This game is average...the decisions just don't seem very exciting or meaningful. However, I can see why it has been so successful - it's fast, simple, plays a wide range of player counts, and there's little downtime. Good lightweight filler.
Missing 1 of the 45 collection cards. More importantly, missing the following location/action cards: Green: Exhibit, two checks (I have 17K and 20K) Black: Exhibit, $3,000 check Blue: Castle, Exhibit, Detective, $2,000 check Yellow: two checks (I have 1K and 12K)
Also missing the black and green pawns.
The game is technically playable with these components by combining the green and yellow decks and then playing 2-player vs the red deck (which is complete).
The game also includes 3 blank collection cards, so if one determined which item is missing from the collection deck, it could be replaced.
My favorite cube-pushing euro. I absolutely love the "oh god I need to do a million things but only have 2 actions" frantic feeling of it. This game always feels impossible at the beginning and then pleasantly surprising at the end when you actual manage to get a good score. I love the variety the cards provide.
The strategic decisions in this game seem pretty limited, and it's mostly luck based. Did good cards come out on your turn or not? Still, something about this game is very appealing, and I've been playing an awful lot of it.
OK game, sucks when the character cards are really imbalanced, like if the Sheriff has the one that can play anything as a miss or whatever. That's a helluva uphill battle for the bad guys! Still a fun game with the right group.
It's amazing how simple the rules are to this one. Explainable in 2 minutes, plays in a reasonable amount of time. Obviously only good if you like trading, as that is all this game consists of. I like Bohnanza slightly better, but they're both good.
If I rated after 2 plays it would be much higher. But after several plays some flaws started showing- it can feel repetitive when you get the same old cards and your brain keeps thinking of clues you've already given/heard for that card. Also, there's a weird dynamic between playing the game for fun and playing to win. The game is most fun when you give strange and interesting clues. But if you want to win the best type of clue to give is one that is a specific inside reference that only one other player will recognize.
Still, this is a fun game, and it's one that has always been a big hit with many different audiences of non-gamers. Definitely a worthwhile game to get.
Great game. Probably would have put in in the 9s when I first got it but now it doesn't have quite the same shine after repeated plays. Still solid, it just has more of a dry feel and it can sometimes feel like the strategy is obvious (solution- try not to play with those card combinations). Definitely a game where the expansions are really great. They breathe new life into it.
Great game. Probably would have put in in the 9s when I first got it but now it doesn't have quite the same shine after repeated plays. Still solid, it just has more of a dry feel and it can sometimes feel like the strategy is obvious (solution- try not to play with those card conversations. Definitely a game where the expansions are really great. They breathe new life into it.
Was excited to play this when I saw it at the top of Tom Vasel's Top 100. This game is an abomination. Complete lack of any sort of strategic thinking in here. You'd hope it would make up for the lack of strategy by at least having some exciting action, but instead it's just sitting around moving towards wherever silly location you're trying to reach while ignoring your opponent. What a boring, worthless game. But, uh...you should totally trade something to me for it; I'm sure you'll love it!
Great theme, great artwork. Chvatil never disappoints. I've only played this twice but it was fantastic. A complex game that feels very deep, but then when it's over you're surprised that it didn't actually take very long at all. The simultaneous planning does wonders for ensuring that downtime isn't an issue and makes for great head games. It makes the game feel very interactive as you are very much focused on what you're opponents are doing and trying to outwit them. No multiplayer solitaire here, even though player interaction is very indirect.
Rating might go significantly higher after a few more plays.
Rating after 3 plays, strictly with the core set, all 2-player. The decisions in this game are just annoying to think about. I like the idea of this game, but the execution is lacking. When players get a lot of things out, the options for what to attack with can become overwhelming. You have to consider way too many combinations and permutations, and unlike other games with that sort of thing (i.e. chess), it's just not very interesting to think about.
That wouldn't be the end of the world, but on top of it the cards are just annoying. Some cards are characters that essentially cannot be killed (save character from being killed by returning it to your hand). This renders the military challenges essentially irrelevant, and makes the game very silly. Add on a poor rulebook, and the fact that my third play of this took over 2 hours (how the hell does a game like this take that long?), and this is one I don't see myself playing again. My one hope is that maybe it's redeemed in 3+ player games where things aren't so zero-sum predictable with challenges and there's more diplomacy and subterfuge.
This is just a horrifically bad game. At no point while playing this game will you make an interesting decision. This game has all the randomness of Yahtzee except with none of the fun of dice rolling. There are a bunch of rules to learn but none of them actually matter. It's strictly a vehicle for the theme and even the theme doesn't make a lot of sense. This game has no redeeming qualities except of course the FFG chrome. Sadly, a polished turd is still a turd.
