple of dozen cards.
Each player starts with a fixed hand of cards, and the remainder are set out in a pyramid-shaped display (with the more "ancient" cards in the lower rows).
On your turn, you must first play one card face down in front of you. This shows the card's resource face. It's now a resource of the specified type (e.g., food, iron, oil, etc.) available to be spent to purchase cards from the central display.
Then you must play a card face up and may activate its special power (stated on the power side of the card).
Then you may buy a card from the central display, by exhausting resources in your tableau or created through use of a special power. Each card has a fixed cost (in specified types of resources). Importantly, if the card is not on the exposed bottom face of the pyramid, you must pay extra resources (one per card that is "supporting" the card that you're buying). So you can drill up to get cards that aren't on the bottom, but it will cost you.
If your hand is down to 1 or 2 cards, you refresh it by taking all power-side-up cards back into your hand. Resource cards can be left on the table or returned to your hand, at your option. You then check to see whether you've met the conditions to claim any of the available "wonder" cards (which give you VP).
That's pretty much it. There's resource chaining and conversion. Some fighting (which lets you nerf other players' resources or steal their wonders). Lots of special powers on the cards.
It was fun enough (two-player). I'd like to try it with more, to reduce the zero-sum quality (especially with respect to military, which is an arms race with two). But it didn't particularly grab me.
New York 1901
(Image credit: ladybug3)
Bad first impression...
New York 1901 is a straightforward card-driven tile-laying game, with a city building theme. It's got a clean design and very nice aesthetics.
I had a bad first play. Early choices put me in a situation where I needed to draw certain cards to be able to do anything. I didn't get the cards I needed. So I spent the last quarter of the game locked up and unable to do anything constructive.
That was pretty frustrating.
Tides of Time
(Image credit: Random_Person)
The distilled essence of zero-sum.
Tides of Time actively pissed me off. It's brutally zero sum and it strongly rewards card counting (which I don't enjoy, even with such a small card set). I admire the design, which is very smart, but I don't ever want to play it again.
Broom Service ? ? ? ? ?
(Image credit: sabakh)
Answer unclear, ask again later...
I've only played Broom Service with 2, which I didn't enjoy. But given the nature of the game, I didn't really expect it to work with with two. If I get around to trying it with 3 or 4, I'll revisit the game in a future NTY entry. For now, meh.
Sat Oct 31, 2015 10:30 pm
Love the world.
Star Wars: Armada
(Image credit: Shut up and Sit Down video)
I am going to spend a lot of money on this...
This is a really well-designed, light, fun, miniatures game involving Star Wars fleet actions. Remember that scene at the end of Return of the Jedi, with Admiral Akbar's rag-tag fleet going up against a wall of Star Destroyers, all surrounded by swarms of fighters? This is that.
I really like this game and hope to play it a lot. Here's what impressed me the most:
The capital ships feel like capital ships. They're big. They maneuver clumsily. They have order queues (which require some forward planning, increasing the unwieldiness). They have shields on their four different facings (which can vary in starting strength and get worn down separately). This invites maneuver, in order to get at the weak spots or consolidate fire on one zone and just pound it. They have big banks of main batteries, and separate anti-fighter defenses. They come in different standard builds (for different capabilities) and can be further modified in numerous ways by assigning upgrade cards, creating lots of scope for specialization.
The fighter squadrons feel like fighter squadrons. These are not just smaller ships. Most significantly, they can pin other fighter squadrons, keeping them from moving away to attack capital ships. This is one of the main missions for your fighters, to screen your capital ships (and fighter-bombers, which you're going to try to slip past the fighter screens to get in close and hammer opposing capital ships). In other words, the game encourages the use of "combined arms," with different units performing different functions in support of each other. Fun!
The combined arms element is reinforced by the fact that capital ships can use orders to activate fighter squadrons out of the normal turn sequence. (Ordinarily, fighters are activated after all capital ships and can only move or fire. If activated by a capital ship's order, fighters activate immediately and can move AND fire.) A capital ship must be within a fairly short distance of fighters in order to issue them orders. All of this means that there is a good tactical reason for fighters to stay close to their supporting capital ships, at least at first -- fighters supported by a capital ship are significantly more effective and can strike before their opponents. Fun!
Another thing I really like is the very simple and abstracted way that fighter squadrons move and fire. Because they're so tiny at the scale of the game (much tinier than the models that depict them), facing is irrelevant. When you move, just pick up your squadron and place it anywhere within its movement radius. Facing is also irrelevant for firing. This makes sense thematically and really speeds up play. Anti-fiddly!
Components. The models look great and really evoke my nostalgia for the original films. They're star destroyers! Chasing Leia's little courier ship!
And the integrated dials in the miniature bases significantly simplify book-keeping. There's still some tokens to place, but the designers have done a good job of decluttering your table.
I've always had an interest in fleet-action sci-fi miniatures. This game scratches that itch with a fast playing and clean design that feels right, with great physical components, and the absolute best franchise for a game of this type. X-Wing was good, but I find this so much more interesting. The scope for tactical decisionmaking and cinematic story arcs is so much grander.
The only negative is that I'll be spending too much money on it (also my wife has no interest in this kind of game, which is a shame).
This is an excellent game.
Isle of Skye: From Chieftain to King
(Image credit: MiWi)
Carcassonne tile placement combined with player pricing and sale of tiles.
This is a light-medium tile-placement game distinguished by its clever and fun money-management system.
Every turn, players receive income, based on the tiles that they've already placed in their individual array of square tiles.
Then each player draws three tiles from the bag and places them in front of their player screen, where everyone can see them. Behind the player screen, the players set a price for each of the three tiles, by either assigning it some coins or by giving it the ax (literally, there's an ax token). Player screens are then removed, axed tokens placed back in the bag, and players have a chance (in turn order) to buy a single tile from another player.
To buy a tile from another player, you pay them an amount equal to the price that they set. E.g., if a player assigned $2 to a tile, you could buy it by paying that player $2 (they also keep their assigned coins).
Any unpurchased tiles are kept by the player that drew them, but that player must pay the coins they assigned when pricing the tile. E.g., I assigned $2 to a tile. It wasn't purchased by anyone. I keep it, but discard the $2 I placed to price the tile.
At the end of each round, there is a scoring, based on special scoring tiles (which are drawn randomly from a larger set at the beginning of the game). This random set-up scoring system should provide serious interplay variability (which I really like).
The pricing/buying system is very simple, but produces a lot of interesting player interaction. Price your tiles too cheaply, and they'll get bought up, leaving you with little money and only one tile to place (the one you bought from someone else). Price them too high and you'll get to keep them, but will pay through the nose to do so. As with any game that involves pricing things that other players will buy, you need to read what everyone will need in order to figure out the best pricing. This isn't too difficult, because players don't have a lot of tiles and the icons are pretty clear.
This is all very fun -- interesting and interactive without bogging down too badly (although I could see AP players ruining the game).
A very good game.
(Image credit: mechanicalfish -- great work Ryan!)
Multi-player solitaire dice placement, tableau building game that is fun and easy to play.
Players are each running an archaeology "company" (hence the "Inc."), competing to get the best stuff and sell it to museums.
On a turn, a player rolls dice and then assigns those dice to matching spaces on cards. This activates the cards' powers. Dice can be placed on cards in your own personal tableau, on a small set of "public cards" (which are sort of last ditch places to use your extra or crappy dice), on museums (to sell artifacts), or on the open ocean to conduct an archaeological dive.
