Game: Celtica

Image

EndersGame — 2008-11-03T17:56:59+00:00

Contents of gamebox

Image

EndersGame — 2008-11-03T17:56:18+00:00

Artwork detail: red druid

Image

EndersGame — 2008-11-03T17:55:43+00:00

Artwork detail: black druid

Image

EndersGame — 2008-11-03T17:55:05+00:00

Artwork detail: brown druid

Image

EndersGame — 2008-11-03T17:47:04+00:00

Artwork detail: grey druid

Image

EndersGame — 2008-11-03T17:40:47+00:00

Artwork detail: white druid

Image

EndersGame — 2008-11-03T17:40:11+00:00

Five druids

Image

EndersGame — 2008-11-03T17:39:45+00:00

Celtica rule book

Image

EndersGame — 2008-11-03T17:08:25+00:00

Artwork on reverse of EXPERIENCE cards

Image

EndersGame — 2008-11-03T17:00:37+00:00

Artwork on reverse of BASIC cards

Thread: What you need to know and what people think about Celtica

EndersGame — 2008-08-07T17:17:39+00:00

I've skimmed through the reviews and scoured the personal comments, and carefully organized some key quotations to bring you the important things you need to know and what other people think about Celtica. Perhaps you could call this a kind of "consensus of opinion" - biased of course, because I'm the one who gets to pick the quotes to include. Nevertheless, here you have it, an at-a-glance overview of some of the majority opinions that you need to know about this game.

1. The artwork and the bits are fantastic.
"A game with awesome art."
"The beautiful artwork caught peoples attention."
"The artwork on the board and cards is very beautiful, and the game only needed a different plastic miniature for each druid to make it visually perfect."
"The artwork on the other hand is amazing and very beautiful. "
"This game is really pretty. The art is lush, and the overall presentation really is appealing."

2. The strong luck element trumps any strategic decision making.
"Very light game, there is nothing in it, it is almost totally luck driven."
"This is like a return to the games I played as a kid: roll the dice and move - except you do it with cards. No control at all: you must play at least one Movement card per turn and have no knowledge of whether this helps or hinder the other players."
"Beautiful artwork, but the randomness of the game so totally dwarfs the decision-making that the minimal decisions that remain are simple exercises in frustration. Oh well."
"With the rules as written, this game is pretty luck-heavy. There’s virtually no whole-game strategy, other than deciding in the early game whether to deliberately land on the first ruin in order to pick up experience cards for use later (at the expense of losing one amulet piece each time). The tactical options are limited, too. The early part of the game also has a smaller impact on the outcome than the late game, where there are opportunities to take a lot of amulets at once. We have played several games where one player appeared to have an insurmountable lead with 80% of the game played, and the other player rallied to win or come very close to winning."
"Very, very, very light game. Geeks, keep your hands of it! This is the typical game for families who play a board game four times a year."
"Even as a family game it all falls very flat: the luck of the draw is quite dominant, strategies all hinge on a guess what the other players have in their hands."
"Kids game with half-decent art and a short playing time. Movement is based on luck of the draw, and the only decisions you really make are very small risk vs reward/guessing what the other guy will play. Whoever has the luckiest movement timing wins, which happened to be me. Yay. I did nothing other than get decent cards that timed well with what others had. I can't see much reason an adult would choose to play this waste of time over any other waste of time."
"Celtica is really a very, very light game, clearly targeted for families who do not play often. And even then there are better titles to be had which offer a longer-lasting and more fun experience. "
"Unfortunately, the game doesn't really offer much for adults. I feel like this game is made entirely of false choices. Not much game here."
"Candy Land 2.0"
"This is a fast, light family game that offers some very limited strategic possibilities but in the end is largely dominated by the luck of the draw."

3. Gamers will hate it, but children might like it.
"I would by no means expect this game to appeal to hard core gamers, regardless of it's quality and artwork. If any of the above mentioned have the game and are unhappy with it, find a nice family with young children and gift it to them. "
"Celtica is also a good family game - easy enough, good luck beats skill and yet the game offers excitement instead of boredom."
"We started playing with a 4 years old son. He's almost 5 now and we still play and like the game."
"My kids have a good time playing this."

4. Several variants (e.g. playing with hands open) might improve it.
"Maybe the game can be saved. How about if both players play with their hands open? (possibly keeping experience cards face down, so there is still some hidden information) This allows more strategic choices. Another possibility is to have players draw cards in a similar manner to Ticket to Ride, rather than being given five cards randomly - this adds complexity but also strategy."
"In a 2P game, the conflict opportunities are dependent on whether you play with your hand hidden (per the rules) or hand open (a variant which we have played a few times). With the hand hidden you’re mainly just trying to optimize your own moves. Once you see your opponent’s hand, though, you can try to manoeuvre your opponent onto the ruins. Although open hands increase the conflict potential a bit, it also favourably rebalances the luck-strategy mix by reducing luck and increasing tactical options ... playing with hands open makes the game more tactical and less random, and I prefer that variant."

5. The bottom line: what you need to know.
In the end, luck trumps any decisions you make, so I agree with the 35 people who rated it a "4" or lower rather than with the 12 people who rated it an "8" or higher. But considering the beautiful components, it might still find play with families with children.

Thread: Re: A Couple’s Review

baradifi — 2008-07-11T02:04:37+00:00

Thanks, I keep seeing this in the FLGS and not buying it but the components are SO beautiful. My wife is not big on Celts though because the Irish nuns used to beat her in grammar school.

Thread: Re: A Question and a Variant

Barad_the_dwarf — 2008-06-16T11:04:59+00:00

I always find it annoying that you constantly have to put down the parts of the amulets. It indeed helps you te plan the game but the number of parts that lie out is to low. I thought of using a bag to put in all the amulets and let the players take out a part when they get one. I haven't tried it out yet.

Thread: Re: Celtica - playing cards of a color when druid at the goal

Fledermaushaus — 2008-02-23T09:31:55+00:00

The German rules state that druid cards only become unplayable and are all discarded if all 5 druids reach the goal. Otherwise, when you play a druid card for a druid who has reached the goal, you play it as normal but it has no actual effect (apart from delaying, as you point out).

Thread: Re: Variant while waiting

zzini — 2007-12-13T17:25:07+00:00

no idea, i wish we could find them, we still like this game and cant quite figure how it got such a low rating compared to other games with card drawing and luck involved

Thread: Re: Variant while waiting

ponchera69 — 2007-08-14T05:59:46+00:00

Nice variants, I will give them a try.
Do you know what happened with the Spielbox variants?

Thread: Re: for more strategy

ponchera69 — 2007-08-14T05:56:36+00:00

It sounds fun. Have you tried them?

Thread: Re: Review from Gameblog

msaari — 2007-08-09T01:48:51+00:00

I can't really see myself playing Celtica with five, so it's not a big problem.

Thread: Re: A Question and a Variant

Kaks — 2007-08-08T20:26:16+00:00

okay, I'll try it some time! See how it works out.