Only redeeming quality of this game is that you can recognize how awful it is early on and hop out the exit, saving yourself from suffering through the rest of it.
Just feels mostly about luck- that your mostly random location choice is one that leads to information rather than a wasted turn, that the information the other person mostly randomly chooses to give you is information that helps significantly rather than duplicate or weak information. There's some strategy, but it's kind of obvious.
Fantastic area majority game. Definitely a hidden gem. Got it for $10 at toysforthought.com and it's possibly the best bang for my board game buck I've ever got. Seeing opponents choose an unexpected but effective role and thinking "ooh, I didn't see that coming" = sign of a good game. Little downtime, lots of head games, simple but effective design.
Two flaws - 1. The rules for picking bonus scoring cards are silly. House ruled to draw two, pick one from a bonus-only deck.
2. Too much luck on the scientist role. When one player draws a useful bonus card and the others draw useless discovery cards like "A Pretty Rock", it sucks. Not sure what house rule would fix this, but it seems itching for one- and I don't normally do house rules.
I enjoyed playing this one, but not enough that I'll ever be the one suggesting it. For the theme, I'd rather play Caylus, and while a few things about it are interesting (the whole pawns in the bag turn order thing, for example) as a whole it just doesn't feel like you're going anywhere when you play.
This game used to be my favorite that I always wanted to suggest to play. Now it's not so much. I don't like the chess-like feeling of "OK, if I take the Builder, I'll build this. He'll probably build that. And she'll probably build that. Then he'll take the the craftsman, and She'll take the trader. Then next round he'll take the mayor...no, that doesn't work. OK, what if I take the craftsman?". You need to think too far down these decision trees, planning out not only your own turns but predicting each opponent as well. A catalyst for AP. Still, it's a great game underneath that, but that aspect can get very frustrating.
Love the idea, and this is a fun game, but the implementation feels a bit bland. The dice don't feel balanced (i.e. quake dragon and defender of the pale are ridiculously good) and decisions are minimal. Still, it's a whole load of dice and manages to be fun despite those problems. Much more luck based than I had hoped it would be.
Great game, but I gave it to a friend who was always the one who wanted to play it. Really love the way your strategy changes each game. Some are races to 12 cards, some are production/consumption fests, some are military based. You have to be very adaptable.
Takeovers get a big thumbs-down, though- they just seem so rarely useful that they add needless complexity, and when they do happen they just feel silly.
Better than pictionary: Everything is an all-play, so no downtime. You lose if you guess the opponent's word, so you don't "cheat" and look at theirs. Can be problematic when one side gets easier words, but it's a party game...relax! And sculpting is a lot more fun than drawing.
Better than cranium: "Sculptorades" is the most fun part of Cranium anyway, so why not just play a game that is only that?
The whole concept of the winner using the plunger to remove the loser's clay is the extra finishing touch that takes this game from good to great. It gets fun when clay supplies start to dwindle, and taking your opponents' clay is a satisfying activity.
Great deduction game. Seems pretty well balanced as far as the sides go, and if it isn't it's easy to modify/handicap. Give Mr. X fewer/more special moves, or give the investigators fewer turns/tokens. If I had to give the advantage to one side I'd say Mr. X but I really can't make that judgment after so few plays.
I've only played one similar game, Letters From Whitechapel. I really like both, and it's hard to compare them. I liked that in LfC you get to find a trail and that makes the pursuit more exciting. But Scotland Yard is more straightforward and feels a bit more like you're constantly closing in, rather than LfC's nightly resets.
Hopelessly imbalanced in favor of the coin strategy. I should have known better than to buy this one since I rightly suspected it would follow the classic FFG strategy of releasing a broken game and then fixing it with an expansion. I like the game underneath but economic victory is just way easier than any other path.
Played this tons when I first got it due to its golden mix of game length, simplicity, and strategy. At one point I believe I had an 8 month, 20+ game winning streak. Now I'm kind of sick of this game. It's ok, but doesn't really excite me. So I gave it to my sister in law, who is obsessed with it!
Barely played it so far face to face, but I love this game and play it online a lot. Would be a 10 but the potential for incredibly lame endgame scenarios involving wars and the metagame of whether players will resign or not means this one doesn't quite acheive perfection. It would be a 10 if I could magically make everyone agree that resignation is the right move, but some people insist on staying in the game and that has the potential for a sour ending. It would still be a very good game without resignation, too- just not quite as rich, strategically. Indeed, I think I would rate it a 10 either with resignation or without. It's purely the "will they or won't they" guess-your-opponent's-gaming-philosophy metagame aspect that is truly a big enough flaw to warrant not giving a 10.