One important actions is "buy," which lets you acquire a card from the available market rows and place it into your tableau. These new cards give you VP and some kind of bonus (e.g, a new action space to use, more dice to roll, engine building discounts and powers, special VP goals, etc.)
The game ends when someone reaches 20 VP, so there's a bit of a race feeling to it.
I've really enjoyed this game, with 4 and 2. It has a nice arc, with interesting choices about whether to use your actions to build your engine or grab VP. There are three main sources of VP (ocean dives, buildings, and the sale of artifacts to museums), so you've got some room to specialize or change course.
There's nothing groundbreaking about Artifacts, Inc. but it's very good at what it's doing, providing a medium weight and length tableau builder with a good amount of card-based choices, in a small and attractive package.
My only worry is that the game could bog down with AP players. There's a lot of cards to choose from at any time and a lot of small decisions to make about how to structure your turn. We took advice I read somewhere on BGG and added dice to the game. This allows players to roll ahead of time and start planning their move before its their turn. (That's possible because this is largely multi-player solitaire, with interaction limited to competition for cards and spots in the museums/dives).
The Ancient World
(Image credit: mechanicalfish)
A great looking, interesting, well designed game that I cannot win.
This is a tight worker placement game that involves buying buildings and killing monsters to complete sets of colored banners (which are worth 1, 2, 4, 6, 8, or 11 VP at end game, depending on how many you've collected in a particular color).
To build buildings you need to pay money (and possibly scrolls) and have space in your "village" for another building. If you're out of space, you can buy more. Buildings give you a banner (sometimes 2) and some kind of special power.
To kill monsters, you need to have military units of the right strength and you need to pay them. Each time you activate a military unit, it's required pay goes up. You can solve that problem by retiring them and replacing them with a new unit that you've bought. Retired units give a small advantage to their replacement (passing along knowledge and experience).
You can get more workers, but they need to be fed or they won't work (this requires access to food, which some buildings provide).
You can buy more military, but you've got limited slots for them.
You can buy more village space, or get gold, or scrolls.
You can scout ahead (look at the top cards on the building deck) and then reserve one for future construction by you.
Lots of interesting and fun stuff to do.
The game is tight and there is plenty of room for dick moves (mostly by blocking worker action spaces or taking something valuable before another player can take it).
It's great looking, if you like Ryan Laukat's art style (which I do).
As a design, it has a lot of strengths. But I'm not sure how long it will stay in my collection. The problem is me. I can't figure out how to do well at the game. It seems pretty clear that monster-slaying has to be emphasized. Every game I've played, the winners were those who did best at that part of the game. But even recognizing that, I haven't been able to get that part of my strategy to kick in sufficiently. I like the game enough that I'll keep trying for a while, but I'm afraid this might be one of those games that has a steep learning curve, and it might have important subtleties that are easy to miss (repeatedly).
Keeping it for now.
Love the world.
(Image credit: derrickec -- brilliant design work!)
A really fun hidden traitor sci-fi survival game with tight game play and brilliant retro graphic design
You thought the mining gig on Titan would be dull. Turns out, not so much.
A few days ago, two crew members got infected with something and went nuts. The Commander had to shoot them both. But before they died, they managed to disable part of the station's shield generator. The resulting spike in radiation took down a couple of the main control systems. It should have been fairly easy to repair. But new problems keep cropping up and you're starting to wonder whether someone is intentionally interfering with the work. Everyone's on edge. You'll need to watch your back.
I really had a blast playing this game (two times, back-to-back, which is very unusual for my game group). Its mechanics work very well to create a thematic sense of paranoia and suspicion.
Every turn, a player can take an action (e.g., attempt to repair a broken system) and must then confront a task (which provides an opportunity for every player to contribute toward the success or failure of the task). Failed tasks can bring new system malfunctions, sometimes catastrophic ones. Success advances progress on a series of event cards. Uninfected players win if all events are completed without any of the essential station components fully crashing. Infected players win by fully disabling one of the essential systems before the events are completed.
Everything is driven by dice that the players roll behind their screens. Players then choose dice to place in front of their screens, to determine whether some action or task resolution is successful.
When players are called on to contribute dice toward some goal, they choose one from behind the screen. Some die faces are positive (2/6), but most are negative (4/6). If a player consistently puts out negative dice, suspicion will grow. But that could just be a string of bad luck, which is not so improbable given the way the dice are weighted toward negative results. But still...
Players can call a vote to "quarantine" a player that is suspected of being infected. Quarantined players are partially disabled, losing some of their dice and having limits on the actions they can perform.
On their turn, the infected players can choose to reveal their status. Revealing allows the infected player to immediately damage some of the base's system (unless they're quarantined when they reveal, which is why you want to lock them up). It also changes the actions available to the revealed player, providing a new range of things to do to directly harm the station.
The game design is really clever. Everything hangs together tightly and thematically. The kinds of mind games that the game's system produced were hilariously fun and thematic. In our second game, we all (wrongly) suspected one player of being infected and quarantined him. He stayed locked up for the rest of the game, frantically trying to figure out how to convince us that he was on our side and could do much more good if he wasn't tied to the f*cking couch!
If you like hidden traitor games, I really recommend this. It played in about 90 minutes for our first game and a little less once we knew the rules well. It's got a great physical production, really clever system design, and was a huge amount of fun. We were laughing and arguing almost from the start. Great game!
(Image credit: bovbossi)
A smart card-driven, medium-heavy, build-stuff-for-points game, riddled with clever and difficult trade-offs.
It's 230 BC, and players are helping to unify China by placing palaces and governors in the five provinces and by building segments of the Great Wall. All of those things provide victory points in various euro-standard ways (some of which vary from game to game, based on randomized set-up).
The game is driven by a very interesting card play system. On your turn, you must play one card. You can either play it to your personal tableau or use it to take an action.
Playing a card to your tableau gets you some influence of the same color as the card you just played (which is good) and possibly some "unrest" in the region where you played it (which is bad).
Playing a card for an action allows you to perform one one of the basic game actions:
• Place an "official" in your tableau.
• Move officials around within your tableau.
• Install a governor into a province on the board (costs officials but eliminates some unrest).
• Acquire workers (requires that officials be in the dedicated recruitment area of your tableau and creates unrest).
• Build a palace (costs workers; awards VP and influence).
• Build a wall segment (costs workers).
That's all pretty straightforward. But here's where it gets more interesting: whenever you play a card for an action, you might also trigger any related special powers on your tableau cards). In order to trigger them, you must play a card that is either higher or lower than the last card that anyone played to perform an action (each card has a unique number on it, from 1-120). Some actions require that you play a higher card; others require a lower card.
For example, suppose I play a card in order to get workers. For workers, special powers are triggered if I play a higher card than the last played. If so, all of the worker-related special powers in my tableau are triggered.
The powers on these cards are great and you really want to trigger them as often as you can. If you have a strong tableau and you manage it well, you'll get more benefit from the special powers than you will from the base action. It's critical to do this well. Good luck with that.
Once everyone has played all the cards in their hands, there is a tricksy little "rewards" phase, where players have a chance to cash in influence for bonuses (which get stronger each round, becoming critical toward the end of the game). I won't explain all of the ways that this subsystem is clever, but it really is.
After the last round is complete, there's end-game scoring. Most points wins.
This is a brilliantly designed game. It's extremely tight with constant trade-offs. You only get six cards per round, for five rounds, so you'd better hurry up and get stuff done. But you also need to build and manage a strong tableau. And beat your opponents to the best stuff.