Thread: Re: Review from Gameblog

RobertBr — 2007-08-08T19:31:01+00:00

Like the review, and agree with most of it. The game has one big downside, which is at five players it seems almost certain to result in a kingmaker situation at the end.

Thread: Re: Errors in the English translation

drkenfp — 2007-08-04T00:42:30+00:00

GSReis sent me to Rio Grande's website, where a friendly person sent me the English rules. Thanks to both!!

--drkenfp

Thread: Re: Errors in the English translation

drkenfp — 2007-08-01T00:31:29+00:00

I would LOVE to have the English translation!

I bought Celtica last week while shopping in a game store in Lichtenstein while on vacation. It only had the German rules.

"No problem," I thought. "I'll go to the Ravensburger web site."

I did. No luck. I sent an email through the contacts page - the nice rep emailed back saying "I don't have access to the English rules".

So - would anyone here like to take pity on me and send me a scan of the English rules?

--drkenfp

Thread: Re: A Question and a Variant

YeGor — 2007-07-24T07:36:43+00:00

I have played with the amulet pieces face down with my wife. We both ended with 3 complete amulets and 1 incomplete amulet with 7 parts. I can tell that face-down amulets are a much better way to play, as at the same time you collect several amulets, so when you get to ruins, you know what to give up without regret. Moreover, amulets face-down stand to reason, as druids enter the place without knowing what they will get. I don't know how it will run with more players, but for two players it's one of the nice variants of play.

Thread: Re: A Question and a Variant

Kaks — 2007-07-19T20:08:04+00:00

It's absolutely in the rules this way! I have the German rules which are the original and they are conclusive in this. No doubt about it!
Enjoy the game!

Thread: Re: A Question and a Variant

YeGor — 2007-07-18T07:11:02+00:00

Thanks for the reply.

Kaks wrote:
you do not have to play all of your cards at once. It would be better to look what strategic steps would be and sometimes this means only playing one or two of you cards, even if you have more of the same colour.

Is it according to the rules? I know, it's always better to think of what lies ahead, but I want to play by the rules. It has been shown, that the English rules have errors. Maybe in another language there is a definite rule of what you can play - all cards or whatever you want.

Kaks wrote:

I don't know about your idea to turn the amulet-pieces upside down. I think it would become a mess and then everything is up to luck. Personally I would not choose to do that. But if you try, let us know how it went okay?

Well, I'll try this out anyway Just for fun. Though I'm not so sure it would be playable.

Kaks wrote:

I play this game with my 6 and 8 year olds, but I haven't tried with my 3 year old. I can't really imagine how this would go. However, he does like "Tal der Abenteuer" (Reiner Knizia) which had the same game-mechanics in having colour-cards and moving the pieces according to the card you play. It's a friendlier theme for a young child though I think.

It's difficult for him as it's too long. Games that take 5-10 minutes (like Picnic by "Tactic") are just for him. Here he plays for half a game (with our help and with open cards) and then he looses interest. But he likes the theme - druids and vikings.

Thread: Re: A Question and a Variant

Kaks — 2007-07-17T13:59:16+00:00

you do not have to play all of your cards at once. It would be better to look what strategic steps would be and sometimes this means only playing one or two of you cards, even if you have more of the same colour.
Don't make the mistake of not looking ahead though. You can't keep any cards in your hand for the next dealing-round. So the game goes on until everybody has used up all of their druid-cards. Only then you get 5 new ones. So maybe keeping one behind is not always such a good idea as it can set you back a few amulet-pieces!

I don't know about your idea to turn the amulet-pieces upside down. I think it would become a mess and then everything is up to luck. Personally I would not choose to do that. But if you try, let us know how it went okay?

I play this game with my 6 and 8 year olds, but I haven't tried with my 3 year old. I can't really imagine how this would go. However, he does like "Tal der Abenteuer" (Reiner Knizia) which had the same game-mechanics in having colour-cards and moving the pieces according to the card you play. It's a friendlier theme for a young child though I think.

Thread: A Question and a Variant

YeGor — 2007-07-17T13:12:35+00:00

Just bought the game a couple of days ago and mostly played it with my almost 4-years old son. He loves the game. Just as I do.

The question is: do players have to play all of their one-color cards at once or can they play a part of them now and the rest later? For example, I have 3 red druid cards. If I play all of them at once I will end up in a ruin. Can I play, say, two on my turn and retain the third card for later use or am I bound to play all the 3 at once?

And the variant (I haven't tried it out yet, as I haven't had a serious game yet): play with amulet pieces face down in their spaces on the game board. That might bring a lot of chaos and mayhem into play. I think.

Thread: Amulets Available During Game

zzini — 2006-12-26T15:37:24+00:00

we pulled this recently as one of our favorite 2 player games and played with this variant which played very well. the amulets available from teh track are different according to the number of players playing: 5 players - 9, 4 players - 8, 3 players - 7, 2 players - 6. this makes collecting amulets a little harder.

Thread: A Couple’s Review

pinecone96 — 2006-12-13T05:27:27+00:00

Perspective
This review takes a very specific point of view – that of a couple who mostly plays 2-player games together. Our criteria for enjoying a game are:

Theme: We both like fantasy, but there are a number of other themes that work too.

Conflict: Defined as the opportunity for “take-that” play, in particular deliberate plays that set back the opponent. Too much of this is usually bad.

Time: We have young kids, so it’s hard to find the time for a 3-hour game.

Components: Like most gamers, we like quality components, especially when they contribute to the theme.

Strategy vs. luck: Some luck is important to give both of us a chance to win (I tend to be the strategic type), but some strategic or tactical play is necessary to keep the game interesting.

2-player suitability: Note that, because most of our game plays are 2-player, I’m not opining on how many players are best for the game. The question here is whether we have to bend over backwards to make the game playable by two, and how this game compares to other games from a 2-player perspective.

If these aren’t your criteria, caveat emptor. Other reviews have done a good job of explaining the mechanics of the game, so I won’t duplicate that here, and I’ll assume that you have a basic understanding of gameplay (from other reviews).

Theme
This is a beautiful game. The artwork (especially the game board) is fantastic. We're also partial to Celtic themes. However, the theme is largely pasted onto the game mechanics, which revolve around using playing cards to move tokens (the druids) around the board, preferably landing on good spots (cloister, castle or village) and avoiding the bad spots (ruins). The theme was probably more of a factor for us in the buying decision than it is in our ongoing enjoyment of the game.

Conflict
In a 2P game, the conflict opportunities are dependent on whether you play with your hand hidden (per the rules) or hand open (a variant which we have played a few times). With the hand hidden you’re mainly just trying to optimize your own moves. Once you see your opponent’s hand, though, you can try to manoeuvre your opponent onto the ruins. Although open hands increase the conflict potential a bit, it also favourably rebalances the luck-strategy mix by reducing luck and increasing tactical options.