My wife and I have played it with two and it works very well. The games are very close, despite the fact that we take different strategic routes (based on how we've built our tableaus).
Components and art are the high quality I expect from What's Your Game.
Trains: Rising Sun
(Image credit: EndersGame)
Very fun light-medium deck-building game with a meaningful route-building component.
This has been described, somewhat dismissively, as "Dominion with a board." That's apt, as far as it goes, but the intergration between the deck-building and the construction of routes on the maps is extremely well done. My wife and I played this four times in two days and would probably have played again if we didn't have other demands on our time.
Play is brisk, with little down time. The route-building involves terrain costs and soft-blocking (making it more expensive to build in developed spaces), and every action that builds infrastructure requires the player to draw "waste" cards and add them to the deck. These cards do nothing but clutter up your hand. Fortunately, there are some cards that let you dispose of waste in various ways. And if you draw a bunch of waste in your hand, you can choose to spend the whole turn dumping those waste cards back into the supply. The waste-management subsystem adds a lot to the game, making it more than just a race to build VP.
The graphic design is clean and attractive. The game play is surprisingly thematic. And there is another card set and expansion maps to increase the already considerable replayability.
The Rising Sun base set (which we played) includes maps specifically scaled for two-players, which I really appreciated. I've ordered the 2d map set, which also includes 2p maps (including California!).
This is a very good game for the niche that it fills.
(Image credit: Mouseketeer)
Light, team-based, card-driven WWII game of grand strategy.
This is high abstraction WWII game with six players on two teams (the Axis, comprised of Germany, Japan, and Italy, and the Allies, made up of the US, the UK, and the Soviet Union).
Each player has a unique deck of cards, with a different mix of eight types of cards:
• Build Army (lets you place an land space adjacent to one of your supplied units.
• Build Navy (same, but for placing a fleet in a sea space)
• Land battle (destroy an enemy army in a land space adjacent to one of your supplied units.
• Sea Battle (same, but destroy a fleet in an adjacent sea space)
• Status (play face up in front of you to acquire an always-on special power).
• Response (play face down to create a "trap" that can be triggered for a one-time effect when a specified condition is met)
• Event (trigger a one-time event)
• Economic Warfare (similar to an event, but with an emphasis on forcing a player to discard cards)
The mix of cards in the players' deck are tailored to their strategic situation and produce a surprisingly thematic play experience. We had the US building industrial infrastructure for the first half of the game and then crossing the seas to launch overwhelming attacks. The UK hung on for dear life, repelling invasions until the US was ready to attack. The Soviets took heavy losses until it got its feet under it, then became a juggernaut. Etc.
I played Italy, which has a reputation for being the least fun position. I did okay, building a fleet in the Med, invading North Africa, and twice assaulting the UK from the Atlantic. The UK had response cards to fend me off. If he hadn't the Axis would likely have had an early and decisive sudden death win. Unfortunately, Germany burned through his deck a little too fast, leaving him exhausted in the late game. And Japan turtled too much (despite a lack of pressure from the US and me repeatedly urging him to take India and press the Soviets from the East). In the end, the Axis ran out of steam, the Yanks invaded Western Europe and rolled over Germany and Italy.
The game's interesting and lively (though we had some APers in the group, making the game drag on about a third longer than it should have). I'm interested to try it again.
Two concerns: (1) We ran into an irritating number of cards that required on-the-fly interpretation of ambiguities. (2) We were impressed by how things played out in very historical ways; but I worry a touch about whether that means the game could become scripted. Neither issue was enough to seriously affect my enjoyment.
(Image credit: Andre1975)
A well designed abstract card game for two, with an attractively pasted-on streetcar theme.
There are four streetcar lines in 19th Century Munich (red, yellow, green, and blue), and you're trying to do a better job of managing them than your opponent.
On each turn, you start with a hand of six cards. You can play these cards in a number of ways, in the following order:
(1) You MUST begin your turn by playing one or two cards onto one of the four passenger terminals (one for each line).
(2) Next, you MAY play cards from your hand to color-specific columns in your tableau. These "stations" must be played in increasing numeric value (1-10). You can have more than one column in each color.
(3) Then, you MAY play cards face down to your money pile (each counts as 1,000 Marks).
(4) Finally, you may spend money from your money pile to buy a train and place it at the head of a station column. Each column must have one train (and one only).
Finally, you refill your hand for the next turn.
Whenever someone places the fourth passenger on a terminal, that color immediately scores. Every column of the matching color, for both players, produces VP equal to the multiplier value of its train (2-4) times the total VP value of the cards in the column. After the 10th such scoring, the game ends. Most VP wins.
My wife compared it to Lost Cities, but with more going on (money management, train multipliers, and manipulation of the timing of the scorings).
It's a well designed game, with attractive components. But it didn't blow me away. That may not be the game's fault. I'm a little burnt out on head-to-head two-player card games right now.
(Image credit: TimarkP)
Did not enjoy this as a two-player game.
This is a very well-put-together card-based civilization game. I suspect it would be a lot of fun with more than two (though I also suspect it would be too long at higher counts). Ultimately, my wife and I really didn't like it as a two-player game. I disliked it enough that I'm not going to bother discussing its mechanisms. Instead, just a quick note on why it didn't work for us:
In my first play, my wife got a solid edge on military superiority. As a result, she had a cake-walk and I was continually struggling to do much of anything. Second game, the exact opposite happened. Neither of us enjoyed being on the short end of the military stick. And it wasn't much fun holding the long end and watching my wife repeatedly stymied.
It seems obvious that "stability" is intended as a counterweight to military dominance (it negates some harmful effects of war and has some effect in end-of-round events). But in our two games, it was insufficient to balance the game. There are too many good things you can do with military that your opponent cannot do (wars, battles, colonies, and dominance of the end-of-round events).
We were especially bothered by the zero-sum nature of the events. Suppose an event says something like: player with most military gets two food, least military loses two food. In a multi-player game, that's not too big a deal. You can try to fall in the middle, or just ride out a loss by doing something else valuable. But in a two-player game that's a mostly unavoidable 4 unit swing. And there's a lot of that kind of stuff. Add in the dominant military's stronger position to take colonies and win battles and wars, and the other player is really hurting.
Not every game plays well with two. This one didn't.
Mon Aug 31, 2015 10:57 pm
Love the world.
[This is my 100th blog post. I deserve a cookie.]
One of my good gaming friends is moving, making my very small circle of local 18xx'ers even smaller (it's just me and my wife now). So I decided I would hunt down a copy of 1825 Unit 3, one of the very few 18xx titles designed for only two players.
One problem: it's out of print and there are zero copies in the secondary market. Only one person on BGG has a copy listed for trade. He's overseas from me and didn't respond to geek mail.
So I decided to build one.
The project was a bit tricky because there is no single source of all of the materials. The files section for the game has some of what I needed, but major pieces are not available.
Here's what I did:
• Rules. I got a scan of this from a generous acquaintance (which was greatly appreciated).
• Board. The gallery for Unit 1 has a nice redesign of the combined boards for all 1825 Units and expansions (thanks Carthaginian!).
I don't need the whole board (yet!) so I cropped out just the part that encompasses the Unit 3 portion of the game and printed that area on two letter-sized card stock sheets (which I laminated and taped together with book tape on the back).
• Private companies. The Unit 3 gallery has an image of these, which I cleaned up a bit, printed and laminated.