Time
The game is rated on the box for 30-45 minutes, which seems about right, and is good for a light game like this.

Components
Typical euro components – nice board, sturdy amulet tiles. It helps a lot to get a cloth bag to randomly draw the amulet tiles from, as there’s a lot of them and they’re relatively small. The wooden druid tokens are a bit abstract but they do the job. The cards seem to be good quality.

Strategy vs. luck
With the rules as written, this game is pretty luck-heavy. There’s virtually no whole-game strategy, other than deciding in the early game whether to deliberately land on the first ruin in order to pick up experience cards for use later (at the expense of losing one amulet piece each time). The tactical options are limited, too. The early part of the game also has a smaller impact on the outcome than the late game, where there are opportunities to take a lot of amulets at once. We have played several games where one player appeared to have an insurmountable lead with 80% of the game played, and the other player rallied to win or come very close to winning.

As mentioned above, playing with hands open makes the game more tactical and less random, and I prefer that variant – the increase in conflict doesn’t seem to be an issue for us.

2-player suitability
I think this game works well with 2 players – it plays fast, and no rules adjustments are necessary. I could see, in fact, that with more players the game could become even more chaotic and luck-driven.

Conclusion
As other reviewers have suggested, this is a good game, not a great game. However, I think this is a much better game (for 2 players, anyway) than the aggregate rating on BGG would suggest. Interestingly, all of our games have been decided by razor-thin margins of one or two amulet pieces, even though one of us had enjoyed huge leads in several games. It’s a good couple’s game when we want something lighter and relatively fast (and did I mention the pretty board?).

P.S. for comments on other games from a couple’s perspective, I recommend these geeklists (which inspired me to take this approach with reviews):

http://www.boardgamegeek.com/geeklist.php3?action=view&listi...
http://www.boardgamegeek.com/geeklist.php3?action=view&listi...

Thread: Review from Gameblog

msaari — 2006-11-26T10:39:47+00:00

]]>

Celtica, a game by well-known designer duo Wolfgang Kramer and Michael Kiesling was published recently in Finland. I was curious to try the game; for background, I had read the less-than-favourable comments from the Geek, combined with Bruno Faidutti's recommendation.

The game certainly looks delicious, from the beautiful box cover to the shiny pretty bits. The lush green colour fits the Celtic theme well. The background story has druids, vikings and amulets broken in pieces - player rush around the board, collecting amulet pieces.

Druids on the run

The basic idea of the game is very simple: players move the five druids on the board by playing cards that match the colours of the druids. There are three possible outcomes when the druid stops moving: player gets few amulet pieces, player loses few amulet pieces and gains an experience card or player gains a card, if they want to. All players can move all druids, based on the five cards they are dealt each round.

It's simple, but not completely devoid of decisions. Sure, if the white druid is standing one space from a juicy spot and you have a white card, you play it and score the amulet bits. But what if there are two good spots in a row and you have two cards? Do you play both and leap to the last spot or do you play one and wish the opponents don't have any? These are fairly simple decisions, I agree, but they do make the game a bit more interesting.

Then there are the experience cards: they are like any other cards, but unlike the basic cards, you don't have to play them. You can hang on to them as long as you want to, and use them when you really need that extra step. Even better, if you can hang on to them until the end of the game, you can trade them in for amulet pieces.

Once the first druid makes it to the end of the 16-step track and the round finishes, the game ends. The player with the most complete amulets wins the game, extra amulet pieces breaking the ties. The whole affair should take about 30 minutes.

Recommendations

I like the game, I really do. The amount of decisions and mix of skill and luck tags Celtica firmly as a family game. I'd say the luckiest player wins, but the journey through the board is fun, exciting and offers just enough decisions and small gambles to make it worth the 30 minutes of your life. You'll curse your opponents when they move the very druid you were planning to move, try to gain extra cards to avoid the amulet-eating ruins and have a good time while you're at it.

I have played the game with two and four players and enjoyed both. With two players, the game is definitely less chaotic. I think this game could've been a small hit amongst gamers, had it been packed as a Kosmos two-player game. With four, there's more chaos, the game is shorter (there are about half as many rounds as with two players) and luck plays a higher role, but the timing of playing your cards gets more interesting. I'm fairly sure five players would be too much.

With the right expectations and attitude and enough tolerance for luck and chaos, Celtica is an enjoyable 30-minute filler for gamers. Celtica is also a good family game - easy enough, good luck beats skill and yet the game offers excitement instead of boredom.

Thread: Re: Errors in the English translation

GSReis — 2006-11-21T03:42:01+00:00

...does this mean that the card must be played immediately or stored in the players hand for later use?

The card is simply added to the player's hand and treated like any other standard card.

Thread: Re: Errors in the English translation

Lightstorm — 2006-11-10T13:41:56+00:00

Thanks for the clarifications! Could you clarify what you meant when you wrote:

"The other versions clearly state that the player must play the card until the end of the current round, in any of his subsequent turns."

...does this mean that the card must be played immediately or stored in the players hand for later use?

Thread: Re: Errors in the English translation

lexen — 2006-11-10T02:47:56+00:00

I must admit that the rules were badly written however i interpreted all the rules as you indicated. (The correct wording are found in the examples)

Thread: Re: Celtica - playing cards of a color when druid at the goa

earache — 2006-11-06T03:39:51+00:00

Hmm... we never thought about playing them as a delay tactic. We just discard them. Not an official answer, but that's how we play it.

Thread: Celtica - playing cards of a color when druid at the goal

bruce messenger — 2006-11-06T02:36:58+00:00

Thanks to posters for the rule clarification on the "must play druid card next turn" - I much prefer the rule in the non-English translations of the game.

However, one other rule needs clarification for me. Once a druid reaches the goal, do all cards of that colour (say red) have to be removed from people's hands (or are otherwise considered unplayable)? Or, can these colour cards (say red) be played as "delays" to avoid playing other colour cards in the final round?

Thanks for your help.

Thread: Celtica - Variant for 10yo

Bottlesorter — 2006-10-18T11:15:08+00:00

I tried to give this game a fair hearing. I bought it to play with my 8 and 10 yo sons, after all. But it does have some fundamental flaws.

These are the 3 changes that we have made to the game to provide a little more choice and challenge. They have been play tested.

1.0 Vikings. On a Viking space a number of experience cards equal to the number of talisman symbols are drawn and placed face up. The player must match or exceed the cards played from his own hand in the same colour. For example: 1 red experience card drawn for the Vikings - at least 1 red movement card must be played from the player's hand.

1.1 If the player cannot match the colour he loses one talisman piece.

1.2 If the player matches the Vikings nothing happens.

1.3 If the player exceeds the number of cards of the same colour as the Vikings he wins that many talismans from the pool. For example, Vikings have 2 Brown and player plays 3 brown: player wins 1 talisman piece.

1.4 Where the Vikings are drawing multiple cards, the largest number of the same colour is what the player must match or exceed. If the Vikings draw different cards then the player may combat against any one of his choice.
Example 1: the Viking draws 3 black cards. The player must play at least 3 black cards or lose as many talismans as the difference.
Example 2: Viking draws 1 red, 1 white and 1 grey. The player may choose which of these colours to play against, ignoring the other two colours.
Example 3: Viking draws 2 white and 1 red. The player must play against white.

1.5 Regardless of how many cards the player plays in a challenge he/she only ever refills their hand up to 5. Refer rule 2, below.

* Experience cards are then discarded. They have no other effect on play.
* The purpose of this rule is to give more choice through the option of combat. Vikings are no longer automatically bad. The player has the incentive to land on the Vikings rather than simply avoid them to test himself. The player has an added dimension of what cards to play and what to hold in his hand in readiness for a battle. Moreover, little boys love a battle metaphor.
* Power is used up in battle.

2.0 Places of Power give the player an additional movement card. The card is taken into the hand and may be played at any time, in any combination. In this way the player's hand grows.

2.1 There is no limit to the size a hand may grow to.

* This rule works with the preceding one. It is advantageous to have more cards as it gives the player more options, and more confidence as the Druids progress around the board. The Vikings draw more cards further around the board, thus it is to the players' advantage to seek out Places of Power to build their power.
* This balances against the Vikings who consume the surplus power built up when the player chooses to challenge them. refer rule 1, above.

3.0 The game ends when the last Druid reaches the end zone.

3.1 Experience cards are not collected so they have no relevance.

* This rule is necessary because the behaviour of the Experience cards have changed. It also seemed, in play testing, to make the game feel more satisfyingly complete.

Hope you find these variations are useful. Celtica is an 'almost there' game. I would be interested to hear its design genesis.

Thread: Celtica- 5 player

kristiefix — 2006-10-09T18:57:11+00:00

I’ve played Celtica a few times 2 player (read other session report), but finally got a chance to play a 5 player game of it last Saturday. First I’ll comment: in 2-player I have tried various strategy angels, but nothing seems to work consistently. I’ve tried focusing on experience cards early, which does help later… but I haven’t completely figured out the best way to use them (i.e. to pass the -2/-3 sections, or saved to get to the middle first, or trade them in at the end of the game). I have lost the game more then I have won with the early experience card strategy.

With 5-players (P1-P5), this game is interesting. I (P5) started off as the last player to play, so by the time it got to me there wasn’t much good to do. The game only lasted 2 full rounds of play (a round begins with 5 cards being dealt to each player)!! P1 did very well at the beginning, able to start off the game quickly, finishing all but one piece on an amulet… but near the end of round 1 was forced to give up 2 pieces for an experience card. P2 started off very quickly as well, not giving up any pieces round 1 and having 2 partial-amulets made. P3 chose to do the full experience card strategy and collected 3 cards, and 2 pieces. P4 did a semi-experience card strategy… collecting 4 pieces and 2 cards. P5 got 2 amulet pieces, and was left with only 1 experience card. I knew that this game wasn’t going to go well for me.

Round 2 I made a come-back.
Initially it looked like the game was going to go to either P1 or P2. By the middle of this round, P2 had 1 full and 2 partial amulets… but was out of cards. P3 started an amulet, but wasn’t very lucky in the turn order, because even with his experience cards he still had to land on -2 or -3 spaces. P4 was gradually coming up to even out with P2, but she still had an advantage. P1 was second to run out of cards, and P5 had caught up to 1 full, 1 partial amulet. P4 then decided to go to the middle and end his turn with 5 pieces… bringing him to the lead (game winner if no one else could reach the middle). I was able to get to a 3-piece spot with my real card and had 2 experience cards left. P3 then played a card that moved up one of the other close pieces to the -3 spot before the center (it happened to be one of the experience cards I had in my hand). I was then able to make it to the center and finish all but 1 piece on my second amulet. P3 then kept trying his cards, but ended up with only 2 pieces at the end of the game.

Scoring:
P1- 6 pieces (1 partial amulet)
P2- 1 full amulet, and 1 partial amulets (5 pieces)
P3- 2 pieces (1 partial amulet)
P4- 1 full amulet, and 2 partial amulets (7 pieces, 3 pieces)
P5- 1 full amulet, and 1 partial amulet (8 pieces)

I actually won!

Thread: Session Report – Celtica

pinecone96 — 2006-08-25T06:50:06+00:00

I played our second game of Celtica with my wife tonight, our first time with hands hidden (we usually play the first time or two of a new game hands open to get used to the mechanics). As noted in another post, a game with hands open would reduce the chance element and make the game more strategic:
http://www.boardgamegeek.com/thread/113436

Early on, I tried to focus on accumulating experience cards before I had very many amulet pieces. By the end of the second turn I had four experience cards, but had fallen behind in accumulating amulet tokens, hoping that I would catch up later on using the experience cards. My wife kept her lead in amulet tokens for most of the game but I gradually narrowed her lead until the last hand. In a holdover from the previous game, both of us (somewhat irrationally) jumped on any orange pieces that turned up (she almost won the last game simply by hoarding orange pieces).

In the last hand, while most of the druids were in the right and bottom right parts of the board, she aggressively played four red cards (3 druids + an experience card) to move the red druid to the final space, thereby ensuring that our current hand would be the last.
]]>
However, doing so handed control of the last 3 moves to me, which I was able to use to close the gap and obtain some missing pieces to complete my first and second amulets.

Going into the endgame, my wife was missing a piece from her second amulet but she had one more amulet piece than me and had 4 experience cards to my 3, and went first. She used 2 of her cards for exchanges to surface the missing piece into the amulet supply area, and used her last 2 to take that piece and wind up with 2 complete amulets and an 8-piece amulet. I had 2 complete and a 6-piece amulet, but with only 3 experience cards I could only take one piece outright and lost by one piece. Both of our games so far have been very close.

Both of us quite like this game for what it is – a quick, light game that is beautifully rendered. I’m looking forward to playing with some of the variants suggested elsewhere.

Thread: Re: Errors in the English translation

pinecone96 — 2006-08-25T06:15:22+00:00

Thanks. We've played a couple of games with the "english variant" where you have to play a druid card received from a cult site on your immediately following turn. Playing that way makes it that much more important to move druids to an amulet site, as a move to a cult site could result in a loss of control (especially towards the end of a round). I think both approaches are viable - it depends on your relative preference for strategy vs. chance (we don't mind the chance element). As suggested in another post, you could also alter the balance of strategy vs. chance by playing with hands open (as we did with our first game for learning purposes).

I didn't originally interpret the point on page 25 to mean that you miss the 5 amulet pieces, but I agree that the translation is unclear.

Thread: Re: Errors in the English translation

GSReis — 2006-08-18T04:29:52+00:00

I didn't fall for the goal space rule, but on the other hand, I did buy the one about moving backwards, with the help of that example. I felt something was wrong after a few turns, but decided to take the game to the end before checking, as it was quick and the only other player was my mom. And, of course, we also played that the cards from the cult sites had to be played on the next turn, since the stupid translator was so emphatic.