• Train tiles. Again, the Unit 3 gallery has an image showing one of each type. The 1825 page at Blackwater Station has a train manifest for the game, so I knew how many of each I needed:
Then it was just a matter of compiling the necessary images and cleaning them up a bit.
• Track tiles. Back to Blackwater I went. They have a tile manifest, with links to image files for each tile (separately). I downloaded the graphics for each, with notes on how many of that type was needed. Then I constructed pages with all of the required tiles combined (16 per page), printed to cardstock and laminated.
The charters and shares and company tokens I printed from files on the Unit 3 files section (thanks tppytel!). I still need to glue the cardstock tokens to wooden disks, but I didn't have enough on hand.
Finally, I intend to print whole sheet labels of the game box to re-purpose a spare box that I've got (for now the game is living in a magazine ziploc, which works ok).
I may also put together a "bank pool" and "phase chart" as player aids.
Here's the final product:
And here's the end-state of our first play (I won!):
I'm now very tempted to build a Unit 2 (which is reportedly also okay with two players), before I forget everything that I just learned.
Love the world.
The Voyages of Marco Polo
(Image credit: henk.rolleman)
This is the best new euro I've played in quite a while; it might be top 10 material.
Marco Polo is an excellent mid-weight dice-placement, resource management, order fulfillment euro, themed around Marco Polo's travels to China. It has high inter-game variability and very strong asymmetric powers that may be too much for some people.
At the heart of Marco Polo is a dice-based action selection system. It's fundamentally worker placement, but with the strength of the action determined by the pips on the die or dice that are placed to perform the action.
Placement doesn't block others from using the same action, but raises the cost to do so -- in order to use an action that someone else has already used this turn, you must pay money equal to the value of the lowest die that you place to perform the action.
You're also barred from repeating most actions that you've already taken in a turn, unless you acquire black or white dice, which can be used to duplicate an action that you've already taken.
That core system is rock solid, interesting, and fun.
The available actions allow you to acquire camels or trade goods, acquire contracts (which are completed using camels and trade goods), move your dobber on the map (paying money and sometimes camels to do so), or get money.
Moving to a new city on the map allows you to place a trading post. In large cities, a trading post allows you to use the action space that's assigned to that city (based on random card distribution at the start of the game, with many more cards than can be used in a game). I love worker placement games that let you get access to exclusive or limited action spaces. Marco Polo has that in spades.
The first player to establish a trading post in a large city earns a one-time bonus. Trading posts in small cities give players some kind of income at the beginning of each round.
Money is tight! You need it for so many things.
Travel is important! But you can't neglect contracts (and vice versa).
You need camels! You need goods! you need extra dice!
As I mentioned, every player is given a special character power at the beginning of the game. These powers are strong. I'm not talking about "pay one less gold when buying blue things" level of power. It's more like: you never roll your dice -- pick their value freely when you place them. Or teleport around the board. Or don't pay any cost to use an already used action. Super powers.
The trick is to make the maximum use out of your own power, to offset the other players making maximum use of theirs.
Players are also dealt two end-game VP cards, which remain hidden. These all involve establishing trading posts in specified cities (usually inconveniently far flung). The points available from these cards vary significantly, which could be a problem if one player wins just because they got the more valuable cards.
But the game includes drafting rules for both characters and end-game VP cards. Once you've played enough to understand what's what, I strongly recommend you use the drafting rules. That should minimize concerns about the balance of superpowers and goal cards.
The game has a solid physical production, with lots of nice wooden bits and handsome board and card art. The game state is fairly easily readable, once you know how to read it.
Overall, this is a great package. Game play is taut and compelling. And the variability as to city action cards, player powers, and end game VP goal cards should make for serious replayability.
Highly recommended, with one caveat: This game induced the worst AP that I've ever experience playing a game (and I'm not at all inclined that way). I think that's somewhat inevitable: everything is very tight; it's very easy to screw up; you need to string together multiple actions in a turn to get where you need to wind up; and every opponent action has the potential of throwing you off your razor-edged plan. This seems to be getting better with greater familiarity. But I would never play this game with a person who is innately AP-prone. The fun would die.
(Image credit: imploded)
Fun, quick, social deduction game.
The players are dealt a single card each. All but one of the cards show the same location (e.g., they all show a police station). The one non-matching card simply says "spy."
Players then ask each others question. The players who know the location are trying to uncover the spy. The spy is trying to figure out the common location before being discovered.
Out of that simple set up emerges a great deal of clever canniness. Questions need to be framed just so, to elicit subtly confirming responses from non-spies, while leaving spies without any guidance on what to say. Answers to questions also need to be very carefully framed. Give just enough information to let your fellow non-spies know that you're on their side, without revealing anything that would help the spy figure out where you are.
That's pretty much it. But with a decent group it works brilliantly.
And it is so stressful and fun to be the spy. In a recent game as the spy, three or four people were questioned before me, and I gleaned just enough information to narrow things down to half a dozen locations. When it was my turn to answer a question, I was able to give an answer that palpably fit all of the locations that I had in mind. My answer fit well enough that suspicion swung away from me and I was able to sneak through for a win (by strongly endorsing another player's accusation of a non-spy who had consistently been too vague).
Deep Sea Adventure
(Image credit: kazk)
An adorably small push your luck filler, similar in feel to Incan Gold.
Players are deep sea divers, exploring for treasures to bring back to the communal submarine. Each turn, players consume air from the common pool -- one unit of air per treasure that player is carrying. Dice get rolled and you either move forward, or abandon your explorations for the round and retreat to the sub. Movement is impaired by how much loot you're carrying.
All of that creates an interesting group dynamic. So long as nobody picks up a treasure, no air is consumed and all can go deeper into the sea (where the best treasure is), but once people start grabbing stuff the clock starts ticking. And players can defect and be dickish -- once you're pretty sure you'll make it back safely, pick stuff up to increase the rate of air consumption, making it harder on your opponents.
The dice keep it from being calculable.
Just enough to think about; doesn't outstay its welcome. Does what a filler needs to do. Fun.
Omen: A Reign of War
(Image credit: robrob)
Beautiful two-player card game, in the same general lineage as Battle Line.
Players are paying gold to play cards into one of three contested cities. The cards represent soldiers (high strength, one-time special power when played), oracles (weak strength, but special powers that trigger every turn), or beasts (very high strength, can either be played to a city or discarded to trigger a strong one-off special power).
If a specified number of cards are in a city, a "war" is resolved (based on the combined strength of units on each side). The winner gets the top face down "reward" card for that city, and players discard most of their cards from the city (loser keeps two, winner keeps one).
There are a lot of other clever little wrinkles, which make for some very interesting decisions.
The graphic design is top notch, with clear readable card information and unique evocative art on each card.
The only downside for my wife and I is that the game consistently produced snowball effects. One player would get a resource edge and then you'd have a runaway leader. With more experience, we could probably mitigate that through better play. But we're probably not going to make that effort. It wasn't much fun to be on the losing side of this game.
On a more general point, I'm wondering if two-player head-to-head card games just aren't to my taste. If you really like that kind of thing, this might be a great game for you.
(Image credit: punkin312)
Fairly simple stock market game, with not quite enough control for my taste.
This was a perfectly serviceable stock market game, where players acquire (or sell) shares in various companies, while the share value of those companies fluctuate (based largely on hidden information, with each player having some exclusive knowledge of part of the upcoming changes).