Thread: Re: Errors in the English translation

zzini — 2006-08-18T01:06:49+00:00

thanks for clearing some of that up, we actually made up some variants because we just couldnt figure why you would HAVE to play the card taken from a cult space the very next turn. we did play that you always move forward and the end game thing we just sstared at the first time, are the 5 pieces depicted there for artistic flavor? what would be the point? all in all we still like this game but do play with some homemade variants that dont destroy the simple nature of the game too much

Thread: Re: Just don't expect another Tikal.

GSReis — 2006-08-07T18:57:34+00:00

If you draw a druid card, you do not have to play it on your next turn, unless the English rules say something different from the German rules.

You are correct in both statements. The English rules have a lot of mistakes, and that's no surprise after "Australia", also from Ravensburger. All other translations say you must play the card in any of your turns until the end of the round. That is, when you draw it, you just add it to your hand.

Thread: Errors in the English translation

GSReis — 2006-08-06T23:43:13+00:00

I noticed some weird things about the rules and suspected that there might be translation errors, which I could confirm thanks to a little bit of knowledge of other languages.

Page 22 - There is the simple rule of moving druids forward. Well, the English version omits the word "forward", implying that they may be moved in either direction along the path, which totally breaks the game. In the German version, it is written "vorwärts"; in Italian and French, the verb can be directly translated as "advance".

Page 24 - In the example, it reads "... a cult site, that is one space away from two ruins." That reinforces the idea of moving in both directions (otherwise, why would it be important that the space behind is ruins?) It also states that "this cult site now has all 5 druids". However, both sentences are wrong and not supported by any other translation. At first glance, the picture may seem to show the 5 druids in the same space, but they are actually split into two spaces, a cult site and ruins. The next space in line is also ruins. Thus, for all druids, the next space is ruins, and that is the point.

Page 24 - According to the English rules, when a player moves a druid to a cult site and chooses to draw a card, "he must, in every case, play this card on his next turn". That would be hard to control and, despite the emphasis, is just wrong. The other versions clearly state that the player must play the card until the end of the current round, in any of his subsequent turns.

Page 25 - It reads: "When a player (...) moves a druid to the goal, he discards the cards, but takes no further action this turn." That suggests that moving a druid to the last space accomplishes nothing, despite the 5 amulet pieces depicted there. The rules in all other languages actually and clearly refer to playing (discarding) cards after the respective druid has reached the final space.

I must emphasize that, as far as I can tell, everything is correct and crystal clear in all languages, except English. And there may be other errors I didn't catch.

Ravensburger has already had the same problem at least once, with "Australia", whose English rules were a total mess, full of mistakes and ambiguities, none of which were present in other language versions. I assume it was the same translator. It's obvious that this person does not have any competence to translate game rules. Nonetheless, Ravensburger continues to employ his/her awful and amateurish services. I could understand it if we were talking about some obscure language and/or a very small company, but I cannot believe it is too hard for Ravensburger to find a decent English translator. Those mistakes are unforgivable.

Thread: for more strategy

Davestar2 — 2006-06-08T16:57:32+00:00

I propose just 5 little points who will totally change this game :

- play all your druid card face up on table
- just keep your experience cards face down
- when you draw a new druid card, take it in a display of 3 cards or in the draw deck (like the "Ticket to ride" method)
- when you draw a experience card draw 3 and keep one (place 2 others under the draw deck)
- determine the first player, after play he chose the next player, who will chose the next player after him etc...

good game

Thread: Re: Just don't expect another Tikal.

zzini — 2006-05-20T02:55:15+00:00

the english rules specifically say you MUST play it on your very next turn, we modiied this as it is too much of a crap shoot (as another gamer put it), it makes the game much better if you play that you dont have to play it the next turn. kramer meant the cult spaces to be a decision of whether or not to take the card. by just adding it too your hand it takes the decision out of it for the most part. after much experimentation, we play that if you dont play it on the very next turn you must turn the card over and it remains face up in front of you. for every card used in this manner one of your 5 dealt cards at the beginning of the next round is dealt face up. this way there is still a reason for not taking the card (letting other players know some of your cards). we use glass craft stones to mark who used cards this way and how many. if the players LAST druid card is used to move onto a cult space and the card is taken and not used, it is placed faceup in front of the player, the players round is over, the player receives 2 faceup cards of the 5 dealt for not using this card.

Thread: Re: Endgame question

tool — 2006-05-13T16:24:01+00:00

This is, as noted above, still an error in the posted translation. The German rules say you exchange pieces with the board, not with another player - this is quite clear.

Thread: Re: Just don't expect another Tikal.

Windopaene — 2006-05-13T04:50:39+00:00

Pretty sure the English rules say you have to play it on your NEXT turn.

Thread: Re: Just don't expect another Tikal.

tool — 2006-05-13T02:01:55+00:00

If you draw a druid card, you do not have to play it on your next turn, unless the English rules say something different from the German rules. The German rules say that you have to play the card on a later turn, i.e., before the end of the round, just as with any other druid card.

As for the game itself, I'm perfectly happy to play simple games, but I do prefer that they have interesting decisions in them. Celtica had practically none.

Thread: Re: Endgame question

Numskull — 2006-05-11T05:30:38+00:00

I see no reason why you shouldn't be able to assign endgame purchase tiles to different amulets. The golden rule, as I understand it, is that a complete amulet cannot be made incomplete through the use of experience cards.

Thread: Re: Just don't expect another Tikal.

steveoliverc — 2006-05-10T21:59:15+00:00

Yep, great review! Thanks.

I also agree with the comment about some family games around here getting a hard time. In particular I am reminded of another Kramer game, Sunken City, which actually is NOT a good family game because of the nastiness. That makes me a little hesitant about Celtica but after reading this review I will give it a shot anyway. (And I'm playing a druid in my D&D game, so do I really have a choice???)

Thread: Re: Just don't expect another Tikal.

wargamer66 — 2006-05-10T20:58:19+00:00

Good review. You cut to the heart of the matter; this is a decent game that is not necessarily aimed at Tikal fanatics. There is a certain snobbery regarding "family" games on BGG, and I don't think this one is being assessed fairly.

Thread: Just don't expect another Tikal.

SteveBl — 2006-05-08T23:14:04+00:00

Celtica is the latest game from Michael Kiesling and Wolfgang Kramer. It supports five players and it can be played in well under forty-five minutes.

Kiesling and Kramer have teamed up to bring us several games over the years. Perhaps their most well known collaborations are Java, Mexica, and Tikal, A.K.A. the Mask Trilogy. In the case of Celtica, that illustrious pedigree is probably a disadvantage. Tikal, Java and Mexica are all very deep gamers' games, pinnacles of angst and deep strategy built on an action point mechanic that has players agonizing over which of the many possible actions they will take on a given turn. Celtica couldn't be more different. Celtica is an extremely simple, family friendly game with a very large helping of luck. Does that make it a bad game? No. But it does mean that players who are expecting another game like Tikal are going to be sorely disappointed.

Components

Celtica's box art is a pretty good indication of what you can expect to find inside the box. The cover is adorned with lush, colorful art that evokes the magic and mystery of the Celtic druids. There's no two ways about it. This is a gorgeous game. Inside the box you'll find one of the most attractive game boards to come along in a long time. Also included are five very attractive, oversized wooden druid pawns, a rule book, two decks of cards and 90 tiles. The artwork on the cards is equally beautiful. Each card depicts one of five different colored druids, one for each of the druid pawns. Everyone who I've shown the game to has immediately remarked on the beauty of the artwork. It's truly stunning.

Theme

Ten Celtic amulets have been broken up and their pieces have been scattered. Five druids wander from location to location seeking out pieces of the amulets with the aid of the players. Whichever player helps the druids recover the most complete amulets wins the game.

Game Play

Each player's goal is to assemble as many complete amulets as possible. Each amulet consists of nine distinct pieces: four corners, four edges and a center. Each amulet is identical except for the art on the center pieces. Each piece in an amulet is distinguished by a unique color: for instance the top left corner of each amulet is green.

At the start of the game, the amulet tiles are shuffled and each player is given two pieces at random. Nine pieces are then placed face up at the top of the board. Whenever pieces are recovered, they are taken from the face up pieces and more pieces are drawn to replace them.

The game board depicts a path that winds its way around a lush island, making several stops along the way. Locations on the path include ruins, ancient Druidic holy sites, and Celtic settlements. The path is linear. There are no branches. The druid markers are placed at the start of the path and they progress along the path in one direction. When one of them reaches the end, it signals the final turn of the game.

At the start of each turn, players receive five druid cards. Druid cards come in five colors, one for each druid in the game. A turn is divided up into a number of rounds where each player plays in turn until all players have played all of their druid cards. In turn, each player chooses a number of cards from his hand and plays them. The only restriction is that all cards must be the same color. For each card played, the appropriate druid is moved that many spaces on the track and the action associated with that space is taken.

Whenever a druid lands on a settlement, the player recovers a number of amulet pieces (shown on the board) and adds them to his play area.

Whenever a druid lands on a holy site, the player MAY draw a single card from the druid deck and place it face down in front of him. If drawn, this card MUST be played on that players next turn in addition to any other matching cards that the player may wish to add from his hand. Deciding whether or not to draw that extra card is one of the more important decisions in the game. Taking the card prolongs your turn but also dramatically increases the risk that you'll be forced to move a druid onto a ruin.

If a druid lands on a ruin, the player must give up a number of pieces but in return he gets to draw a single experience card from the experience deck. Experience cards are used just like druid cards (and except for the artwork on the back and the addition of a symbol on the front they are identical). The only difference is that experience cards aren't used to determine when the turn ends (they can be kept from turn to turn) and at the end of the game they can be exchanged for additional tiles.

Except for a few details, that's really all there is to the game rules.

Comments

Celtica is an extremely simple game and therein lies the rub. The fact that Kiesling and Kramer are known for deeper games like Tikal and Java has hurt this game by creating the false expectation that this would be similar in depth (hence its lackluster rating on BGG). In fact, it's nowhere near as deep. This is a fast, light family game that offers some very limited strategic possibilities but in the end is largely dominated by the luck of the draw. On each turn you really have very few choices and those choices are heavily governed by the mix of cards in your hand. This is particularly true if you play the game with four or five players, since between plays the board can have changed so much as to make long term planning impossible. With two or three players the game becomes a little more strategic... but not much.

Is Celtica a bad game? No. As far as light family games go you could do much worse. I've enjoyed every game I've played. But you do have to go into each game with the knowledge that the game's outcome is largely beyond your control.

Strangely enough, this game has been getting a surprising amount of table time with our gaming group. Our group normally dislikes luck-heavy games (for example, while I rather liked Beowulf, many in our group did not) but for some reason they seem to have taken a shine to Celtica. I think the short playing time, coupled with the pretty artwork have something to do with it. As a closer, Celtica is ideal since by the end of the night everyone is a bit tired and ready for something light and fast that doesn't involve much thought.

Celtica will never be a classic but taken for what it is: a light, fast family game with pretty pieces, it can be a lot of fun. Just don't expect another Tikal.

Thread: Re: Is this game as bad as the first few comments suggest?

nextinline — 2006-05-08T01:35:30+00:00

I think when I can afford it I'm going to give this one a chance. My 16yo daughter really likes Cartagena. She loves all things Celt. And we need a game which is easy to explain for her friends when they come over. At the moment our intro game is Dragonland and it never fails. Those jewels are irresistable.
Pirates are okay but they're not very girly.

Too bad yet one more game does not include one or more female characters. How hard would that have been?

I'm planning to pick up some jewels/stones for markers in another game we have. Any chance to incorporate a few jewels into this game? I see there are some pretty decent pictures of stones in there.

Thanks,
Janice

Thread: Re: Is this game as bad as the first few comments suggest?

Windopaene — 2006-04-22T08:08:17+00:00

No it isn't. Let's just say, it's no Rocketville.

That being said, it is very light, though there are a few interesting hand management things going on. But they are pretty light hand management things. And there is some risk/reward stuff going on, but not to the level of Beowulf for example.

Thread: Serious Gamers? I like this game

zzini — 2006-04-21T23:44:19+00:00

i suppose if you played with all cards face up or instead of a deal phase you pulled cards from face up draw piles like ticket to ride but limited play to 5 cards per round, more 'serious' gamers would rate this game higher. we like this as a 2 player game with some slight variants to the cult spaces where the original rules say you have to play the card on the very next turn. timing your hand and when to play experience cards in addition to druid cards is the game. this isnt the next princes of florence nor was it meant to be. as far as a four year old winning i played ticket to ride, the first version (which we considered a kids game, especially compared to union pacific) where one player did nothing but pick up cards forever and then played them for the second half the game, yahoo, and they won! that was fun...we loved the europe version by the way, but the first version i would definately consider a kids game and one to stay away from, one that my 12 year old neice requests everytime, and yes wins

Thread: Re: Endgame question

ekted — 2006-04-16T02:48:27+00:00

Say I have 2 incomplete amulets: one with pieces 1-8, and one with pieces 1-3. Can I exchange piece 3 from the second one with piece 9 from another player's incomplete amulet and complete my larger amulet? Or do they have to go back to the same amulet?