The system for acquiring shares is based on an Amun-Re (Cyclades) style auction (which I tend to like) with the auctioned lots being constructed by the players through card play. Some of the cards are played face down. So again, hidden information with limited player knowledge of what's been hidden.
I liked it well enough, but felt like there was a touch too much luck for my tastes. In my one play, information that I couldn't see tended to strengthen other players' positions in a way that I couldn't foresee or control. I suppose I could have aped other players' choices more, in an effort to hedge against changes that they were able to foresee. But if everyone did that, it would be a pretty bland experience.
Good design, but not for me.
(Image credit: punkin312)
Fun with gravity.
Players take turns putting differently shaped objects on little shelves projecting out of the inside of a hoop. As the center of gravity shifts, the hoop rolls. Try not to have things fall off the shelves on your turn.
That's pretty much it. I'm glad to have played it, but it wasn't as good as Riff Raff or Bandu (in that balancing-odd-objects niche).
Nations: The Dice Game
(Image credit: earthvssoup)
Light dice-based engine building game with way too strong a luck effect (at least with two-players).
Roll your dice. Then take turns using them to pay for tiles from a center market. Some tiles are "wonders" which require an extra action (and stone) to "build" into your tableau. Tiles may give you extra dice (which you can immediately use) or "chits" that have some one-per-round value. If you've got a re-roll chit you can use it to re-roll any of your unused dice.
After buying tiles there's a contest for most books (VP reward), a target for food (VP reward), a contest for most swords (determines turn order), and then a target for swords (VP reward).
Repeat four times.
I was unsure whether to get this game, because I read several comments that the game was flat and uninteresting, with not enough narrative to engage. I didn't have that problem. I thought it was engaging enough as a light engine builder. And getting to use your acquired dice immediately is fun.
I didn't like the game for a different reason. The luck dependence is way too strong, at least with two players (I haven't tried it with more).
My wife and I played three games back to back (it's quick!) and we saw repeated instances where a streak of bad rolling created a structural disadvantage that couldn't be overcome (at least that we could see).
The game repeatedly produced frustration (and not the good kind).
Do not want.
Love the world.
If you're interested:
Hobbes' 50-Game Collection
It was an interesting exercise putting it together (and I'm not quite done populating blurbs in the entries). I think I'd have a very fulfilling time playing just the list I put together.
Love the world.
I made myself a New Year's resolution this year: I would play at least 50 of the unplayed games that I own.
Yesterday I finished. Thank goodness.
Initially, it was fun and I made a lot of progress very quickly. But gradually it came to feel like a chore. Instead of playing games because I wanted to play them, I felt pressure to play new games so that I could check them off my list.
My wife compared it (disparagingly) to the approach of some bird-watchers we know. Their primary interest is to see new birds, that aren't yet on their life lists. Once eyes are laid on a new bird, the box gets checked, and that's it. No further interest.
I haven't been quite that bad. Many of the new games got a handful of plays before I moved on to the next. But I did feel an uncomfortable pressure to keep moving on. And that got to be a drag.
I'm very glad to have the whole thing behind me. I don't plan to repeat the experience or anything like it (no 10x10 challenge for me!).
Instead, I'm going to spend some time thinking about what I'd like to play.
Love the world.
In November 2010, I did something that really changed my experience of the board game hobby. I helped form a local game group. BGG made that possible, because it allows you to search for BGG members in your area. That makes it very simple to contact local gamers (that you don't already know) and invite them to join your group. That worked out great for us. Our core group has been solidly chugging along ever since.
A few months later, in July 2010, I started to write entries in the monthly "New to You" geeklist, which is maintained by the inestimable
The list is always an interesting read, with a lot of short-form first-impression reactions to games. I find it a really useful way to get a better sense of games I'm watching and to learn about new games.
And then, just a couple of weeks ago, I decided to copy all of my NTY entries and cross-post them to this blog.
One unexpected and happy side-effect of that cross-posting was that it led me on a very enjoyable and interesting trip down memory lane. The process of copying, pasting, and tagging all of my old NTY entries allowed me to revisit all of the "new" games that I've played in the last five years.
What a great trip it's been! Here are a few observations about where I've been over the last five years:
I've played a LOT of new games!
So how many "new" games did I play in the last five years? By my count: 315. That's a little more than 5 per month (more than one a week) for 60 straight months. Wow!
At least 90% of those are games that I researched, acquired (often by trading), learned, taught, and played. I enjoy every step of that process (with the exception of teaching, if certain players don't pay attention -- stop building patterns with your bits!). Quantitatively, that's a lot of enjoyment. If, conservatively, each game required an hour to research, an hour to learn, and an hour to play, That would be 4-5 hours per week of time spent enjoying board games. I know there are others who spend a lot more time than that on the hobby, but for me, that's a pretty solid degree of sustained fun.
On side note: As I've written below, I'm a collection churner, trading or selling games to acquire new games. As a consequence, most of the 315 games that I wrote about have left my collection. That makes me feel a little wistful, as I can remember games that I played and enjoyed, but that I later released into the wild (must resist reacquisition disorder). But if I hadn't done that, I couldn't have sustained my exploration of new games. No regrets!
I've played a lot of GREAT games!
Looking back over my list, I'm really impressed with the quality of the games that I've been able to play. So many were just were just amazing games. It really illustrates the depth and quality of our hobby.
In the late 1990s, when I started out in the modern board gaming hobby (transitioning out of the older wargames and Steve Jackson style microgames), I only had access to a handful of these new "German" games. This was either games that I bought as imports or the cream of the crop that got reprinted in English by Rio Grande. I bought Settlers (which I've never much liked) and then expanded into Knizia (E&T, Durch die Wuste, Samurai -- all of which I still have!), and Kramer & Kiesling (Tikal).
I don't want to get into the debate about whether that old "German" school of design is better or worse than the more modern design tendencies -- I love them all! But my experience of the hobby was decidedly vanilla for several years (albeit a very satisfying and high quality of vanilla).
We added a few more modern games over the next 10 years or so (Stone Age, Puerto Rico, San Juan, Carcassonne, Oregon, Chicago Express) and that really broadened our horizons.
But after the game group formed things opened out into a much broader and deeper design space. And my list of new games played in the last 10 years really reflects that.
In addition to some other incredible classics (Acquire, 1830, Dune, Union Pacific, Stephenson's Rocket), I've been able to play a large number of "Hall of Fame" level games from perennial masters like Martin Wallace (Brass, Age of Industry, London, Princes of the Renaissance), Uwe Rosenberg (Agricola, Le Havre, Fields of Arle), Stefan Feld (Notre Dame, Speicherstadt, In the Year of the Dragon, Castles of Burgundy). And some games of similar brilliance from other less-prolific designers, including Xavier Georges (Troyes), Andreas Steding (Hansa Teutonica), Richard Breese (Keyflower), Tom Lehmann (Race for the Galaxy, 1846).
Holy shit, just look at that list! All of those games were new to me in the last five years!
And there has also been a steady stream of very good to great games (e.g., 7 Wonders, American Rails, Clash of Cultures, Concordia, Cuba Libre, Dixit, Eclipse, Glen More, Glory to Rome, Indonesia, La Granja, Neue Heimat, Lancaster, Mysterium, Navegador, Palaces of Carrara, Panamax, Patchwork, Pax Porfiriana, Russian Railroads, Sekigahara, Shipyard, Taluva, Terra Mystica, Ticket to Ride, Vanuatu, Vikings, War of the Ring).