Thread: End Game Amulet Draw

zzini — 2006-04-13T19:09:11+00:00

although a number people have been playing with this variant as the standard rule, the english rules in the ravensburger edition clearly state that Experience cards at the end game may only be used for trading in or exchanging pieces from the amulet supply, not from other players. this seems lame when compared to the above rule and maybe as a pure family game leave it that way but for a little more nastiness play with the player for player exchange.

the variant would then be that amulet pieces of uncompleted amulets may be exchanged with other players pieces from non completed amulets, these pieces may be placed directly into amulets to complete them. we would also think of playing that once exchanged with another player they may not be stolen back from you, you could place them on the experience card used to exchange them to show that it cant be exchanged again and that the experience card was used. then after this phase is finished, move them into unfinished amulets and then determine the winner. you could also play the same way for the pieces taken with 2 experience cards, take one from a players uncompleted amulet or from the open supply, or limit it just to the open supply as in the original rule. this definetely makes expeirence cards more valuable at the end game.

another alternate to determine who goes first in this phase is the player who has the most experience (makes sense) or the player that used all their cards first on the last round (might cause some players to move into ruins just to be first in this phase) or who went last on the last round of card play and then proceed clockwise.

Thread: Variant while waiting

zzini — 2006-04-12T02:24:46+00:00

here are some variants we came up with after playing a few games, some games were very good played with rules as written others the game played us. while waiting for someone to post the variants that were listd in speilbox that are supposed to be very good, here are some we were planning or have tried out (especially the druid card draw from the cult spaces). we dont intend to use all of these together and do plan on tossing some as we play then but it is a start. ( question marks indicate we havent really decided yet on which number etc)

1. Cult Space/Druid Card Taken if the decision is made to take a card:
Variant 1: the cards are added to your hand to be played anytime this round. (this we didnt like too much)

Variant 2: leave the card face down in front of you, if not played next turn, the card is turned face up in front of the player, they may be played this round or the next round with other Druid/Experience Cards from the players hand. For evry face up card in front of you one dealt card is dealt face up. we still differ on whether you should be dealt up to 5 cards total (my prefered way) or dealt 5 new cards (my wifes prefered way). all cards from the previous round and all dealt cards must be played this round. this seemed to work the best on cult spaces

2. Card Deal: Variant 1: Once per turn players may turn in an Experience card at the deal phase, (they may do so after looking at their first 4 cards dealt but not all 5) they are dealt 3 extra cards of which they keep 2.

Variant 2: after the opening round, we felt the luck of the draw doesnï¿½t matter much here and gives a variable start to the game), players are dealt cards face up equal to 5 - (# of Experience) cards.

Variant 3: the Ticket to Ride Variant: after the opening round, draw from a pool of face up cards equal to the number of players plus one. For every Experience card a player has, they may take 1 card from the face down deck, thereby keeping their cards unknown to other players.

3. Scoring: Finished Amulets are worth 10 points, finished amulets where the center piece was the last piece placed are worth 12 Points, turn the center piece over to its black side to indicate this. Pieces of an unfinished amulet are worth 1 point. Tie breaker is the original scoring rules, see rule book. Amulet centers finished by using Experience cards to trade or take cards at the game end do not count towards the 12 point bonus. (Unless the center was the only missing piece before the end phase?)

4. Amulet Pieces: players choose from the last amulet pieces on the right hand side of the supply equal to the number shown at their present board location + 3, pieces are then slid down towards the right filling in all gaps and newly drawn pieces are placed at the left end of the track. Play an Experience card to change the rule to + 5 except at the goal space where the original rules apply.

Variant 2: have a face up draw pile of 3 Experience cards to draw from.

5. Player Turn: The player whose turn it is to start the round may defer their start position to the player on their left.

Just playing around here:

7. Spells: as players become experienced they are able to cast spells across the land by playing 1 Experience card and 1 Druid card of the same color. Spells are not color dependent. A spell of any color make affect any color Druid.
Spell Card discard after use:
The Druid Card is discarded, the Experience Card is placed face up in front of the player and may only be used for movement, it is then discarded as normal. It may not be used for Amulet trades at game end.

1. Black: ï¿½Darken the Ruinï¿½ - play as you move a Druid into a Ruin, the darkness hampers the Vikingsï¿½ sight, forfeit 2 (1?) less amulet pieces than shown (but always discard at least 1) and/or take 2 Experience Cards keep 1.

2. Gray: ï¿½Shroudï¿½ - as the Druid pulls the Shroud over their head they become invisible, you do not have play a card this turn.

3. Brown: ï¿½Unearthï¿½ - after a Druid moves onto a Cult space, the Druid excavates the earth and finds 2 (1?) amulet pieces, since the Druid did not know what they would find, the pieces are taken from the face down supply. No Druid Card is taken.
(and/or)
If a Druid is on a Cult space at the start of the players turn, the Druid excavates the earth and finds 2(1?) amulet pieces, since the Druid did not know what they would find, they are taken from the face down supply. This constitutes the players entire turn.

4. Red: ï¿½Foresightï¿½ - looking into the future, when landing on a red Druid space, the player takes 3 Druid cards. The Player may keep 0, 1 or 2 of them. The player may place one face up which may be saved for the next round, they will be dealt 4 cards and then add the face up card to their hand.

5. White: ï¿½White Magicï¿½ - counts as any 1 color Druid card, may be played with other Druid Cards or Experience Cards. (Players may play more white Druid cards to increase the total any color cards. For example the player plays 1 White Experience card and 2 White Druid cards, this counts as 2 of any color)

Spells (more confrontational):

1. Black: ï¿½Darkness at the Ruinsï¿½ - play as a Druid enters a Ruins, the Druid is blinded in the darkness and must forfeit one more amulet piece than shown or the Experience card that normally would be taken.

2. Gray: ï¿½Rainstormï¿½ - play on a Druid, only if the Druid is in a Castle or Settlement, he waits out the storm and does not move until the spell casters next turn (or for the next players turn). You may play this after you have moved the Druid.

3. Brown: ï¿½Earthï¿½ - the Druid using their knowledge of the earth moves at an accelerated pace, the 2 cards count as any 1 color Druid card, may be played along with other Druid Cards and/or Experience Cards.

4. Red: ï¿½Lightningï¿½ - play on a Druid that is not moving (your turn) or space that a Druid will end their movement on (an opponents turn), that Druid jumps one space backwards to avoid the blast, may be played on the Goal space to keep the end game from happening, if the Druid was only moving one space and is subsequently returned to the space where they started, the affects of the space do not come into play. You may play Lightning at the start of your turn and then move the same Druid. (Or if you prefer, the frazzled Druid cannot move, therefore the player who played the spell at the start of their turn cannot move the Druid this turn.)

5. White: ï¿½White Magicï¿½ - cancels any spell.

Multiple spells may be played by different players at the same time and do not have to be played in turn order.

Example: Player 1 wants to move the White Druid, the first space in front of the Druid is a Ruin, the next space is a Castle, he plays the 1 white card he has and casts the spell ï¿½Earthï¿½ (Brown Cards) which acts as any color card, the Druid will move to the Castle, Player 3 plays ï¿½Lightningï¿½ (Red Cards) on the Castle space which moves the Druid back one space, the Druid now lands in the Ruins, Player 2 seeing that Player 1 is leading in amulets plays ï¿½Darkness in the Ruinsï¿½ (Black Cards) and forces Player 1 to forfeit an extra amulet piece or the Experience card that is normally taken. If Player 1 had been able to cast ï¿½White Magicï¿½ they could have canceled ï¿½Lightningï¿½ and avoided the Ruins.

Thread: Re: Endgame question

zzini — 2006-04-12T01:30:41+00:00

so can the player then take back the amulet piece you just took? suppose you see that the player can complete an amulet by trading in cards and stealing from 2 people if his pieces are not touched. you steal one to prevent his last amulet from being completed (if he cannot steal it back). so could he then steal it back?

by the way in the ravensburger rules it says that the player may only take from the amulet supply spaces, not from another player. i like the "variant" you play better. any word on what the rio grande version says?

Thread: A Quest is a Quest is a Quest...

Majiken — 2006-04-11T03:06:53+00:00

"Irish legends tell of the hero, Chu Chulainn..."

Celtica is the latest release from Ravensburger, and authored by Wolfgang Kramer and Michael Kiesling. It hasn't been out long, but already it's taken quite a bit of abuse, which is perhaps doing more harm than intended. Most people slam it for being 'too simple,' and 'unoriginal.' This review will show both the good and the bad about the game, at least from one player's point of view.

I almost passed on Celtica. I admit it. I saw the game at my FLGS, was intrigued by what I saw, and went home to consult the Oracle that is BGG. Wow, big surprise. People were less than enthused about it, something I couldn't believe. The box art and photo on the back of the box had me more than a bit curious, but great artwork and ease of play hadn't helped the general opinion here.

So in spite of everything I read, I went back to the store and made my purchase. Since it was the only copy the employees there had seen, they asked me to open it up so they could see the contents. What do you get? Here's where I gush over the components.

Face it, if you've seen the pictures here, you've got to agree the board is gorgeous. A wonderful depiction of an ancient land, which is as green as you might expect Ireland to be, but I doubt the Emerald Isle ever looked like this. The board has a printed path for the druid tokens to follow, with numerous stops on the way to the goal in the center of the board. One of our players called it, "Uncle Wiggily gone druish."
(The response was, of course, "Funny, he doesn't look druish.")

Also included are five druid tokens in red, gray, white, black and brown. A deck of 60 cards is included, which has the five druids repeated 12 times. An 'experienced' deck of 20 cards has the same artwork, but with a horned helmet added to show that the druid has faced a challenge. More on this later. Finally, included are a bunch (and I do mean a bunch) of amulet tiles with which the magic amulets are constructed. Each amulet is made of nine different jewels and a centerpiece, and there are enough to make ten complete amulets, so do the math. There's a lot of tiles. So, all in all, the game is very attractive, and believe me, experience has proved it will make people stop and look.

Setting up the game is one of it's drawbacks, but it really doesn't take that much time. Each player is given one stone and one center piece tile as a start for their amulet. The remainder are shuffled and stacked (number of stacks is the player's decision), and nine are drawn and placed in the amulet part supply spaces at the top of the board. The deck of druid cards is shuffled and each player dealt five. Now here's where the game takes a twist. The players do not select a druid token to play. All players use all of the tokens, even in a two-player game. The cards you are dealt determine which token you move, and how far. Example: I want to move the red druid two spaces, so I play two red druid cards. What space you land on determines what action you take -

Land on a cloister, castle or village, and you can draw from the amulet supply the number of pieces shown at that space (1-4), then fill the empty spaces by drawing from the supply stacks.
Land on a ruin, and your druid is jumped by Viking raiders who rob him of some amulet pieces (again, 1-4). These are discarded away from the supply stacks, unless those are depleted. The player then gets to take an experienced druid card of the same color. This can be used if you don't have enough cards to avoid Vikings in the next space or two, or they can serve another purpose at the end of the game.
Finally, if you move a druid to a cult site, you may draw a card from the druid deck. However, this card must be played on your next turn. You can choose not to draw a card, as there can be disadvantages to doing so. To quote the rulebook, "A player uses his last druid card to move the red druid to a cult site that is one space away from two ruins (one loses two parts, and the other three). As this cult site now has all five druids and the other players have no druid cards remaining, he will take his next turn immediately if he draws a card. Regardless of the color card drawn, he must move to the next space and lose pieces of his amulet. Thus he chooses not to draw the extra druid card"

The game is played in rounds, which end when all players have played all of their druid cards (experienced cards do not count and are held separately). It is possible to play all of your cards while other players still hold some. Play continues until all players are out of cards. If no single druid has reached the goal, a new hand of five cards is dealt to each player, and play continues, beginning with the player to the left of the player who played the last card in the previous round. (Say that three times fast!)

The game nears its end when the first druid reaches the goal. The player landing there gets to draw a big helping of five amulet pieces. the other players finish another turn each (with the exception of the one who moved the druid to the goal), by playing druid cards and moving druids to collect as many pieces as they can, or giving them up to Vikings and gaining experience cards. Once all players have made their final moves, the game ends and scoring is done. But first, players may trade in their experienced druid cards for extra pieces. Use one card to trade any amulet part in their play area for one from the supply spaces, or use two cards to take one amulet part from the supply spaces. This allows some amulets to be completed that otherwise may not have been.

The player with the most completed amulets is the winner. If players tie for completed amulets, the winner between those tied is the one with the most uncompleted amulet. If tied again, the win passes to the player with the second most completed amulet, and so on.

So does all this add up to a great game? No. Does it make a good game? Yes. By no means is Celtica a complicated game, or one of much depth. It lacks a lot of strategy, as movement depends on luck of the draw. However, knowing when to move which druid can be tricky, and there's a minor amount of 'screw-the-other-guy' play available. Following a premade path to the goal caused several comments like the aforementioned Uncle Wiggily were made, with a couple of comparisons to Candyland as well.

Still, this is not a bad game if you would like some lighter fare, and it is a nice game for families that aren't offended by references to Celtic religions or the word 'cult.' It plays well with 2 - 4, but really shines when you can get five players together. You'll hear plenty of groans as somebody sees the druid they were waiting to move get moved by someone else. The game seems to encourage a good-natured 'take-that!' attitude and lots of laughter as players race to complete their amulets and reach the goal.

If that's the kind of game you like, I heartily recommend the game. If you're into deeper strategy games that cause analysis paralysis, you'd be better off passing. Celtica can be fun, is played in under an hour even with five players once you get the hang of it, and is a great game for families. It is far from perfect (no game ever will be), but it isn't as bad as some believe. I've enjoyed several games now with both my gaming group (who very-much liked it), and my family (now one of my 8 year-old daughter's favorites), and it hasn't yet lost its replayability.

I think we'll enjoy Celtica for many years to come. Take the time to try it yourself before passing on it. You might be glad you did.