Admittedly, the design explosion has also produced a lot of stuff that I have little interest in (more on that below) and a fair amount of crap (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sturgeon%27s_law).
But I've been pretty good about doing my research before getting a game, which means I've mostly managed to stick to things I like and steer clear of the mediocrity.
Bottom line: the games that I've been able to explore in the last five years have been of an incredibly high degree of design maturity and excellence. This kind of thing simply didn't exist 20 years ago. I feel extremely fortunate to be part of such a great hobby.
I'm definitely a euro gamer.
I always enjoy reading people's geeklists about the games that they're excited to acquire at Gencon, or Nurnberg, or Essen, each year. One thing I've noticed is that these kinds of lists often don't have a lot of overlap. I'll read an Essen list with 50 items on it and find that I have no interest in any of them.
That's usually because the other person's list is exclusively made up of dungeon crawlers, zombie games, and the like — experience games, with strong fantasy, horror, and sci-fi themes. And I'm just not interested in those kinds of games. (Not that there's anything wrong with them.)
My five-year new game list solidly confirms my status as a solid euro gamer.
I've dabbled in 18xx (and would happily do so more, if the games weren't so difficult to get tabled in my group), and light wargames (e.g., Sekigahara, 1775, Hammer of the Scots) and a handful weuros (Polis, Conquest of the Empire, A Few Acres of Snow, Mythotopia, Twilight Struggle, Dune, Starcraft), and a smattering of dexterity or party games. But easily 90% of the new games I've played in the last five years have been euros.
I think it's cool that our hobby contains "subdomains" of wargamers, thematic gamers, abstract gamers, and eurogamers. The hobby's richer for having those separate strands woven through it. And I can, sometimes, be tempted to play games outside my core interests (with enjoyment). But it's clear that I don't do that very often.
I've had so much fun.
One of the things that surprised me about the experience of parsing my way through my five year history is how often I was able to remember the specific game plays that I had written up. Sometimes it was because the games were played at a memorable event (e.g., an all day birthday party or a vacation cabin at Lake Tahoe). But other times it was just a matter of having a really good time with my friends. (Or remembering the very rare bad moments, like the awkward spats or bits of social carelessness).
When I tagged my entry for Bruges, I could remember playing on my back patio, on a warm evening. The game was so-so, but the friendly companionship was great. And I can remember the absurd "summoning a genie" song that a friend of mine played all through our one play of Five Tribes. Or the goofy, beer-infused fun I had turtling my way to a victory in four player Starcraft (with lots of good natured trash talk). Etc. Etc.
There's a long string of these distinct memories, which really confirm for me how much I've been enjoying this hobby of ours. So many moments of delicious tension, triumph, grudging pleasure for an opponent whose clever move just dicked me over, good-natured teasing, satisfaction when a complicated plan works exactly as I'd hoped, and the sense of aesthetic pleasure at manipulating the wonderful micro-universes that these games provide — clever, puzzly, exciting, and beautiful amalgams of physical design, brilliant modes of thought and decision, and relaxed social sharing.
It's just been so great.
Love the world.
This was cross-posted from my entry to the June 2015 "New to You" geeklist.
Fields of Arle
(Image credit: akroatis)
Excellent entry into Rosenberg's "harvest" series, optimized for two.
Fields of Arle is a two-player-only descendent of Rosenberg's "harvest" games (Agricola, Ora et Labora, Caverna, etc.). It shares many of the features of that lineage: worker placement, farming, animal husbandry (with animal breeding, space requirements, and support buildings), land reclamation (constructing dikes, draining land, and cutting peat), goods conversion (materials are shipped away to nearby cities and return as finished goods), buildings with special powers, and a harvest phase where you sow what you've reaped and then pay maintenance costs.
But this is a game about prosperity, rather than near-starvation. So you're filling your barn with expensive vehicles and constructing prestigious buildings, rather than sharing your living room with a sheep. Things are still tight, but there's no sense of anxious dread.
After two plays, I'm comfortable saying that this is a great game. It's almost a perfect fit for my wife and me, as gamer spouses. It's got medium weight and length, with a strong developmental arc and lots of decisions. The worker placement isn't brutal, but it gives plenty of opportunity to get in each others' way. There are a number of ways to specialize and (unlike Agricola) no penalty for doing so (except that you're rewarded for having a well-balanced stock of farm animals).
The physical production is great, with lots of wooden animals, stickered player markers, thick boards, charming art, and clear iconography (for the most part -- there's some wonkiness around different colored arrows that still eludes me).
I've mostly played Rosenberg's "harvest" games two-player, so I was really excited when I heard that he had designed one specifically as a two-player game. I pre-ordered it, despite the big price. And I'm very glad I did. This is a definite keeper; a very handsome and mature entry in Rosenberg's design space.
Wars of the Roses: Lancaster vs. York
(Image credit: da pyrate)
A really enjoyable historically-themed area control slugfest, with card drafting, money management, and blind programmed actions.
At base, this is an area control game, with a well-integrated dose of historical theme (the struggle between the Lancaster and York families for control of England in the 1400's). Players take control of locations (castles, towns, and ports) and personalities (nobles, ship captains, and bishops), all of which can give you income or "control points" (the latter are used in determining area control for each of the map's regions).
But everything is up for grabs. Players can try to bribe personalities to switch allegiance or can use armies to seize control of locations. Defensively, players can bribe their own allies to keep them loyal or raise extra troops to defend locations (which also have their own innate garrisons).
All of that costs money. And you can't be strong everywhere. So how do you decide what to do each turn? Answer: secretly.
Each player has a really well-designed player mat that abstracts everything on the game board into a clear schematic, hidden behind the biggest player screens I've ever seen in a game. Each turn, you must decide where to move your nobles and ships, who to bribe (or counter-bribe), and where to raise armies in attack or defense. All of this is plotted on the player boards and then simultaneously revealed.
People who don't like blind bidding and programmed movement may not like this. There's a lot of scope for misreading others' intentions and screwing up in a big way. But I really enjoyed it (which, honestly, might have been because things broke my way; I might have felt differently if I'd spent the game guessing wrong and getting kicked to the curb). But your planning isn't completely blind. You know what matters to you and to others, and so you'll be making educated guesses about what you and others might be doing.
Another point worth noting: the players are divided into two factions (Lancaster and York) and there's a meta area control contest each round. The faction with the most "votes" based on areas they control will control the throne for that turn, with each of the dominant family members netting some points. So there's a shared incentive not to go after your "ally" too badly. That said, there's nothing stopping you from back-stabbing if it makes sense.
Finally, it's worth noting that the physical production is outstanding. The components are of very high quality (except for my wooden cubes, which had that odd dusty mildew that some wooden game bits get). The map, player boards, shields, cards, and tokens are all thick, functional, and really attractive. I thought the game remained very readable, despite the density of stuff going on. Great design work!
I really liked this game. But with a 3+ hour duration and the heavy dose of hidden/blind planning, I'm not sure how often it will get played.
Lords of Scotland
(Image credit: W Eric Martin)
Clever and highly interactive card game, with good art design (at least in the Z-Man edition).
Lords of Scotland is a simple and fairly quick card game, with a lot of interesting kinks.
• Each round, players can play cards in front of them, with the goal of having the highest numerical total value at the end of the round. At the beginning of the round, random cards are turned up to determine the point pay-outs for the round. These are awarded to the players in order of their set value. E.g., in a three player game, the point cards are 10, 7, and 5. Whoever has the most valuable set chooses the 10, next most valuable gets the 7, and worst gets the 5.
This random allocation of point chunks each round reminded me of the second phase of For Sale. Sometimes there will be a wide disparity in possible points and players will have an incentive to fight hard. Other times, the spread will be narrower and a player could hang back and save resources for the next round's fight. I thought that was interesting and fun.
• When you play a card in front of you, you can play it face up or face down. If you play it face up, there's a chance it will trigger a special power (each suit of cards has a different power). To trigger, it must be the lowest valued card of that suit in play by anyone.
This creates a very interesting trade-off between playing a high value card for end game set scoring (even though it won't trigger its power) or playing a lower value card in order to use its power (and strangle other people's ability to use that power, by lowering the bar below which they'll need to play to trigger the power).
• The card powers create lots of interesting interactivity, especially those that let you discard or steal another player's card. That felt a bit swingy and overpowered in our one play BECAUSE WE TOTALLY FORGOT THAT YOU CAN PLAY CARDS FACE DOWN! This meant that we never hid our really strong cards, opening ourselves up to powerful screwage.
I enjoyed the game quite a bit, despite the fact that we didn't use an extremely important rule. With that tweak, I expect future games would be even better.
An attractive, clever, and fun filler.
(Image credit: ckirkman)
A worker placement, order fulfillment, resource management game themed around operating a micro-brewery.
The game owes a lot to Agricola, with several mechanisms recognizably borrowed from that classic. But the main worker placement engine is built into a game about producing goods for money and victory points. There's a very interesting assembly line that needs to be fed and operated in order to keep product moving out the door. That assembly line can be enhanced with various accessories that make it more powerful in various ways.
You can also hire expert employees, who give you special powers and form local partnerships with spice and coffee companies, which allow you to trade for advanced ingredients.
And there's a tech tree, with four branches, each of which gives you goodies as you advance. The last space on each branch is an end-game VP booster.
You get a huge number of employees and beer recipes, from which you use a different subset each game. I expect this will really enhance replayability.
There was a lot to grok in the first play, especially as the brewery enhancements and special employees all have text that needs to be read carefully the first time you see them. With future plays, we won't need to re-learn the core mechanisms, and I expect it will be easier to get up and running.
The game plays very smoothly, with some turn angst when you get frozen out of stuff you need, but there are a lot of alternative things you can do, so you're never entirely stiffed.
Solid economic game, with great looking bits. It's a keeper.
(Image credit: jesb)
A clever and pleasant entry into the Carcassonne niche, with really nice looking components.
Very quick, light, tile laying game, with interesting spatial scoring considerations. Tiles are square and come in two flavors. There are "jungle" tiles which provide various benefits and player village tiles. The player tiles have from zero to three workers on each of the four edges.
Village tiles are played orthagonally adjacent to jungle tiles (and may never be orthagonally adjacent to other villages). When placed, the workers provide whatever benefit is shown on the jungle tile touching their edge. Place a two-worker edge next to a cacao plantation jungle tile and you harvest two cacao.
If you place a village tile so as to create an empty space between two or more village tiles, you get to fill it with a jungle tile. That tile immediately provides benefits to adjacent workers (of any player).
The jungle tiles let you harvest 1 or 2 cacao, sell cacao (for from 2 to 4 gold each), mine 1 or 2 gold, collect sun tiles (which let you overbuild your own village tiles near game end, allowing you to re-score especially valuable locations), establish influence over temples (which offer majority scoring at end-game) or advance your water carrier along the water track (which scales from -10 to +16 VP at game end based on how far you've advanced).
With two, it played in under 30 minutes. It looks great and offers some fairly interesting spatially-dependent tactical play. Pretty fun!
(Image credit: AlxHague)
Really great, silly, fun party game.
This is a nicely produced version of the public domain game, Celebrities.
There's a large deck of cards, each naming a different person. Teams take turns, with one member trying to give clues so that teammates will correctly guess as many cards as possible.
In round one, clues can be anything other than the name of the person. Round two, the clue can be only one word. Round three, pantomime only. No words.
I ordered this immediately after watching the video review from Shut up and Sit Down:
Tue Jun 30, 2015 11:52 pm
Love the world.
This is an archival post of a write-up I did for the New to You geeklist in May 2015.
(Image credit: sourwyrm)
Excellent "shorter" 18xx with variable start conditions.
This is an excellent 18xx title. As compared to the rest of the series, it's relatively short (~4 hours). And it's got some features that I really enjoyed.
The private companies offer an interesting mix of special powers, and if you're playing with less than the full complement of five players (as I will almost always be doing), you'll have a different set of them in each game.
The public railroad companies also have minor special features and, again, if you're playing with less than five there will be some randomness in which companies are present in the game.
That combination of unique characteristics and variable availability from game to game is very appealing. I'm a huge fan of variable set-up in games, as it keeps things from getting too scripted. I can see playing this game repeatedly without it feeling samey.
There are also a number of other minor tweaks that distinguish 1846 from other titles in the series. For example, all track construction costs money (unless a special power allows free construction in a specific context).
Also, companies float at 20% and keep the remainder of their shares in their treasuries. The company pays itself dividends for every share it still holds. And companies can sell their shares to the open market to get a cash infusion (at slightly below market price). And if it makes sense, they can later buy them back (at slightly higher than market price). This adds an interesting element of cash/stock management to the operating rounds. But beware, companies will take a hit to their share price if they've got any shares in the open market at the end of a stock round. This is all very cool.
This might be my favorite 18xx!
(Image credit: punkin312)
Excellent, mean, thinky filler card game (with charming art).
Cards are in suits running from 1 to 8. On your turn, draw two and play one to your tableau. Cards can be drawn from the face down deck or any discard pile.
In your tableau, you're trying to build orthagonally connected sequences of cards in ascending numerical order. In order to be scored at the end of the game, the sequence must begin and end with a suit that you're eligible to score.
Eligible to score? Yep. To be able to score a sequence, you must have the highest sum of cards in that suit in your hand at game's end (with the added wrinkle that an 8 is worth 0 if anyone is holding the 1 of the same suit).
This creates a huge potential for dickish blocking and anxiety. Your opponent building a valuable sequence in Oak trees? Keep that 7 in your hand and they won't be able to score it. Ha ha! But your hand size is only 7 and you need to keep cards in your hand to ensure you can score your valuable sequences. Which is more important, keeping your scoring opportunities alive or blocking your opponent. You can't do everything.
With two it was fun, but maybe a little too calculable. It might be a little too easy to know what your opponent is holding as the game draws to a close. That would be harder to do with more players (at least for me!). But I wonder if the downtime would become a problem with more than two. Especially if you've got an AP calculator in the mix.
For me, this fits a similar niche as Parade (numbered suits, with mathy sequencing concerns), but is more complex. I suspect I'll continue to prefer Parade as a lighter travel game. But Arboretum might get the nod as a game night opener or closer with people who won't play too slowly.
Very good game!
(Image credit: percatron)
Variable set-up, 2-4 player Snow without the history.
My wife and I had a lot of fun playing A Few Acres of Snow when it first came out. So I was very interested when I heard that Wallace was designing a reimplementation of the core game concept (deck builder crossed with light strategic conflict and development on a map), with the goal of making it playable by up to four.
So what do I think? I'm pretty happy with it (at least as a two-player game, which is all I've tried so far). It plays well, with a moderate weight and length, and provides a lot of interesting choices.
I miss the historicity of Snow — I find it really satisfying to load your settlers into canoes in New York and send them upriver to establish a foothold in wilderness Albany (and then worry about whether you'll be able to build a stockade before they're wiped out by raiders). Mythotopia doesn't have that kind of thematic appeal. It's just dudes on a generic fantasy/medieval map.
But the game play is still a lot of fun. And the disconnect from a specific historic setting freed Wallace to introduce significant variability in the game set-up, ensuring that each play will have a different configuration of resources and objectives (and no single dominant strategy).
I've heard complaints about the endgame bogging down at higher player counts. I can see how that might happen, but it wasn't a problem in our 2p game.
I'm glad to have another game built on the Snow engine, to breathe more life back into the system.
(Image credit: KNUT STROEMFORS)
How the hell did you do that?
This is more of an activity than a game, but it's a fun activity.
Choose eccentrically shaped wooden bits and use them to build towers.
That's pretty much it, but there are also a series of variant auction rules that you can use to decide who must use which block. The most interesting are the ones that allow you to stick someone else with an absurdly difficult piece.
I get a kick out of being surprised when something really unexpected actually works.
Kashgar: Händler der Seidenstraße
(Image credit: wamboyil)
A "queue-building" order fulfillment card game.
Each player has three merchant "caravans" (i.e., vertical rows of face-up cards) that are traveling the Silk Road trade route to the market city of Kashgar.
Play is very simple. On your turn, you select one of the cards at the "front" (i.e. bottom) of one of your caravans, either perform one of that card's actions or pass, then move the card to the back of the caravan.
There are cards that let you (1) get more cards (either from the standard deck or the smaller "special" deck, which has better cards in it but is harder to access), (2) get more stuff (i.e., various spices, gold, or mules), (3) thin a queue by permanently deleting cards, or (4) complete a contract card. A contract card may require one or both of the following: a minimum number of mules as transport (these aren't spent) and the expenditure of a specified mix of spices, gold, and mules (these are spent).
Some of the caravan cards have points on them. But most of the points come from completing contract cards. The game end is triggered when someone gets to 25 points (you then complete the round, so everyone has the same number of turns). Most points wins.
Cards that let you complete contracts are crucial, so you'll need to dig for those early. It's also valuable to thin your caravans so that it doesn't take so long for your important cards to cycle back to the front. You can even thin a caravan down to a single card, in which case it is always available to be chosen for its action.
The game plays very quickly, and includes some interesting deck-building type choices (with the interesting twist that you also need to manage the fixed sequence in which your cards can operate). With three caravans, you can try to optimize each one for a different purpose (e.g., contract fulfillment, resource generation, etc).
Two-player felt a bit too zero sum and luck dependent (which is how I often feel about two-player card games). But it plays up to four and I'm looking forward to trying it at a higher count.
There is no English version of the game, and there's lots of text on cards. So you'll either need to read German or use paste-ups or a cheat sheet.
The Staufer Dynasty
(Image credit: punkin312)
Good (but not great) area control with travel cost management.
Hansa Teutonica is one of my favorite games, so I'm always up to try another game by Andreas Steding.
This is a fairly quick and very tight area majority game, with a spatial limitation that's based on moving clockwise around the six segments of the circular board. Each player has only three actions for each of the game's five rounds. So there's very little time to accomplish much.
There's a clever turn order mechanism, which I won't describe, that creates a trade-off between doing important stuff now, at the cost of going later in the next turn.
On your turn, you either get more dudes from your general supply or put some dudes on the board. To put dudes on a board space, you must pay one dude per space that you need to traverse to get to your destination (moving clockwise from the current location of the king), and then pay more dudes to occupy "offices" within the location that you're targeting.
After both players have taken all of their actions, 1-2 regions are scored. The regions that will score each round are mostly determinable, though in a few cases the choice of space to score is contingent on the game state at the end of the round (in a way that you will know in advance and can try to manipulate).
Players score decreasing points for most offices, second most, etc. Big dudes (who are harder to get) count double. And ties are decided by whoever occupies the leftmost office (which increase in cost towards the left).
Throughout the game you have chances to acquire treasure chests, which are used either for end-game set collection VP, one-off special powers, or to purchase always-on special power cards.
At the beginning of the game, players are dealt three end-game VP targets, which can produce a lot of points. One nice catch is that end game VP can only be scored based on dudes on the board at the end of the game, and dudes that are used to score majorities at the ends of the various rounds are removed from the board. So you'll need to make some difficult choices about whether to put dudes out to score in the current round, or to salt them away for end-game scoring.
Total JASE. I won't even try to debate that. But it's a clever combination of euro mechanisms that produce a very tightly constrained set of difficult choices. It all hums along pretty smoothly once you know how it runs. (But I doubt I'll try to teach this to anyone besides my wife; there's just so much fiddly special power information to manage that it would be a pain to teach. "What's this do again?" I also see some potential for AP, since you've got significant look-ahead to how the regions will score throughout the game.)
It's a good game, but not great.
(Image credit: nekrataal)
Medium weight simultaneous action selection, worker placement, and set collect (with cupcake meeples).
Another Andreas Steading game! (With art by Josh Cappel and an extravagant set of custom meeples.)
Players are buying and selling goods (and recruiting guild members and special power characters) from various guilds. All of this builds toward end-game scoring based on various set collection criteria.
The best stuff about the game:
• The physical production is very nice. Lots of silly custom meeples (cupcakes, beer, hats, etc.)
• There's an interesting simultaneous card selection mechanism for determining which guilds you'll operate in each turn. This produces some really nice timing tension.
• There's a lot of interplay variability. The price of the various goods will fluctuate each turn based on numbers that are randomized each game (but known and therefore predictable, within each game). There will also be a random subset of special power cards that will be available to recruit each game.
• The money economy in the game is interesting (and in conflict with your VP generation goals).
Here's what wasn't so great:
• The money economy seems a bit fragile. You need to be very careful to stay liquid. If you overspend, it's possible to wind up in a hole that you can't dig out of. That happened to my wife in our first game and we decided to quit halfway through, because her position was futile.
• It's also possible to just limp along, without your engine ever kicking fully in. That can be a bit frustrating.
Overall, the game's a bit of a glorious mess, with lots of competing priorities to manage. But it hangs together well enough and it presents some interesting trade-offs and timing decisions.
The game is designed to scale with the number of players, but it was probably a bit too zero-sum with two.
I'm very glad to have finally played it, but I'm not sure if it's a keeper. Good, but not great. Probably better with more than two, but that might make it more prone to the fragility problem, with some players getting kicked to the curb and unable to recover.
(Image credit: i just lost)
Classic euro, with a dry historical theme pasted onto a solid set of mechanics.
There are four rounds in which the players take turns playing cards to either put their dudes onto various "noble" spaces or retrieve dudes from the general supply for later placement. When you place dudes, you start in the space shown on your card and put down up to three pieces. You can dribble them out across diagonally adjacent spaces in "trail of bread crumbs" fashion (which is pretty familiar, for a Dorn design).
After everyone has finished playing all of their cards, the noble spaces are scored, providing money, task tokens, or other good things based on dude majorities and/or payment of dudes or money.
Task tokens are collected to fulfill the requirements of task cards in hand. Once fulfilled, task cards are worth VP at game end and give you a permanent special power for the remainder of the game.
A solid, old school euro. I've heard it's good with two and would like to try it at that count.
1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 Next »